unicorn

I provide actual scientific facts, with links to actual data, and you counter with a preposterous lie! Shameful! You should get in bed with @Moses. You two deserve each other. 🤮

What an outrageous, insane lie. What's the link to the study? More anti-circumcision BS, once again.

Obviously, one also has to know the cultural reference in order to understand some jokes. Even if jokes are given in the native language, someone unfamiliar with the customs of that culture won't be able to understand the joke.

Interestingly enough, I couldn't find a scientific study of gay men's preferences! However, this meta-analysis looked at studies of women's preferences, and there have apparently been quite a few of them, mostly including cultures in which male circumcision (MC) is NOT the norm. This meta-analysis put together the results of 29 studies: https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/7/2/145/6956488 "... Cultural differences in preference were evident among some of the studies examined. Nevertheless, a preference for a circumcised penis was seen in most populations regardless of the frequency of MC in the study setting... Women’s preferences generally favor the circumcised penis for sexual activity, hygiene, and lower risk of infection. The findings add to the already well-established health benefits favoring MC and provide important sociosexual information on an issue of widespread interest...".

It's barely dignified to reply to such a brainless "argument" that counters scientific fact with "a very considerable majority of the world remains uncircumcised." My only concerns are (1) that those parents who choose this healthcare decision (and this is a healthcare decision, not a cosmetic one) not be derided, and (2) that those who are against circumcision stop promulgating factually false information. If there are, indeed, 3 billion uncircumcised men on this planet, then 300,000 young boys died for that reason, and tens of millions had serious childhood urinary tract infections as a result. I won't entertain cosmetic opinions in what, one would hope, would be an intelligent discussion.

That reminds me of the photo my husband has of me on his dresser--I was in my 20s! 😯 Sometimes he shows the photo some of his friends, who sometimes gasp "Oh, my God!" as if I'd turned into an ogre. 😄

I get it that most parents will simply follow the lead of the baby's father when making the decision to circumcise or not, rather than following the facts of what's safer for the baby. No one is saying parents shouldn't have that right. After all, the risk of death due to lack of circumcision is less than 1 in 10,000, the risk of serious kidney infection less than 1 in 400. Like a bunch of old-timers will say, they never had seatbelts, infant car seats, or airbags in my day, and I came out fine. Of course, infant circumcision is mainly done to protect the baby's own life, and doesn't have the same public health consequences as immunization. Actually, there is some public health benefit which will come later in that infant's life, mainly in the form of STD's, but that's not the main reason for infant circumcision. Of note, there are some routine interventions given to infants, such as an injection of vitamin K at birth to prevent bleeding in the brain, which doesn't have public health consequences, but is done solely for the baby's benefit. Vitamin K injections are part of routine orders which are rarely even discussed with the parents. What I don't appreciate are BS statements such as circumcisions being too risky or causing sexual problems, both of which are false statements (and the ones usually given by the anti-circumcision crowd). The worst is when elected government officials spout such BS in order to try to pass laws removing parental decisions on what's best for their baby boys. So you didn't have a circumcision and don't want your baby boy to have one either. That's fine (as long as it's an informed choice, having been given truthful information).

You can say that again.

11 hours ago, unicorn said: The risks and benefits of infant circumcision, and the results are simply irrefutable: benefits far outweigh the risks. What a ridiculously pitiful non-argument. While one's personal preference for the esthetics of cut or non-cut is a matter of opinion and personal taste, the risk/benefit ratio is simply a matter of scientific fact and cannot be disputed.

