I find it interesting that female genital mutilation is usually met with widespread criticism, yet male circumcision is technically the same thing and more generally accepted.

Like I said, if I’d had a son, I would have done it. However, that was 20 years ago. I am not sure now that I would feel the same.

Jun 22, 2020 14:06:26 GMT iron maiden said:

I find it interesting that female genital mutilation is usually met with widespread criticism, yet male circumcision is technically the same thing and more generally accepted.

Like I said, if I’d had a son, I would have done it. However, that was 20 years ago. I am not sure now that I would feel the same.

But in theory, 20 years later should just mean better/safer procedure... Right? I can't imagine risks being greater today than 20 years ago.

If we are to snip snip, do we trust doctors or try to source a mohel to perform a bris? Or a delicatessen butcher?

I'd for sure want the most steady, practiced hands for something so delicate and high stakes.

One of my favorite meme comic things was a woman going on about her body her choice and in the next panel telling the Dr to do the snip to her infant.

@ness, His Body His Choice is one of the top slogans for intactivists.

I wonder if the pro cut side would consider removing the daughter's breasts just to duck to breast cancer. I mean, heck, there is baby formula.

We keep appendixes, gall bladders and tonsils until they are problems. Why not the foreskin?

My brother freaked the fuck out and thought he had an STI, so he went to the doctors and just hadn’t been cleaning.

To be fair i don’t think he’d ever been taught or told to clean there as I doubt our mother told him to do so.

For what it is worth, people say if the parents feel strongly one way or the other, to go with that. There are benefits though to doing it that at least equal out the risks.

Theend is right on the botches though. These rarely do go wrong, but when they do go tits up, it is really bad. Believe it is 1 in 1600 are fucked up and need to be repeated. Extreme fucks up are rarer, but like there are paths that can lead to death (and I assume have).

I think the whole consent thing is bullshit. Parents consent to far more extreme things in regards to their kids than removing foreskin. And in terms of ethics, it is painful, but babies do not have long term memory at birth, so the pain is quickly forgotten.

If we removed gallbladders at birth my life would have taken a far better trajectory given when mine died the stones did permanent damage.  Doctors are talking about removing my tonsils now as that may be the root of my current problems.  Houdini died from a ruptured appendix.  Maybe we should be more proactive at eliminating risks.

Jun 22, 2020 14:59:28 GMT System said:

My brother freaked the fuck out and thought he had an STI, so he went to the doctors and just hadn’t been cleaning.

To be fair i don’t think he’d ever been taught or told to clean there as I doubt our mother told him to do so.

Much rather get an incurable std than be told to learn to wash your dick as an adult.

Ness wash your dick!!!

Some people differ on the trauma at birth and long term implications of it. Anecdotally, I had a friend in HS that said he had issues due to the open chest surgery he had as a baby. I never placed much mind to it until I heard some of the claims that having a traumatic surgery or injury/pain at that time can have ramifications later on.

It may be shit, but if having skin on skin time is important for development and bonding time even in those first hours to form bonds. Plopping them in harness and crimping off a piece of their dick must be impactful too. Babies first experience with their dick is pain. Nope, that's not going to fuck with anything.

"Perinatal trauma. Circumcision is a form of perinatal (birth) trauma.35 Cansever tested boys before and after circumcision and found that the trauma causes severe disturbance of normal function.6 Taddio and others have documented behavioral changes at six months of age, suggestive of PTSD in circumcised boys"

www.cirp.org/library/psych/#:~:text=Perinatal%20trauma.,of%20perinatal%20(birth)%20trauma.&text=Cansever%20tested%20boys%20before%20and,severe%20disturbance%20of%20normal%20function.&text=Taddio%20and%20others%20have%20documented,of%20PTSD%20in%20circumcised%20boys.

You can find a ton of study and research showing the body and brains do remember.  Of course our resident expert will claim to know better than those studies and the experts who did them. 

You don't hurt the comatose because they won't remember.  Same with babies.

What's more extreme that fucking with a kid's dick or risking the kid's life? But heck, I am a guy who wouldn't want my kid's ears' pierced at birth either like some parents' do.

People pierce babies' ears!? Holy shit!

Although, no idea why that sounds more shocking and offensive than circumcision.

I'll brave being a little uncomfortably open here. No homo or anything, but I def think it's a no contest as far as cut dicks looking more attractive 10 times out of 11. But maybe that's just because mine is cut, and I got lucky in so far as never having any real problems or regret about a missing piece of foreskin? I also get that to each their own, so plenty of people might prefer the elephant trunk aesthetic.

