Aussie foreskin debate

[SirConcis]

HIV rates in the USA are high due to drug use (needles) and gay sex (anal sex). Circumcision of the penis offers no protection to the rectum, and gay men catch it via rectum even if circumcised.

What the Aussie video said was "rising heterosexual AIDs rates". In fact, it was a study done in Australia which showed that circumcision had no effect on HIV infections in the gay community. But if the HIV has begin to soread to heterosexual community, then the iquestion on whether to restart circumcision in Australia is valid.

Perhaps the baby can sign a contract at birth: I promise to be gay, so you can leave my foreskin since it won't make a difference

And yes, condoms are the better and prefered solution. However, you can forget to wear a condom. (or just not like wearing them). You cannot forget to to be circumcied.

 

[Sapien]

And yes, condoms are the better and preferred solution. However, you can forget to wear a condom. (or just not like wearing them). You cannot forget to to be circumcised.

And guess what - circumcised guys dislike condoms more than intact guys! Thus, there is more of a chance that a circumcised guy will choose not to use a condom especially with a reinforced belief that he is safer since he is circumcised. Overall, this results in an increased risk.

 

[JTalbain]

HIV rates in the USA are high due to drug use (needles) and gay sex (anal sex). Circumcision of the penis offers no protection to the rectum, and gay men catch it via rectum even if circumcised.

What the Aussie video said was "rising heterosexual AIDs rates". In fact, it was a study done in Australia which showed that circumcision had no effect on HIV infections in the gay community. But if the HIV has begin to soread to heterosexual community, then the iquestion on whether to restart circumcision in Australia is valid.

Perhaps the baby can sign a contract at birth: I promise to be gay, so you can leave my foreskin since it won't make a difference

And yes, condoms are the better and prefered solution. However, you can forget to wear a condom. (or just not like wearing them). You cannot forget to to be circumcied.

In the end, choosing to indulge in high risk sexual behavior is a personal choice. Some men will be gay, some will never have sex, some will have only sex in a monogamous relationship with a disease-free partner. None of these men are aided by circumcision. On top of that, there are conflicting studies and statistics that show countries with fewer circumcised males have a lower HIV rate, and that rates are lower among the intact population.

Trying to initiate RIC based on what we have can be described as hasty at best. You're asking parents, on the basis of incomplete science, to subject their child to a non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery on the basis that the child may decades in the future be less prone to contract a disease from an activity he may choose not to engage in. That this is even being discussed shows the cognitive dissonance present in the debate.

 

[SirConcis]

If medical studies point to increased advantages of circumcision, they may once again start to recommend it because they will say the advantages outweight the costs. And once you do this, it then comes back to "it is easier, cheaper and better to do it on the baby than on the adult".

If they could find out some gene that will cause a guy to want to have sex with prostitutes or gay sex, then they could screen all babies and circumcise only those in high risk groups (think of the movie Gattica). But this isn't going to happen soon, so society looks at whether to recommend it for everyone or let parents decide on their own (neutral recommendation).

 

[JTalbain]

If medical studies point to increased advantages of circumcision, they may once again start to recommend it because they will say the advantages outweight the costs. And once you do this, it then comes back to "it is easier, cheaper and better to do it on the baby than on the adult".

Cheaper, perhaps. Easier and better, not on this planet. Talk to ANY pediatric surgeon, and they will educate you on the dangers of performing surgery on an infant. Everything is smaller, any accidental or imprecise cut is much more dangerous. Every body part is more fragile. The blood loss a baby can lose before going into shock is measured in ounces, and transfusion is more complicated. On top of that, any injuries you manage to get under control can create complications later in the child's life, because the body part you were working on wasn't fully developed yet. Surgery on infants is always inherently risky.

If they could find out some gene that will cause a guy to want to have sex with prostitutes or gay sex, then they could screen all babies and circumcise only those in high risk groups (think of the movie Gattica). But this isn't going to happen soon, so society looks at whether to recommend it for everyone or let parents decide on their own (neutral recommendation).