News flash! The earth is round! 😁

As often happens, when someone doesn't have facts and science behind him, he resorts to arguing with "here's someone who agrees with me." The risks and benefits of infant circumcision, and the results are simply irrefutable: benefits far outweigh the risks. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2562792/ "The records of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 were reviewed for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life. For 100,157 circumcised boys, there were 193 complications (0.19%). These included 62 local infections, eight cases of bacteremia, 83 incidences of hemorrhage (31 requiring ligature and three requiring transfusion), 25 instances of surgical trauma, and 20 urinary tract infections. There were no deaths or reported losses of the glans or entire penis. By contrast, the complications in the 35,929 uncircumcised infants were all related to urinary tract infections. Of the 88 boys with such infections (0.24%), 32 had concomitant bacteremia, three had meningitis, two had renal failure, and two died. The frequencies of urinary tract infection (P less than .0001) and bacteremia (P less than .0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys. Serious complications from routine prepuce removal are rare and relatively minor. Circumcision may be beneficial in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections and their associated sequelae." For those unfamiliar with biostatistics lingo, p<0.0001 means that the odds that the difference was due to chance is less than 1 in 10,000. There is no doubt about it. Infant circumcision prevents serious illness and saves lives. As for the authority of Professor Kim, he's a retired physicist who simply has a bone to pick. He has NOT done serious research into this issue: AI Overview Professor Kim Dae-sik (or Dai-Sik Kim) is a prominent physicist known for his work in nano-optics, formerly a long-standing professor in the Department of Physics at Seoul National University (SNU) from 1994 to 2019, and now holds the title of Emeritus Professor at SNU, while also serving as a Distinguished Professor at UNIST (Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology). He's recognized for his research on light confinement in nanostructures, leading groups at SNU and later at UNIST, and has been involved in interdisciplinary fields like AI and philosophy. We routinely perform all kinds of interventions on children (and especially babies) in order to protect them, since obviously infants lack the capacity for informed consent. The most obvious example which everyone knows is immunizations. Immunizations provide far more serious risks than infant circumcision--for example, fevers, and even febrile seizures (which don't cause permanent damage). However, immunizations prevent serious illness and death, so the benefits outweigh the risks. As for the alleged decrease in sensitivity, this has been thoroughly disproven in multiple well-designed scientific studies. The nerves which provide sexual pleasure are in the glans (tip of the penis), not the foreskin. It's difficult for me to understand the depths of stupidity one would need to have in order to believe than someone circumcised as an infant somehow knows he's had a loss of sensitivity. Obviously, the only way to study this issue is to study men who've been circumcised as adults. These studies have been done: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515301727 Results Searches identified 2,675 publications describing the effects of male circumcision on aspects of male sexual function, sensitivity, sensation, or satisfaction. Of these, 36 met our inclusion criteria of containing original data. Those studies reported a total of 40,473 men, including 19,542 uncircumcised and 20,931 circumcised. Rated by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system, 2 were 1++ (high quality randomized controlled trials) and 34 were case-control or cohort studies (11 high quality: 2++; 10 well-conducted: 2+; 13 low quality: 2−). The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration. Support for these conclusions was provided by a meta-analysis. Impairment in one or more parameters was reported in 10 of the 13 studies rated as 2−. These lower-quality studies contained flaws in study design (11), selection of cases and/or controls (5), statistical analysis (4), and/or data interpretation (6); five had multiple problems. Conclusion The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—A systematic review. J Sex Med 2013;10:2644–2657. Please note that this article is a meta-analysis, combining the data of multiple (36 to be precise) studies. There is no higher level of evidence than a meta-analysis, so this issue is settled as well.

Comparing "female circumcision," which carries only deleterious effects, and no health benefits, with male circumcision is simply factually wrong. The health benefits of male circumcision, particularly in substantially reducing the risk in urinary tract infections in infants and toddlers, far outweigh the risks--and that's a solid fact. While I certainly wouldn't characterize it as abuse not to circumcise male infants, the science definitely states that benefits far exceed the (very minimal) risks. Opponents of circumcision only use factually disproven arguments to support their emotional preferences. As suggested by a prior poster, studies of men who've had circumcision as adults have been done, disproving the bogus allegation that sexual pleasure or sensitivity of the glans decrease after circumcision. Any comparison to "female circumcision" is baseless. AI Overview Male circumcision offers several health benefits, including reduced risks of urinary tract infections (UTIs), sexually transmitted infections (STIs) like HIV, HPV, and herpes, and penile cancer, while also preventing foreskin issues such as phimosis (inability to retract foreskin) and balanitis (inflammation), and simplifying hygiene. Medical bodies like the AAP state benefits outweigh risks, though it's not universally recommended, with neonatal circumcision carrying lower risks than later procedures. Key Health Benefits: Reduced UTI Risk: Significantly lowers the risk of urinary tract infections, particularly in infancy. STI Protection: Decreases the risk of acquiring HIV, HPV, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid. Penile Cancer Prevention: Lowers the risk of penile cancer, though it's already rare. Foreskin Problems: Prevents conditions like phimosis (tight foreskin), paraphimosis (trapped foreskin), and balanitis (inflammation). Improved Hygiene: Easier genital hygiene and prevention of smegma buildup. Partner Health: May reduce risks of bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and cervical cancer for female partners. Considerations: Procedure Safety: Generally safe when done by a trained professional with pain management, with lower risks in newborns. Not Essential: These benefits are significant, but circumcision is not considered medically necessary for all males. Organizations' Stance: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concludes that benefits outweigh risks, supporting parental choice and insurance coverage, while the American Urological Association (AUA) highlights its safety and benefits in preventing certain conditions.

Aside from the obvious, mentioned by @jimmie50, that only someone who grew up in a Jewish household can understand Hebrew (well, perhaps an Old Testament scholar as well), there were other cultural references which, again, only someone who grew up in a Jewish household would get. I'm not saying that most of the jokes needed Jewish upbringing to understand. We just felt left out for those that did. The most successful and professional comedian in the group, Michael Blaustein, didn't make any inside jokes. He's now 37, but if you want to see him when he was a very cute 22 year-old, the movie Attack of the Alien Jelly Monsters from the Depths of Uranus is available for free on the Tubi platform... 😉

https://www.instagram.com/blaucomedy/ https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/michael-blaustein.html