did anyone else see the NY times circumcision article?.....

[B_VinylBoy]

I am sorry but this is not true. At least not completely.
You don't know me, so your judgment is obviously derived only from the written word. A couple of observations:

I only have your written word to go by, and thus far it doesn't look too good. But perhaps I can be persuaded?

1. Personally I find cut penises very sexy if they are well done, which is not very common. Very often you see horrible scars, bi- or tricolored skin etc.

And you jump out of the gate with an argument that encompasses vanity. Not a good start.

2. Being uncut but with very short skin ("autocircumcized" they say) my personal status is similar to people loosely cut.

OK.

3. That cut penisses have no smegma is as far as I know true. The question is whether normal hygiene suffices. The answer is YES. Many civilized countries show this fact (I have been to Scandinavia and all over the world, I live in Switzerland and I know what I am talking about).

And I'm a world traveller with my own share of international "trade". You won't hear me make an argument regarding the smell of one's dick because anyone can use soap & water.

4. Women should stop making a big fuss about smegma because they produce 10 times more than a man (and they produce other unpleasant stuff too). They should also perform personal hygiene and this suffices.

The same way you should not make a fuss because of how it looks, as pertained in declaration number one? Ummmmm... double standard?

5. Many body parts can get dirty and you do not chop them off a priori.

Most parents who decide to get their infant boys circumcised are not thinking just on this belief. It's one that has been completely exaggerated by those who are against the procedure.

6. The US holds no monopoly of cleanliness. Neither personal nor environmental. At least compared to most of Europe. WW II finished 60 years ago and there has been quite an evolution on this side of the pond.

As doesn't Europe even though it does rank higher than the US in pertains to cleanliness. But I'm sure the Forbes study didn't include circumcision as part of the criteria.

7. The HIV epidemics is related to behavior and not to circumcision status.

That is something you cannot prove. You're not a scientist, and as long as we have medical experts that state otherwise it's something we have to consider while we devise our own opinion.

8. We have seen the demonization not only of foreskins, but also of tonsils, wisdom teeth, ovaries, uteruses etc.

Ummmm... are you even trying to compare tonsils & wisdom teeth to circumcision? You seriously cannot be grasping at straws this much.

9. A lot of medical practice is the fruit of irrational belief, fashion and not of science (it is not "evidence based" according to a fashionable expression).

Again, that's your opinion and not stipulated by most medical truths or facts.

10. A lot of fashions are dictated by the interests of lobbies or of corporations.

And is there an International Association of Circumcision somewhere that we don't know about?

11. Peer pressure is unbelievable in societies that claim to protect personal freedom and individuals.

That's a cop-out. Peer pressure is nothing more than a group trying to force people to think or do what they feel is right. And that's everywhere in our society wherever you live. From a poster on a wall, to a television or radio ad, to a fiscal or political agenda pushed under the guise of everyday people while being funded by corporate influence in an attempt to make more money.

12. Adults can dispose of their bodies as they like as long as they do not oblige others to do the same.

And in the case of circumcision, nobody is forcing you to do that.

13. Irreversible and controversial surgical procedures should NOT be performed on infants, neither male nor female.

This is the biggest issue I have with those who are against circumcision. That is not your call to make. Parents choose to not circumcise their newborn or infant males because THEY HAVE A CHOICE. But to deny someone else that same right to choose because they may decide to is wrong. Strip away all of the excuses, the reasoning, the medical & conspiracy theories and this is what it boils down to.

14. Chopping off body parts from innocent infants as a religious ceremony and making it sort of THE central part of religion tells a lot about the nature of that religion, or at least of the interpretation of it in the 21st century.

Careful... you're about to discriminate against a group of people just because of a ritualistic practice that you don't agree with. If the idea is to paint an image of objectivity & acceptance, that's the last thing you should be doing.

15. People that have lost their foreskins can for sure be thoroughly happy. The neuroplasticity of the brain mostly compensates for the loss if they have not been butchered.

The brain has a LOT more to do with it than any nerve endings on one's dick. That's where everything (including sensation) is processed, and you decide whether or not you like it. Case in point, I know people who like to have their balls licked and others who don't. Shall we not tell someone who has to have a testicle removed for whatever reason that they're now mutilated and not "what nature intended"?