Or they could recommend against it in the name of good medicine, because there are many reasons not to perform surgery on children. Despite most advantages studies claim by circumcision, almost none of these will affect the infant until he is an adult.

The entire point of performing circumcision on children isn't good medicine, it's to take advantage of the fact that the child can't say no.

 

[SirConcis]

The issue here is long term planning. If it is feared that HIV will jump to heterosexuals in a big way in the future, then you need to start circumcision of babies now so that it will help curb an explosioon of HIV 18-20 years from now.

Africa does not have that luxury because AIDS in in full blown explosion, so they need to circumcised young adults ASAP. But in a place like australia where heterosexual aids isn't exploded yet, they have the luxury of time if they start circumcising babies now.

On the other hand, if/when heterosexual AIDS does become a problem, Australia could start a large scale adult male circumcision campaign. This has costs that are higher than doing it to the newborn.

 

[Titsdude21]

The ppl who promote RIC are the ppl who who make me want to give up on the human race all together.

 

[Sardonic]

One of my best mates has just found out he's expecting a son.

I've told him most Aussie boys are left intact these days, but he wants him cut to "match" Daddy.

Any suggestions on convincing him not to circumcise? I fear it's a lost cause.

I hear this time and time again and just don't understand it. What is a heterosexual father planning that the status of his son's cock is an issue? Jerk off together? Fuck prostitutes together? Hang out together naked at the local supermarket?

Why on earth would any man care that his son's cock matched his own? The only honest explanation that I've ever had from any of my friends who came out with this when questioned was a mate who admitted that the jealous part of him didn't want his son to have something he'd been robbed of. How is that for twisted?

 

[Sardonic]

Oh, and on those African studies. Regardless of whether circumcision does anything to protect against HIV or not, there is some feedback from places like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Swaziland that guys who have been circumcised think that they are now 'immune' from HIV and are engaging in unprotected sex because of that belief. It would be ironic if HIV became more prevalent because of the psychological impact of circumcision and the superman effect.

 

[JTalbain]

I hear this time and time again and just don't understand it. What is a heterosexual father planning that the status of his son's cock is an issue? Jerk off together? Fuck prostitutes together? Hang out together naked at the local supermarket?

Why on earth would any man care that his son's cock matched his own? The only honest explanation that I've ever had from any of my friends who came out with this when questioned was a mate who admitted that the jealous part of him didn't want his son to have something he'd been robbed of. How is that for twisted?

While that does definitely sound twisted, I don't think most parents who are cut choose to cut on the basis of jealousy. I think that what it boils down to much more is that parenthood is scary, there are all sorts of decisions you have to make for you and yours, and people are treading into unfamiliar territory with their first children in particular. They probably just want to keep as much of the experience as "familiar" as possible. They don't want to be the person without the answer when their charge asks them why something is the way it is.

For an illustration, what if the son asks why his father is circumcised and he isn't? If there isn't a definite reason for it (the father was cut at birth), then the father doesn't really have an answer. People take this to mean that they don't want the child to ask about their penis at all, but what about the more obvious differences which aren't addressed by circumcision? "Daddy? Why is your peepee so big and hairy?" Most parents will answer, some with a great deal of pride, that it'll get that way when he is older. That's how he'll know when he is becoming a man. They're comfortable answering this question because they know the answer. Those fathers aren't going to seek penile reduction surgery and shave their pubes to avoid it.

Choosing to circumcise your son to avoid awkward questions caused by "not matching Daddy" is for the parent's benefit, not the child's. Google "adamant father syndrome"; this is an illogical choice performed in spite of logical arguments against it, not in their absence.

The issue here is long term planning. If it is feared that HIV will jump to heterosexuals in a big way in the future, then you need to start circumcision of babies now so that it will help curb an explosioon of HIV 18-20 years from now.

