Circumcision reduces risk of contracting HIV by 70%...

[deep]

[No message]

 

[melon]

You know, I got banned one time for talking about my hatred of circumcision.

Let me put it this way: it was created to reduce sexual function in men in the 19th century. "Circumcision," as listed in the Bible, only meant to cut the tip of the foreskin--not the "slash-and-burn" technique we practice today.

I think anyone who circumcises their children today are barbarians who should be arrested for child abuse. If people want to be circumcised, let them choose to do it when they're adults.

Melon

 

[BVS]

And they tested this how...

 

[deep]

Circumcision Ritual May Protect Men From AIDS

Male circumcision is likely to reduce the risk of contacting HIV from intercourse with HIV infected women by about 70%. A recent study involved 3,000 HIV negative men in Africa between 18 and 24 years. Half were circumcised and other half were not circumcised. They were followed up for one year.

Researchers found that for every ten uncircumcised men who became infected with HIV, only an estimated three circumcised men contracted the virus. Further research in this area is warranted. It however makes one wonder if the religious ritual of circumcision after all does have some significance and if our forefathers new more than we think they knew!!

Bertran Auvert, the French researcher headed the trial and is expected to present the findings later this month at an International AIDS Society conference in Brazil.

This study also contradicts a previous study that linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.

 

[BVS]

Further research in this area is warranted.

Exactly; like how many partners did each man have and which one's used protection, etc.

 

[cardosino]

You know, I got banned one time for talking about my hatred of circumcision.

Let me put it this way: it was created to reduce sexual function in men in the 19th century. "Circumcision," as listed in the Bible, only meant to cut the tip of the foreskin--not the "slash-and-burn" technique we practice today.

I think anyone who circumcises their children today are barbarians who should be arrested for child abuse. If people want to be circumcised, let them choose to do it when they're adults.

Melon

do you have kids ?

 

[Irvine511]

i think circumcision helps reduce the transmission of AIDS from woman to man because vaginal secretions can get caught in the foreskin and be kept in place in the urethra. simply because you have sex with an HIV positive person does not mean that you will absolutely catch HIV. there's a good chance you will, but infection requires more than simple exposure. the reason why HIV is transmitted so easily from man to woman or man to man is because the semen is literally injected into the anus or vagina, and usually stays there for a while, all warm.

as for my own thoughts on circumcision ... well, let's put it this way, i've spent lots of times in locker rooms being a competitive swimmer, and those who are not circumcised (at least in the US) definitely tend to stand out from the others. it might cause one to be self-conscious? i can't speak from experience. from a sexual standpoint, i have had, um, experience with the uncircumcised, and so long as it is kept squeaky clean, it does seem to provide better sexual function.

i would probably choose not to circumcise if i had to do it all over again, but it's not something i lose sleep over.

 

[BAW]

do you have kids ?

I do and I agree with Melon.

I would like to say more but its a bit too personal to talk about on a public forum so I'll leave it at that.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I do not understand why this ritual continues today. I agree with melon, though not quite so intensely, lol, perhaps because I am not a man. I don't plan to have kids but if I did have a son I absolutely would not have him circumcised though I cannot judge parents who do because I am not in their shoes and it's really none of my business.

Personally, I enjoy the uncut penis.

 

[melon]

do you have kids?

Your point? You want to pass on the mutilation to your children, because your parents did it to you too? The cycle of irrationality needs to be broken somewhere. That's what we tell African tribes that mutilate girls' genitals, and, even as we've seen with them, it's difficult to get people to wake up out of their stupor. Old habits die hard.

Melon

 

[Lemonfix]

In America, though, I still think it's considered really odd NOT to circumsize your kid, for a lot of people it is really ingrained into the culture (especially if you're Jewish, obviously. I once asked a very liberal Jewish friend if he was planning on circumsizing his sons, if he had any. His response went something like "Of course! Are you nuts?!") It'd be interesting to know the statistics on this, and whether or not they are going down any. And I will admit, until a few years ago I thought circumcision was something doctors did to every newborn boy. Just goes to show how much circumcision is still very much a part of our American culture.

 

[melon]

In America, though, I still think it's considered really odd NOT to circumsize your kid, for a lot of people it is really ingrained into the culture (especially if you're Jewish, obviously.)

Jews do have religious traditions, which I can respect. What puzzles me is why Christians do it, considering much of the New Testament is frankly preoccupied with the subject and St. Paul's rather persistent and strong language against circumcision. So much for Biblical fundamentalism.