16. How many botched circumcisions occur yearly in the US? Would you take the risk for your newborn son? Personally, NO.

Statistics show that more than 90% of circumcisions performed are done without complications worldwide. The decision to decide whether or not to circumcise my newborn son will be made between myself, my child bearer and my doctor. Personally, I don't care either way because I'd be adamant in teaching my son his true sense of being and self-worth beyond what is (or isn't) between his legs. But as you have the choice to circumcise or not, I would appreciate having that same choice. And if we wind up not agreeing, then that's something you'll have to deal with.

Don't tell me that I don't have any right to choose when you essentially made a choice yourself.

PS Sorry if I have made spelling errors etc. I am not an english native speaker and I need to speak and write 4 or 5 different languages daily.

None taken. :biggrin1:

 

[aleceiffel]

I don't really want to get involved in the flame war here, and I'm honestly not one of those uncut guys that feels the need to crusade but I feel there are some very, very important things to point out about the study on which this policy is apparently based.
There is an incredibly important detail about this study's population that continues to be left out of every article I read about it. The fact is that the communities in which circumcision is routinely practiced in these areas are communities in which there is a stronger medical and religious community who are able to offer services that other communities lack. In those communities, if you are routinely circumcised by medical professionals, by nature you have access to better conditions by default, which has been proven to have a much bigger impact on the HIV risks than anything else. These communities are given more information about STD's and HIV in particular, have better access to healthcare and safe sex materials, and are already educated on better sexual practices. The actual effects of circumcision on keeping HIV at bay are then suspect given all the surrounding conditions which have been left out of the subsequent reports. Add to that the fact that the rate of HIV infection of circumcised men in other, developed countries is close to or equal to the infection rate of uncircumcised men and you really have to wonder why circumcision is suddenly being held up as a means of combating the AIDS epidemic.
The truth is that the only way to remain safe is to practice safe sex; reports like these are dangerous because they lead to people believing that just being circumcised makes you safe from HIV. While plenty of us are able to figure out that's laughably inaccurate, the sad truth is that quite a few people won't see it that way and I'm incredibly disappointed that the medical community in any nation would think this is a viable solution or safe communication for the masses.

 

[porter111]

The NY times should be writing articles that defend liberty, as this is part of our us constitution. All political parties should rally around the constitution and the position of liberty, that everyone has a choice in what happens to their body. Routine infant circumcision shouldn't be happening at all, this is a dangerous precedent, of allowing uneccessary medical surgeries on a baby without their consent. Reminds me of the parents from asian that wanted a short daughter so they shortened their daughters legs through surgery and justified it as okay.

Porter

 

[MalakingTiti]

Here the hell we go a-fuckin-gain.

 

[Incocknito]

Would you condone removing a newborn girl's cervix because she might develop cervical cancer?

Or are we going to start removing appendices at birth now, just on the off chance that a very small percentage develop appendicitis?

Why is circumcision any less ridiculous, crazy or disproportionate with reality?

Answer: it isn't.

I can understand surgery performed in order to correct an existing condition. I can understand elective surgery, elected by a person of their own free will.

I can't understand pre-emptive, forced, unnecessary and potentially damaging surgery on poor defenceless babies.

 

[darkbond007]

Because murderers kill people with their dicks and HIV is transmitted by weapons of mass destruction.

My analogy went way over your head didnt it?

 

[darkbond007]

Would you condone removing a newborn girl's cervix because she might develop cervical cancer?

Or are we going to start removing appendices at birth now, just on the off chance that a very small percentage develop appendicitis?

Why is circumcision any less ridiculous, crazy or disproportionate with reality?

Answer: it isn't.

I can understand surgery performed in order to correct an existing condition. I can understand elective surgery, elected by a person of their own free will.

I can't understand pre-emptive, forced, unnecessary and potentially damaging surgery on poor defenceless babies.

The simple notation is that people who really get circumcised or circumcise their sons rarely if ever circumcise them to say they wont have to clean or they will have less of a chance to contract HIV.

Why does a child have to defend themselves from their parents? And if they are allowed to should they also be able to defend themselves in other choices that their parents make for them?

 

[plumbr]

Like Albert Einstein once said,

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

Let nature take it's toll on people who only listen to other people without doing their research and believing every scientific report they see. THERE ARE SUCH things as fabricated research and manipulation.

 

[Viking_UK]

I wonder when anyone will get round to studing transmission rates to women from circumcised/uncircumcised men. So far, all of the studies seem to have focused on transmission from women to men, and it kind of gives the impression that women are the "bad guys", the reservoirs of infection.