Feel like c raises a good point about parents having to make far more impactful decisions impacting their kids without their kids' consent than just a little pee pee choppy choppy. I mean, isn't the age of consent kind of a thing for a reason? We've deemed humans unable to consent until a certain age/maturity, so up until that point a guardian has to act/decide on their behalf?

No one gets to consent about being born, coming into existence. No one gets to consent about their death in most cases. I wonder if consent is one of those things that isn't actually a universal absolute right? At least not that can be applied to every context?

Also, I think I'd die if someone else had to tell me to wash my dick for any reason. I keep that shit clean as a whistle because you never know when you'll run into a whistleblower.

If it is a matter of aesthetics, I say get the kid a bitchin tattoo slightly after birth. Nice chest piece like Connor McGregor.

I'm cut. Not as a baby, but I was definitely in single digits. Have very vague memories of the aftermath, mostly pain and discomfort. Besides that, it's never been a factor in my life, besides me thinking that foreskin is a bit gross. Sometimes I'll read something about circumcision, like this thread, and wonder about why my parents made that decision. They are (or were) quite strongly Catholic, maybe that was it? I have no idea, and I'm sure as hell not going to ask. I don't really care that much.

It's kind of funny when cut people feel like they are fine. I guess you can't truly miss what you never had sexually. Some people will definitely try to tell you that you are missing out. More skin, more nerves, natural function. The foreskin protects the head/glans from abrasion from the world to make the head more sensitive.

When you really think of it in a simple stupid way, your head is generally, constantly rubbing against something. Some will point to calcification of the skin of the head. An uncut head will be smooth and glossy in comparison to a cut dick will have a rougher texture due to this calcification and persistent type of chaffing. People who have restored their foreskin (not totally an accurate description) normally reprotect their head and get their old smooth head back.

Twisted conversation similar to this. No amount of information really compels me to think butt stuff or prostate. No matter how awesome someone makes it sounds I am not interested. I could see people thinking the same with foreskin. Like, someone could tell you that having sex with a foreskin is like color tv and sex without is like black and white tv. And the person watching color tv will never understand the notion of someone watching black and white will be content with their tv.

Jun 22, 2020 16:20:07 GMT 🤯 said:

People pierce babies' ears!? Holy shit!

Although, no idea why that sounds more shocking and offensive than circumcision.

I'll brave being a little uncomfortably open here. No homo or anything, but I def think it's a no contest as far as cut dicks looking more attractive 10 times out of 11. But maybe that's just because mine is cut, and I got lucky in so far as never having any real problems or regret about a missing piece of foreskin? I also get that to each their own, so plenty of people might prefer the elephant trunk aesthetic.

I have friends who are professional piercers and refuse to pierce any child's ears under 10.

Since I'm one of the only females here I'll weigh in on esthetics from my POV. I have personally never been sexual with a guy who wasn't circumcised (that I remember, as there are 2 nights during my 'party days' I still can't recall).  That's not, because I turned them down if they weren't, it just seems in my age group circumcision seems to be more prevalent.   I will admit to thinking cut penises look more pleasing but maybe that's just because I'm used to them being circumcised and of course there's always the stories of a girl going down on a guy who hasn't cleaned properly which make the rest of us shudder, but that goes both ways.  As I get older I don't find it to be a thing one way or the other.  Once a guy is erect you can't tell the difference anyway.   The guys who do weird shit with their foreskins is where I draw the line though.

I can tell you first hand the sensation an uncut guy gets from a good blowjob is unmatched. Pure euphoria. There are times my eyes literally tilted to the back of my head.

Just got to be courteous and keep that shit clean. To go the extra mile I'll clean it with a wipe before she starts.

Jun 22, 2020 18:18:40 GMT thereallt said:

I can tell you first hand the sensation an uncut guy gets from a good blowjob is unmatched. Pure euphoria. There are times my eyes literally tilted to the back of my head.

Just got to be courteous and keep that shit clean. To go the extra mile I'll clean it with a wipe before she starts.

Reminds me of those meme punchlines of "You think sex is cool? Have you tried (insert punchline here).  You think head is good?  Have you tried it with a foreskin?

By all means rob your kid of glorious head so he can walk a locker room without fear of penis persecution.  

How can anyone who is uncut definitively say their sex/head experience is unequivocally better than a cut guy? Feels like trying to confirm two people see the same shade of blue the exact same way. We can use the same terms, sound like we're seeing the same thing in the same exact way... but ultimately the perception/experience is entirely subjective and individual.