Wow, still trying to justify on the basis of HIV prevention? Even the studies which propose circumcision for this state that condom use is still required, and that this only works if: 1) Most AIDS transmission is through heterosexual sex and 2) A very large proportion of the population is infected. This doesn't apply to any first world country, and it's still uncertain whether the studies even apply to Africa, given the contradictory statistics from other countries.

Africa does not have that luxury because AIDS in in full blown explosion, so they need to circumcised young adults ASAP. But in a place like australia where heterosexual aids isn't exploded yet, they have the luxury of time if they start circumcising babies now.

Even those promoting RIC through spun studies and faulty medicine don't have the apocalypse scenario dependent on a failure to circumcise. They realize it is bullshit. You're trying to hard here, just admit you were wrong and walk away. Everyone will think better of you for it.

On the other hand, if/when heterosexual AIDS does become a problem, Australia could start a large scale adult male circumcision campaign. This has costs that are higher than doing it to the newborn.

Not to mention it would fail miserably. Considering that condom use would still be required, antiretroviral drugs can still give a normal life span, and that AIDS testing exists, those who are truly worried about transmission will probably just elect to play it safe and keep all of their anatomy. Kind of like they already do.

 

[Snozzle]

The issue here is long term planning. If it is feared that HIV will jump to heterosexuals in a big way in the future, then you need to start circumcision of babies now so that it will help curb an explosioon of HIV 18-20 years from now.

Africa does not have that luxury because AIDS in in full blown explosion, so they need to circumcised young adults ASAP. But in a place like australia where heterosexual aids isn't exploded yet, they have the luxury of time if they start circumcising babies now.

On the other hand, if/when heterosexual AIDS does become a problem, Australia could start a large scale adult male circumcision campaign. This has costs that are higher than doing it to the newborn.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]In no year since the beginning of the HIV epidemic has more than 100 Australian-born men contracted HIV from women. There is no reason to suppose there should be any "explosion". The virus knows nothing of sexual orientation and to talk of it "jumping to heterosexuals" is fact-free. Based on population, it can be[/FONT] calculated that in Australia, you'd have to circumcise more than 1,800 babies to prevent one HIV transmission. (And I suspect that the figure for the US would be similar.) This assumes that the African studies are accurate.

 

[Snozzle]

One of my best mates has just found out he's expecting a son.

I've told him most Aussie boys are left intact these days, but he wants him cut to "match" Daddy.

Any suggestions on convincing him not to circumcise? I fear it's a lost cause.

 

[aussienick]

Boys should be given a choice.

I was cut back when it was the done thing, so can't be angry about it.

But would leave my sons uncut.

 

[SirConcis]

Snozzle, you are correct that, as of now, HIV in heterosexuals is not a big problems in Australia (or other western countries). Since it is not a big problem, circumcision would not have any significant impact NOW.

The question remains however: what if HIV did become prevalent in the heterosexual population ? In the sixties and early 70s, the sexual revolution changed sexual habits and promiscusous sex was quite common. Right now, promiscusioius sex is less common.

But what if there was another sexual revolution and promiscusous sex came back ? At that time, HIV would be able to spread quite a bit in heterosexual community. The big question is whether circumcision should be done proactively in case this happens (which would reduce the spread of the disease) or whether the medical system should wait for such an epidemic to begin before starting to takle action (at which point, it will cost a whole lot more to treat so many people and take much more forcefull action to curb the spread.

HIV and most sexual diseases are due to promiscuous sex.

If Africa had been 100% circumcised starting in the 1980s, the spread of the desease would have neen much slower and perhaps not become a massive pandemic. So in hindsight, it would have been better to have introduced circumcision before AIDS became a problem.

So the question on whether circumcision should be introduced now to help control a possible epidemic later on is valid. But one has to weight the odds of promiscusous heterosexual sex coming back in vogue in the westernm world.

 

[herkimer snow]

People still give credibility to the African studies???!! Amazing.

 

[D_Bud Priapist]

My dad left me and my brother uncut, although he is cut. He said there was no need to do such a procedure that's not even needed.