Melon

 

[Lemonfix]

Jews do have religious traditions, which I can respect. What puzzles me is why Christians do it, considering much of the New Testament is frankly preoccupied with the subject and St. Paul's rather persistent and strong language against circumcision. So much for Biblical fundamentalism.

Melon

Non-Jews started the practice, generally, in the early half of the twentieth century after seeing it done by the many Jewish Americans who came to the country during that time (I think). I am under the impression that Non-Jews didn't circumcise for religious reasons, but for reasons of cleanliness. Then again, I'm not an expert on the history of circumcision, so I could be wrong.

 

[melon]

Non-Jews started the practice, generally, in the early half of the twentieth century after seeing it done by the many Jewish Americans who came to the country during that time (I think). I am under the impression that Non-Jews didn't circumcise for religious reasons, but for reasons of cleanliness. Then again, I'm not an expert on the history of circumcision, so I could be wrong.

From what I've surmised, the "cleanliness" idea was an afterthought developed in the 20th century to justify it after the fact. It was actually developed in the 19th century under a zealous Christian climate obsessed with what they perceived as the "dangers of masturbation." After all, these were the days that they believed that it was not only a sin, but that it caused blindness and other maladies.

Where corn flakes and Graham crackers failed to cause impotence, as they were originally designed to do (although feed yourself enough sugar, develop diabetes, and you'll stop wanting to have sex), they discovered that what I call the "slash-and-burn" method of circumcision was highly effective in reducing sexual sensitivity. That's why it was developed and for no other reason than that.

The original ritual of circumcision, as described in the Bible, involved only a slight cut in the foreskin. That is, the Greco-Roman ideal pictures a massive foreskin that stretched well past the head of the penis, whereas the Jewish custom was to cut off the "overhead," not the entire foreskin as Americans do now. That was an entirely 19th century creation.

I am a bit passionate about this subject solely because I perceive it to be wholly irrational and based in pseudoscience and subjective "ick" factors that won't stretch over onto later generations. After all, the practice is rare in Europe (I've been told) and you don't hear of women screaming with "ick."

As I see it, if you're born with it, it apparently serves a function and it is arrogant of man to start cutting things off it presumes it doesn't need--especially when it comes to babies who frankly don't have a say in the matter.

Melon

 

[Lemonfix]

You obviously know more than I. It is quite interesting, the history of how this came to be part of American culture. I'm a bit of a cultural-history junkie so I find this all especially fascinating. I was aware of the ultra-conservative Victorian attitudes on sex and masturbation especially and Dr. Kellogg's attempt to curb the sexual urge with the right health regimin. I should have guessed that the practice of circumcision came out of this climate.

 

[Axver]

After all, the practice is rare in Europe (I've been told) and you don't hear of women screaming with "ick."

I don't know about Europe, but I can tell you about New Zealand, and as New Zealand seems to always try to emulate the UK and be the "England of the South Seas" and follows its lead in everything from medicine to television (though in the last decade, I feel US influence has eased that, especially amongst young people), I'd say New Zealand's experience would be in line with the UK.

When my father was born in the mid-1950s, circumcision was a regular practice on male babies, and justified for health reasons. I would suppose that given your post, that's not really why it was introduced in the first place, but by the time of my father's birth, that was the reason given and believed. However, by the time I was born in 1987, they would only perform circumcision for religious reasons. I'm surprised to learn it remains a common practice in the US, as I grew up with the impression that it was unnecessary unless you had a religious reason to have it done.

 

[redkat]

When I was a group home counselor one of the six year old boys in my house was no circumsized which is pretty rare here in the U.S. I guess it wasn't done since he had no insurance.

Anyways, I had to deal with the infection he got there. Since then I'm all for circumcision. This poor kid. That was painful not to mention gross

Just my opinion.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Anyways, I had to deal with the infection he got there. Since then I'm all for circumcision. This poor kid. That was painful not to mention gross

That's due to lack of education. The poor kid wasn't taught proper hygiene.

 

[Irvine511]

the move to circumcise boys in the US started after WW2, when GI's in the Pacific theater suffered from lots of urinary tract infections, which was much more likely in the uncircumcised than the circumcised. it's been common practice ever since, though is starting to fall out of vogue.

so long as a child is taught cleanliness, it should pose no problem.

from an aesthetic standpoint, i'll admit to prefering the look of an uncircumcised penis (which strikes me as looking a bit like a silkworm . however, it does seem to me that those extra inches of skin are invaluable when it comes to sexual function (and it makes me jealous).

 

[BAW]

That's due to lack of education. The poor kid wasn't taught proper hygiene.