Even if you had foreskin and got head, then had the foreskin removed and got head to directly compare... still doesn't seem like the same grounds to make a definitive declaration as someone sans foreskin from birth. Honestly, some of this uncut chest thumping about how much "better" their experience is feels like insecurity posturing to make up for ugly dick syndrome.

Jun 22, 2020 18:38:27 GMT 🤯 said:

How can anyone who is uncut definitively say their sex/head experience is unequivocally better than a cut guy? Feels like trying to confirm two people see the same shade of blue the exact same way. We can use the same terms, sound like we're seeing the same thing in the same exact way... but ultimately the perception/experience is entirely subjective and individual.

Even if you had foreskin and got head, then had the foreskin removed and got head to directly compare... still doesn't seem like the same grounds to make a definitive declaration as someone sans foreskin from birth. Honestly, some of this uncut chest thumping about how much "better" their experience is feels like insecurity posturing to make up for ugly dick syndrome.

I have enough snipped buddies who have not reported nearly the same sensation.   Plus if you've been snipped since birth the skin on the head toughens up...which means less sensation not more.

must find someone who got snipped as an adult. they could tell you.   But overall, more skin and more nerves should account for something.  

theend Just a heads up on reading some of these studies. Look into EXACTLY what they are measuring. Oftentimes they claim they are measuring something, like pain, but they are really measuring something else. Pain being a latent variable is measured with manifest variables. It is presumed these manifest variables are the physical indications that accurately measure the underlying latent variable. What we find is when we reconstruct the analysis based on the results in articles that the support for this assumption is always there. Also some of them are not theoretically linked. Will find exactly what they measured in the methods section under measures or the results section when talking about the model.

Giving you the heads up because I assume you did not do statistical training and most of these articles are using grad school level methods which the common person has no hope of assessing themselves. What authors do because of this is they present the latent variable (pain) in the lit review and discussion but are actually measuring something else (cry duration, facial action, visual judgment of pain). The articles cited by the one you posted are not being misleading with the results but MANY studies are and I know more and more you are going to source.

Also be mindful that not all journals are created equal. Some journal that sound professional may not have real peer review and are pay to post. You pay them 5k to 25k and they print your article. Other journals are notorious for low standards of editorial rigor (cough Gender Studies cough). Impact rating for the journal will help assess what is a good journal and what is not. It varies subfield by subfield though. The higher the impact factor, the more studies get reviewed and the more selective they are. Some lower impact journals on the other hand will literally published everything they get. There is great work in low impact journals and bad work in high impact journals but those are the exception and not the rule.

Finally do not trust stuff from Chinese or Indian journals. UK, Europe, Aussies, US, Canada, Japan and Korea are all solid research places. China and India though have questionable practices for academia.

Wish there was a good site to share for assessing academic research to crash course in the literacy skills needed to proper critique academia stuff but sadly I do not know of any and many researchers do not even have good academic literacy skills.

That all said: do not agree with the link you shared from the CIRP as I do not agree with the assumption that infants remember the pain though and some of the sources are tangential at best and is also is using post newborn circumcision, which is very different. This study cited in it however is very good and I think really hits at the point you are trying to make. Always a good sign to see a researcher say, this expected finding was missing. Bad research ALWAYS gets the results they want, because you do not allow anything else to come out. Most science is based on unexpected results though and not confirming your own beliefs.

www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

But again at this point, if the parents care this much about the topic, then you do not cut. That is repeated in everything I read.

But for neutral parties who do not care one way or another the overall consensus using meta-methods seems to imply a small benefit to cutting with little risk. No one really laid out the exact risk vs reward scenario though with a proper evaluation model. Frankly, I an interesting in this area, but not THAT interested to devout a few weeks to calculating risks and doing an exhaustive lit review.

Jun 22, 2020 18:47:14 GMT theend said:

must find someone who got snipped as an adult. they could tell you.   But overall, more skin and more nerves should account for something.  

Not sure that would work.  The newborn's body can react to the cutting.  An adult will not likely recover from getting cut the same way.  The receptors and shit are already wired.  Newborns you get a small window to do shit before it gets hardwired.

The pleasure nodes in the penis are in the glans as well.  The foreskin protects the glans.  The belief is that people who are cut get de-sensitized from having the glans exposed all the time and the wear and tear their glans gets.  But it is a matter of perception not sensation.  We do not perceive sensory stuff that the brain considers meaningless.  

c beat me to the punch. I don't think an adult getting snipped would be an apples-to-apples comparison to someone snipped as a baby.