Sorry, but all this crap about HIV and if to / not to cut newborns I think is stupid. Call me dumb if you want, but freeken hell guys, wrap your dam tool! Clean it + look after it and don't re-use your bloody drug needles... ... ...
Anyone who thinks that Australia should bring this back, "I" think, is personally retarded.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

SirConcis,

That premise requires assuming that another sexual revolution is likely in the face of HIV; and that circumcision would be the best solution in cost-benefits. Both of these premises seem very sketchy to me. We have plenty of people dying and suffering now, from non-theoretical epidemics, that prophylactic treatment of theoretical epidemics seems ridiculous. Also, circumcision is very expensive prophylaxis. Basically, $500 gets you a couple of circumcisions, when you need over a thousand to reduce one case of HIV. Instituting mass circumcision now would divert resources that would currently be more effective against the spread of HIV. You understand what I'm saying? Circumcision would be almost inherently counterproductive as a health policy even if the first part of your argument is true, which I see no evidence for either.

Even if this were a cold utilitarian debate of health policy, ignoring consent ethics, infant circumcision is poor health policy.

 

[trailmaster99]

Originally in Canada circumcision was the norm until 1986 because medical researchers claimed that they had clinical proof that uncircumcised penises could carry and spread HPV (human papaloma virus) which was considered to be the cause of certain types of cancers for both men and women (penile, ovarian, cervical, etc.).

So to prevent the spreading of the HPV, the easiest way was circumcision. So since there is a link between HPV infections and cancer, Health Canada covered the costs of the proceedure (it was free). It was only after the federal government found out from Health Canada that the decrease in cancer rates had not fallen significantly (as in the amounts the federal government wanted) in men and women that they stopped covering the costs of it.

How much does it cost? In 2004 in Alberta, a circ cost $650. My twin nephews were born in 2004 and because of the cost, they were left intact. I believe most, if not all, circumcisions performed before 1986 were carried out simply because they were "free".

So, here we are 25 years later and the doctors are saying that circumcision will prevent the spread of HIV. Hmmmm.... Maybe yes...or maybe no. Sure sounds like somebody in the medical field wants to start that "fad" again.

I'm not for circs but I'm also not against them. I believe sometimes they are necessary (phimosis) but I think people should research the topic and make their own decision. I was a product of that era here in Canada. All my friends and family were all done and never thought twice about it. When I asked my Dad about it after I found out what it was, his reply was that they never knew until they changed my first diaper and that it was "standard proceedure".

Here's my opinion on it:
Fads come and go. Fashion comes in and out of style. Attitudes change. If you were circumcised at birth, understand that it was done at a time when attitudes were different. At one time hairy chests and bell bottoms were in style. Today there are more guys than ever shaving their chests and forskins are in.

So, who knows, maybe attitudes regarding the 'ol circ will change again in the future. I hope not but it doesn't make any difference to me. I'm just happy with what the Good Lord and my Mama gave me

Afterall, do I have a choice?

 

[ozze]

u can get reported to child welfare if u give a kid a smack for mis behavin in a super market her in aussie land . so how bad to cut a kid at birth leave him alone let him get older so he can hav a say in it

 

[Ronald75]

Wonder if we'll ever see 80% of Aussie boys getting circumcised again?

YouTube - Circumcision Debate Reignited

There are about ten old men in Australia who are pushing to turn the medical clock back to 1950 and reinstitute the general practice of circumcision. These old men likely were circumcised as kids as have emotional issues that make them want everyone to be circumcised.

The decline in circumcision started in 1971. Men born after 1975 are mostly intact.

The public is not accepting their spiel and it is falling on deaf ears. The RACP has rejected their claims.

The younger fathers are not circumcised and they are rot getting their kids circumcised. The rate of circumcision has dropped to 9 percent in 2012.

Australian circumcision statistics | Circinfo.org

I look for further decline in the rate of circumcision as more intact men become fathers.