I'm not saying it is the case, because I don't know, but what if a woman has a higher risk of being infected with HIV by a circumcised man than an intact man who is HIV+? Would that change the pro/anti attitude?

 

[SirConcis]

Circumcision has no effect on male to female transmission because the sperm isn't affected by circumcision status and sperm is "injected" into tge female whether circumcised or not.

In africa, one problem is prostitution. Female catches aids from one person and then transmits it to all the other clients she has. This is where circumcision helps because it reduces by roughly 60% the risk of a male client catching aids from an infected female (usually a prostitute).

And once a male catches aids, he will transmit to to all prostitutes/females he does business with.

In terms of the argument that cultures who circumcised tend to have better medical systems, this is not true. In africa, many tribes do ritual circumcisions out in the bush with no surgical instruments and no medical system.

 

[porter111]

But this study was done by biased reseachers who want to promote circumcision. Plus it was done in africa where they don't have showers and hygenic ways of living.

It doesn't explain cause it can't, why the United States has the highest rate of STD's and Aids out of all the industrialized nations and the highest rate of circumcision, if circumcision was so great it would of kept the rate of std's and aids low. Unlike other countries like spain, france, uk, australia, where the rates of circ are exremely low and there is less aids and stds.

 

[eurotop40]

It doesn't explain cause it can't, why the United States has the highest rate of STD's and Aids out of all the industrialized nations and the highest rate of circumcision, if circumcision was so great it would of kept the rate of std's and aids low. Unlike other countries like spain, france, uk, australia, where the rates of circ are exremely low and there is less aids and stds.

This is what people with common sense think. Let US people chop off whatever they like, if they like to spend money and take risks following all their beliefs. Up to them to feel great about it. Who cares.
They want to make unnecessary operations? Up to them to have the most expensive health systems of the world - as far as it is not "socialized" they think it is perfect.

 

[crossy]

EUROTOP40 the guy from der Schweiz, is awesome and very very bright. I respect and enjoy his counsel.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I see... so delivering a downplaying, backhanded slap of a comment as a rebuttal to a rhetorical argument counts as intelligence? I'll have to remember that next time.

 

[deleted15807]

Indeed? Bright? The bar must be low...limbo low.

 

[deleted213967]

This is what people with common sense think. Let US people chop off whatever they like, if they like to spend money and take risks following all their beliefs. Up to them to feel great about it. Who cares.
They want to make unnecessary operations? Up to them to have the most expensive health systems of the world - as far as it is not "socialized" they think it is perfect.

Try to locate, somewhere in your cerebral backwoods, the concept of ceteris paribus...It will help shed light on the sheer idiocy of your argumentation.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Try to locate, somewhere in your cerebral backwoods, the concept of ceteris paribus...It will help shed light on the sheer idiocy of your argumentation.

Clear as mud. I think we're in the backwoods. Your corner of the U.S. circ rate is down below the national average. Way down, right?

 

[eurotop40]

See how you tolerate any criticism?

 

[SirConcis]

Once again, one needs to look at the differences between Africa and USA. In African AIDS is a heterosexual disease caught by males when having sex with females who have multiple male mates. The penis catches it through the un-keratizined uncircumcised foreskin in contact with the infected <bold>VAGINA</bold>.

In the USA, AIDS is primaririly a GAY and DRUG users disease. Gays catch it via anal sex where circumcision status of the guy with the anus is irrelevant. And for drug users, the penis isn't involved in any way with transmission of disease since it is done through needles.

Circumcision is not the biggest factor in heterosexual transmission of AIDS. Polygamy is. So an uncircumcised socciety such as Sweden probably has low AIDS rates not because of circumcision status (they are all uncut) , but more because males tend to hook up to a single female earlier in life and stay with her, as opposed to African males who "sample" a large number of females throughout their 20s before settling on one when they reach 30 (the case in many african countries).

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Once again, one needs to look at the differences between Africa and USA. In African AIDS is a heterosexual disease caught by males when having sex with females who have multiple male mates. The penis catches it through the un-keratizined uncircumcised foreskin in contact with the infected VAGINA.

Your simplistic scenario explains little. The microorganisms don't care which way they go. You could as easily endorse female circumcision as a preventative. C'mon ladies. Line up for some amputation and some keratinization in the interest of disease control.