Also, glad thereallt's circle of buddies is open enough to talk about such things. Never had that level of conversation with any of my buds. However, even what you all have discussed is still totally anecdotal and impossible to compare. For all you know, the world's greatest orgasm to you might just be a "meh, not too shabby" to someone else. I think there's way too many intangibles involved here. Including communication skills. Even if someone is open enough to discuss their sex life and orgasms, no guarantee they have the vocab or mindframe to articulate in descriptive and objective terms.

Glad 🤯 is asking the real questions. Will my boy get enough pleasure or not? True Father of the Year. Doubt my Dad ever cared if I was busting a nut.

Can't get this kinda content on Wrestling Clique I bet!

THank you for teaching me how to look at a study. I would be so lost without you. Of course, if the study disagrees with you it is likely not done well. There are a ton of studies. If they do not reach your standard I am sure they are rubbish. Go find and disagree with every study that does not align with your many misconceptions on this topic.  

You are definitely superior to me in your research abilities and academia. I am humbled to be in your online presence. What a maroon.

With the facts presented, I am still firmly in the do not circumcise camp. Teach your kids to clean their knob and wrap it.

With the bias of having a foreskin, I am the opposite of 🤯 . I think uncircumcised penises look better in general and circumcised ones can look uncomfortable to me.

Foreskins are great and I think it is a shame that those who are circumcised don't get to experience them. But it is also great that most people who are circumcised seem to be happy with it.

Jun 22, 2020 14:06:26 GMT iron maiden said:

I find it interesting that female genital mutilation is usually met with widespread criticism, yet male circumcision is technically the same thing and more generally accepted.

If FGM was just removing the clitoral hood, it would be analogous. But that is a rare form of FGM. The most common type of removal is of the clitoral glans and hood. It can also involve removal of the inner labia. The worst type is infibulation, every aspect of which is almost unspeakably awful. I'll hand it over to Wiki.

In Somalia, according to Edna Adan Ismail, the child squats on a stool or mat while adults pull her legs open; a local anaesthetic is applied if available:

The element of speed and surprise is vital and the circumciser immediately grabs the clitoris by pinching it between her nails aiming to amputate it with a slash. The organ is then shown to the senior female relatives of the child who will decide whether the amount that has been removed is satisfactory or whether more is to be cut off.

After the clitoris has been satisfactorily amputated ... the circumciser can proceed with the total removal of the labia minora and the paring of the inner walls of the labia majora. Since the entire skin on the inner walls of the labia majora has to be removed all the way down to the perineum, this becomes a messy business. By now, the child is screaming, struggling, and bleeding profusely, which makes it difficult for the circumciser to hold with bare fingers and nails the slippery skin and parts that are to be cut or sutured together. ...

Having ensured that sufficient tissue has been removed to allow the desired fusion of the skin, the circumciser pulls together the opposite sides of the labia majora, ensuring that the raw edges where the skin has been removed are well approximated. The wound is now ready to be stitched or for thorns to be applied. If a needle and thread are being used, close tight sutures will be placed to ensure that a flap of skin covers the vulva and extends from the mons veneris to the perineum, and which, after the wound heals, will form a bridge of scar tissue that will totally occlude the vaginal introitus.[45]

The amputated parts might be placed in a pouch for the girl to wear.[46] A single hole of 2–3 mm is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid.[j] The vulva is closed with surgical thread, or agave or acacia thorns, and might be covered with a poultice of raw egg, herbs and sugar. To help the tissue bond, the girl's legs are tied together, often from hip to ankle; the bindings are usually loosened after a week and removed after two to six weeks.[47][29] If the remaining hole is too large in the view of the girl's family, the procedure is repeated.[26]

The vagina is opened for sexual intercourse, for the first time either by a midwife with a knife or by the woman's husband with his penis.[48] In some areas, including Somaliland, female relatives of the bride and groom might watch the opening of the vagina to check that the girl is a virgin.[47] The woman is opened further for childbirth (defibulation or deinfibulation), and closed again afterwards (reinfibulation). Reinfibulation can involve cutting the vagina again to restore the pinhole size of the first infibulation. This might be performed before marriage, and after childbirth, divorce and widowhood.[k][49] Hanny Lightfoot-Klein interviewed hundreds of women and men in Sudan in the 1980s about sexual intercourse with Type III:

The penetration of the bride's infibulation takes anywhere from 3 or 4 days to several months. Some men are unable to penetrate their wives at all (in my study over 15%), and the task is often accomplished by a midwife under conditions of great secrecy, since this reflects negatively on the man's potency. Some who are unable to penetrate their wives manage to get them pregnant in spite of the infibulation, and the woman's vaginal passage is then cut open to allow birth to take place. ... Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife". This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis.[50]

Thankfully male circumcision is nowhere near analogous to FGM, except for Type 1a.

