Circumcision?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by 87coupe
Given the evidence of health benefits, and the preference of at least North American women, I can't really see a reason why you wouldn't circumcise an North American born male child shortly after birth.

Well, for one, I'm opposed to the genital mutilation of babies. If there's no medical condition warranting surgical intervention, it shouldn't be done. The AMA position notwithstanding scrutiny.

[john70t]

I wonder if a study has been (or can be) made on sensitivity issues from circumcision and any psychosocial effects. I remember sometimes after a soccer game wearing boxers, the head felt like it was rubbed raw. Wish I had made that choice, not "societal custom".

If Aids is an issue, so is pregnancy, STDs, etc... (I mean for the non-catholics who of course are the only ones having premarital sex) and there are bigger life-choice issues at stake.

Every kid should be told "be choosy with your wanker".

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by fastpat
So, you're supporting the theory as well, do you have any studies at all supporting it? Other that the ( ) one conducted in western Africa?

Pick a link...any link...

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/grulich1/

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm#q23

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm

http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/report/may00_1.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19058

http://www.medpagetoday.com/2005MeetingCoverage/2005IASMeeting/tb/1424

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/782656.stm

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/horizons/rs/Re_male_circ.pdf

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=59860

"The first study to examine the probability of HIV infection per act of heterosexual sex among a population with multiple sexual partners has found that uncircumcised men have more than twice the risk of acquiring HIV than do circumcised men."

[Isabo]

Despite my limited experience of male anatomy I would point out that the foreskin of a fully erect penis RETRACTS. So there is no difference when it is "angry". Assuming normal personal hygene I don't see any advantage. Aesthetics? Sorry I prefer the no-snip school.

[Moses]

Originally posted by Isabo
Sorry I prefer the no-snip school.

Communist...

[RoninLB]

[competentone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
I"m going to be blunt.

My perspective is as a heterosexual female.

As a parent, I know you don't want to think about these things, but from my perspective, circumcision is all I want.....if you know what I mean....

My wife has the same opinion. If we have a son he'll be circumcised. (Aesthetics is a legitimate consideration.)

I also have a young brother-in-law who is uncircumcised, after multiple zipper incidents (and a whole lot of problems with "sprinkles" on the bathroom floor), he is now going to be circumcised at age 5 -- OUCH!

[fastpat]

So, in summation, we have genital mutilation for religious reasons and for esthetics.

Sorry, Rick, I don't believe your studies controlled for sexual practices that aren't the norm. And, yes, homosexual sex isn't the norm, the norm is heterosexual sex. Remember the old saw, "Why was AID's research so difficult? It was next to impossible to get laboratory rats to have anal sex."

Scientifically, there is no valid argument for circumcision unless there are medical problems requiring intervention. The foreskin's existence is not a medical problem.

[RoninLB]

if you're into orgies it's best to be sliced imo.

[84porsche]

It's funny to see this thread on the same page with "Let's See Your Kitchen Knives."

[bigchillcar]

lol

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by fastpat
So, in summation, we have genital mutilation for religious reasons and for esthetics.

Sorry, Rick, I don't believe your studies controlled for sexual practices that aren't the norm. And, yes, homosexual sex isn't the norm, the norm is heterosexual sex. Remember the old saw, "Why was AID's research so difficult? It was next to impossible to get laboratory rats to have anal sex."

Scientifically, there is no valid argument for circumcision unless there are medical problems requiring intervention. The foreskin's existence is not a medical problem.

Paste that is a flat out idiotic argument.

Does it really matter whether you are dealing with homosexual sex or heterosexual sex? Both can transmit HIV. Homosexuals are at increased risk, but due to the prevalence of HIV in Africa, heterosexual transmission is most common.

Not only that, but if you take the time to actually READ the article (found in the Journal of Infectious Diseases) you would find that they specifically limited their research to examine the risk of female to male transmission. The men involved were heterosexuals.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v191n4/33047/33047.html

The fact of the matter is that circumcision does appear to protect against HIV transmission, so much so that the WHO is considering mounting a voluntary circumcision program in Africa to try and help curb the epidemic. Whether or not you consider homosexual sex to be the "norm" has nothing to do with the issue. Disease by definition is not the "norm" so when you are trying to treat and/or prevent disease you must look at the specific situations in which that disease is transmitted.

[bigchillcar]

lab rats really won't have anal sex...???

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Paste that is a flat out idiotic argument.

Does it really matter whether you are dealing with homosexual sex or heterosexual sex? Both can transmit HIV. Homosexuals are at increased risk, but due to the prevalence of HIV in Africa, heterosexual transmission is most common.

Not only that, but if you take the time to actually READ the article (found in the Journal of Infectious Diseases) you would find that they specifically limited their research to examine the risk of female to male transmission. The men involved were heterosexuals.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v191n4/33047/33047.html

The fact of the matter is that circumcision does appear to protect against HIV transmission, so much so that the WHO is considering mounting a voluntary circumcision program in Africa to try and help curb the epidemic. Whether or not you consider homosexual sex to be the "norm" has nothing to do with the issue. Disease by definition is not the "norm" so when you are trying to treat and/or prevent disease you must look at the specific situations in which that disease is transmitted.

Actually the concept that one should have a surgical procedure, only performed by a license professional of course, in order to make anal sex safe is the ridiculous one here.

If you don't know why HIV is spreading rapidly in Africa, then I'd suggest you learn more. It isn't from heterosexual sex between consenting adults.

[Christien]

Well, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread - it's a girl!!

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by fastpat
Actually the concept that one should have a surgical procedure, only performed by a license professional of course, in order to make anal sex safe is the ridiculous one here.

If you don't know why HIV is spreading rapidly in Africa, then I'd suggest you learn more. It isn't from heterosexual sex between consenting adults.

My goodness Paste, you really show your ignorance here. Perhaps you should try reading a bit about HIV in Africa before you post again. You also continue to ignore the fact that these gains were seen in heterosexual men.

You are usually at least somewhat informed on the topics you post on...not this one.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Christien
Well, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread - it's a girl!!

Of course in some groups you'd still be having this discussion, girl or not.

[GettinHeadStuds]

Originally posted by Christien
Well, I think I'll unsubscribe from this thread - it's a girl!!

Congrats!