Exactly. A boy with an intact foreskin needs to be taught proper hygiene as soon as he learns to bathe himself. Its not difficult to pull it back and make sure its clean.

 

[dazzlingamy]

i'm a woman and the thought of circumcising my children makes me sick....

this whole "myth" of uncleanliness is exactly what it is a myth. If a guy doesn't clean himself regardless of the fact whether its circumcised or not, its still a dirty skanky thing that no one would want to get within 50 feet of.

And that HIV ting is pure crap too. I just believe people come out with these things in a propanganda way to "scare" people into doing something that is not neccessary and basically body mutilation. I mean, how up in arms do people get about clitorial mutilation that happens in africa and india, which is basically the same thing (as i've been told a circumcised penis is a lot less sensitive then an uncut one)

btw, i've seen a few in my day, and really it ain't a pretty sight no matter whether its cut or not. luckily most of the time i'm not looking at it

 

[MissMoo]

It's funny about ten years ago I had a boyfriend who was not circumcised (home birth you know) and it seemed strange, but I had already had arguments with a previous boyfriend about circumcising our possible children (he was all American for and I was against). However, my sister just had a baby boy and she and her husband did not circumcise him, and it looks like it's about 70% against in her circle of friends (who have all recently had children. People know a lot more about cleanliness these days and are less likely to do it, "just because that's what people do" Of course a big part of that is living in the Bay Area.

 

[Liesje]

I mean, how up in arms do people get about clitorial mutilation that happens in africa and india, which is basically the same thing (as i've been told a circumcised penis is a lot less sensitive then an uncut one)

I'm not sure how I feel about circumcision b/c to me there are pros and cons either way, but I DO feel it is nothing like FGM. FGM is usually done in unsanitary conditions using "tools" like shards of glass while the girl is held down. Also, removing the clitoris destroys ANY possibility of normal sexual function for a female. Besides the fact that the clitoris is destroyed, FGM leaves scars that can make sex even more painful. I think pretty much all guys I know were circumcized at birth and they all function sexually. So maybe an intact skin makes that are MORE sensitive, but that doesn't mean circumcized men can't have all kinds of pleasurable sex.

 

[melon]

So maybe an intact skin makes that are MORE sensitive, but that doesn't mean circumcized men can't have all kinds of pleasurable sex.

It depends. You're actually taking a risk. A minority of men have reported that their circumcision was done so poorly that the skin is pulled too tight, and, as such is painful. In more rare situation--but has happened--some circumcisions resulted in the entire head being cut off.

Plus, it's also pretty much said that once you get old, you'll lose all of your sensitivity, since the foreskin's design was to maintain sensitivity throughout one's life. As it stands, circumcised men stand to progressively degenerate in sexual function as they get older.

Melon

 

[Liesje]

Plus, it's also pretty much said that once you get old, you'll lose all of your sensitivity, since the foreskin's design was to maintain sensitivity throughout one's life. As it stands, circumcised men stand to progressively degenerate in sexual function as they get older.

Well, I'm not saying that's good, but you can't say it's comparable to a young girl being held down and sliced and diced.

 

[redkat]

That's due to lack of education. The poor kid wasn't taught proper hygiene.

I agree with you he has had an unusually bad chidhood. I'm just saying that that experience left me with a preference you could say. Of course if men are saying it leaves them worse off I'm all for stopping the practice I can deal with a little foreskin

 

[Irvine511]

btw, i've seen a few in my day, and really it ain't a pretty sight no matter whether its cut or not. luckily most of the time i'm not looking at it

beauty is in the eye (or hand) of the beholder.

they're all different; just like snowflakes.

 

[BVS]

It depends. You're actually taking a risk. A minority of men have reported that their circumcision was done so poorly that the skin is pulled too tight, and, as such is painful. In more rare situation--but has happened--some circumcisions resulted in the entire head being cut off.

Plus, it's also pretty much said that once you get old, you'll lose all of your sensitivity, since the foreskin's design was to maintain sensitivity throughout one's life. As it stands, circumcised men stand to progressively degenerate in sexual function as they get older.

Melon

Note to self: don't get old.

 

[MumblingBono]

Wow, didn't know there was so much controversy about circumcision!

I have to admit, I had my boy circumcised at birth for no other reason than the fact that I am circumcised, and I assume my father was, which is probably why I am... and we're not even Jewish...still gotta keep things clean down there, so that's no excuse either...

 

[redkat]

Well, I'm not saying that's good, but you can't say it's comparable to a young girl being held down and sliced and diced.

I agree with you the two cannot be compared. Many of these women are left with just a tiny hole left to function. It's a form of torture and opression.