Jun 22, 2020 19:18:43 GMT @ness said:

Glad 🤯 is asking the real questions. Will my boy get enough pleasure or not? True Father of the Year. Doubt my Dad ever cared if I was busting a nut.

Can't get this kinda content on Wrestling Clique I bet!

shinobimusashi is missing out!

Jun 22, 2020 19:37:31 GMT Strobe said:

With the facts presented, I am still firmly in the do not circumcise camp. Teach your kids to clean their knob and wrap it.

With the bias of having a foreskin, I am the opposite of 🤯 . I think uncircumcised penises look better in general and circumcised ones can look uncomfortable to me.

Foreskins are great and I think it is a shame that those who are circumcised don't get to experience them. But it is also great that most people who are circumcised seem to be happy with it.

Jun 22, 2020 14:06:26 GMT iron maiden said:

I find it interesting that female genital mutilation is usually met with widespread criticism, yet male circumcision is technically the same thing and more generally accepted.

If FGM was just removing the clitoral hood, it would be analogous. But that is a rare form of FGM. The most common type of removal is of the clitoral glans and hood. It can also involve removal of the inner labia. The worst type is infibulation, every aspect of which is almost unspeakably awful. I'll hand it over to Wiki.

In Somalia, according to Edna Adan Ismail, the child squats on a stool or mat while adults pull her legs open; a local anaesthetic is applied if available:

The element of speed and surprise is vital and the circumciser immediately grabs the clitoris by pinching it between her nails aiming to amputate it with a slash. The organ is then shown to the senior female relatives of the child who will decide whether the amount that has been removed is satisfactory or whether more is to be cut off.

After the clitoris has been satisfactorily amputated ... the circumciser can proceed with the total removal of the labia minora and the paring of the inner walls of the labia majora. Since the entire skin on the inner walls of the labia majora has to be removed all the way down to the perineum, this becomes a messy business. By now, the child is screaming, struggling, and bleeding profusely, which makes it difficult for the circumciser to hold with bare fingers and nails the slippery skin and parts that are to be cut or sutured together. ...

Having ensured that sufficient tissue has been removed to allow the desired fusion of the skin, the circumciser pulls together the opposite sides of the labia majora, ensuring that the raw edges where the skin has been removed are well approximated. The wound is now ready to be stitched or for thorns to be applied. If a needle and thread are being used, close tight sutures will be placed to ensure that a flap of skin covers the vulva and extends from the mons veneris to the perineum, and which, after the wound heals, will form a bridge of scar tissue that will totally occlude the vaginal introitus.[45]

The amputated parts might be placed in a pouch for the girl to wear.[46] A single hole of 2–3 mm is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid.[j] The vulva is closed with surgical thread, or agave or acacia thorns, and might be covered with a poultice of raw egg, herbs and sugar. To help the tissue bond, the girl's legs are tied together, often from hip to ankle; the bindings are usually loosened after a week and removed after two to six weeks.[47][29] If the remaining hole is too large in the view of the girl's family, the procedure is repeated.[26]

The vagina is opened for sexual intercourse, for the first time either by a midwife with a knife or by the woman's husband with his penis.[48] In some areas, including Somaliland, female relatives of the bride and groom might watch the opening of the vagina to check that the girl is a virgin.[47] The woman is opened further for childbirth (defibulation or deinfibulation), and closed again afterwards (reinfibulation). Reinfibulation can involve cutting the vagina again to restore the pinhole size of the first infibulation. This might be performed before marriage, and after childbirth, divorce and widowhood.[k][49] Hanny Lightfoot-Klein interviewed hundreds of women and men in Sudan in the 1980s about sexual intercourse with Type III:

The penetration of the bride's infibulation takes anywhere from 3 or 4 days to several months. Some men are unable to penetrate their wives at all (in my study over 15%), and the task is often accomplished by a midwife under conditions of great secrecy, since this reflects negatively on the man's potency. Some who are unable to penetrate their wives manage to get them pregnant in spite of the infibulation, and the woman's vaginal passage is then cut open to allow birth to take place. ... Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife". This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis.[50]

Thankfully male circumcision is nowhere near analogous to FGM, except for Type 1a.

Fist off, the word analogous is word porn, thank you.

Of course there is no comparison, I was simply pointing out that while FGM is strongly opposed, circumcision is a common practice and widely accepted.  It is still removing the original foreskin from the penis for no medical reason and perhaps if what is posted in here is to believed, even lessening their sexual gratification.  

A woman actually has more nerve endings in her clitoris (which actually extends down to the labia majora and minora), than the head of a male's penis.  So you are basically removing her method for sexual enjoyment.  It's positively medieval. 

Why male circumcision is still legal in the US and widely done in the US is beyond me. Must be to get celebs their facial cream.

qz.com/quartzy/1230002/sandra-bullock-and-cate-blanchett-had-a-penis-facial-its-not-that-strange/#:~:text=The%20SkinMedica%20cream%20beloved%20by,baby%20foreskin%2020%20years%20ago.

Jun 22, 2020 19:00:50 GMT c said:

theend Just a heads up on reading some of these studies. Look into EXACTLY what they are measuring. Oftentimes they claim they are measuring something, like pain, but they are really measuring something else. Pain being a latent variable is measured with manifest variables. It is presumed these manifest variables are the physical indications that accurately measure the underlying latent variable. What we find is when we reconstruct the analysis based on the results in articles that the support for this assumption is always there. Also some of them are not theoretically linked. Will find exactly what they measured in the methods section under measures or the results section when talking about the model.

Giving you the heads up because I assume you did not do statistical training and most of these articles are using grad school level methods which the common person has no hope of assessing themselves. What authors do because of this is they present the latent variable (pain) in the lit review and discussion but are actually measuring something else (cry duration, facial action, visual judgment of pain). The articles cited by the one you posted are not being misleading with the results but MANY studies are and I know more and more you are going to source.

Also be mindful that not all journals are created equal. Some journal that sound professional may not have real peer review and are pay to post. You pay them 5k to 25k and they print your article. Other journals are notorious for low standards of editorial rigor (cough Gender Studies cough). Impact rating for the journal will help assess what is a good journal and what is not. It varies subfield by subfield though. The higher the impact factor, the more studies get reviewed and the more selective they are. Some lower impact journals on the other hand will literally published everything they get. There is great work in low impact journals and bad work in high impact journals but those are the exception and not the rule.

Finally do not trust stuff from Chinese or Indian journals. UK, Europe, Aussies, US, Canada, Japan and Korea are all solid research places. China and India though have questionable practices for academia.

Wish there was a good site to share for assessing academic research to crash course in the literacy skills needed to proper critique academia stuff but sadly I do not know of any and many researchers do not even have good academic literacy skills.

That all said: do not agree with the link you shared from the CIRP as I do not agree with the assumption that infants remember the pain though and some of the sources are tangential at best and is also is using post newborn circumcision, which is very different. This study cited in it however is very good and I think really hits at the point you are trying to make. Always a good sign to see a researcher say, this expected finding was missing. Bad research ALWAYS gets the results they want, because you do not allow anything else to come out. Most science is based on unexpected results though and not confirming your own beliefs.

www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

But again at this point, if the parents care this much about the topic, then you do not cut. That is repeated in everything I read.

But for neutral parties who do not care one way or another the overall consensus using meta-methods seems to imply a small benefit to cutting with little risk. No one really laid out the exact risk vs reward scenario though with a proper evaluation model. Frankly, I an interesting in this area, but not THAT interested to devout a few weeks to calculating risks and doing an exhaustive lit review.

Wow. You're a condescending know it all with what, an education in social science and/or psychology and you think a meta analysis is a meaningful talking point. I have an actual science degree, not a social science degree. But thanks for all your help in understanding things you think the rest of us idiots can't understand.

Jun 22, 2020 19:58:10 GMT theend said:

Why male circumcision is still legal in the US and widely done in the US is beyond me. Must be to get celebs their facial cream.

qz.com/quartzy/1230002/sandra-bullock-and-cate-blanchett-had-a-penis-facial-its-not-that-strange/#:~:text=The%20SkinMedica%20cream%20beloved%20by,baby%20foreskin%2020%20years%20ago.

This is the first thing to ever make me regret not having a foreskin. If I had one, I'd definitely be volunteering its services to Cate Blanchett for her face.