Yet more evidence for Circumcision
- Thread starter Phil Ayesho
- Start date
There are no benefits to circumcision (unless there is a true medical need).
The net benefit of circumcision is negative. There are many diseases that can be prevented by cleaning your penis everyday. If the medical professionals think that circumcision can reduce HIV, why the number of HIV patients are lower in Europe and Asia even though majority of men over there are uncircumcised?
I am saddened to see this one hashed out endlessly.
Normally I find most of Phil's Postings to be very good and in most cases I would agree with them. On this particular posting I choose to respectfully disagree.
The family business for me as a kid growing up was medicine. Sorry guys, the Stepfather was an MD and a World War II front line Surgeon. He was at that point in his life a "real" Hawkeye Pierce.
During WWII there was a huge push for soldiers to consent to and be circumcised. The reasons for this my friends was not at all altruistic or a "gift" by the United States Government to Military Personnel. It was a simple economic issue for the military. The problems with the absence or presence of a foreskin did not relate in any manner to anything other than the lack of opportunity for personal hygiene. In a civilized society where hygiene is practiced there is really not reliable evidence that can in fact prove the absence or presence to be significant.
The greatest problems during World War II took place in the Pacific Theater. In the European Theater, the statistics were completely different. Those serving in Europe were likewise encouraged into circumcision. Why if there was no problem? The reason was that until the very last minute as the War ended in Europe those same troops were already scheduled to be transported around the World to start fighting in the Pacific.
If one does detailed research there are some bits and pieces of data that indicate a time where circumcision is a good idea. I agree that there are circumstances where it can be advantageous, but I will never endorse it for everyone, nor will I support the advocacy of this procedure for all men period. The circumstances I endorse are when there is a medical reason to do this procedure. The one medical reason I will not support is the fattening of some MD's wallet. That is an economic reason and is not a medical reason. It is also an unfair advantage given a certain minority group with a strong lobby to siphon money into the pockets of a private industry (medicine)
A reason I feel would be valid would include circumcision of a child suffering from mental retardation. It is difficult to have a child of this nature learn and practice good hygiene.
I am circumcised and the MD who performed this on me never even asked my parents permission to perform this operation and submit a bill. It is definitely elective surgery and is not a required part of the birth of a male child.
There are several medical conditions which create problems with a foreskin. Under this circumstance I approve and endorse the procedure.
The basic line: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" applies here.
Cosmetics/esthetics is a matter of taste.
As far as HIV in third world countries relating to circumcision this is pure conjecture. I would question education and hygiene a great deal more on this issue. Dirty unwashed penis in dirty unwashed clothing, unprotected sex, malnutrition causing immune system abnormalities, polluted water with bacteria counts that is incredible is another problem. There are places where people urinate and deficate into the same water that they consume and the same water in which they launder their clothing.
It is really easy for this to be blamed on the absence or presence of a foreskin, but it is again something that is little more than a snowjob and evidence of the failures in education and the failures in education. It is also evidence of the interference of churches (particularly the Catholic Church) in the education and distribution of birth control and safe sex information. All of this has had effects and the rest is simply a cover up.
Normally I find most of Phil's Postings to be very good and in most cases I would agree with them. On this particular posting I choose to respectfully disagree.
The family business for me as a kid growing up was medicine. Sorry guys, the Stepfather was an MD and a World War II front line Surgeon. He was at that point in his life a "real" Hawkeye Pierce.
During WWII there was a huge push for soldiers to consent to and be circumcised. The reasons for this my friends was not at all altruistic or a "gift" by the United States Government to Military Personnel. It was a simple economic issue for the military. The problems with the absence or presence of a foreskin did not relate in any manner to anything other than the lack of opportunity for personal hygiene. In a civilized society where hygiene is practiced there is really not reliable evidence that can in fact prove the absence or presence to be significant.
The greatest problems during World War II took place in the Pacific Theater. In the European Theater, the statistics were completely different. Those serving in Europe were likewise encouraged into circumcision. Why if there was no problem? The reason was that until the very last minute as the War ended in Europe those same troops were already scheduled to be transported around the World to start fighting in the Pacific.
If one does detailed research there are some bits and pieces of data that indicate a time where circumcision is a good idea. I agree that there are circumstances where it can be advantageous, but I will never endorse it for everyone, nor will I support the advocacy of this procedure for all men period. The circumstances I endorse are when there is a medical reason to do this procedure. The one medical reason I will not support is the fattening of some MD's wallet. That is an economic reason and is not a medical reason. It is also an unfair advantage given a certain minority group with a strong lobby to siphon money into the pockets of a private industry (medicine)
A reason I feel would be valid would include circumcision of a child suffering from mental retardation. It is difficult to have a child of this nature learn and practice good hygiene.
I am circumcised and the MD who performed this on me never even asked my parents permission to perform this operation and submit a bill. It is definitely elective surgery and is not a required part of the birth of a male child.
There are several medical conditions which create problems with a foreskin. Under this circumstance I approve and endorse the procedure.
The basic line: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" applies here.
Cosmetics/esthetics is a matter of taste.
As far as HIV in third world countries relating to circumcision this is pure conjecture. I would question education and hygiene a great deal more on this issue. Dirty unwashed penis in dirty unwashed clothing, unprotected sex, malnutrition causing immune system abnormalities, polluted water with bacteria counts that is incredible is another problem. There are places where people urinate and deficate into the same water that they consume and the same water in which they launder their clothing.
It is really easy for this to be blamed on the absence or presence of a foreskin, but it is again something that is little more than a snowjob and evidence of the failures in education and the failures in education. It is also evidence of the interference of churches (particularly the Catholic Church) in the education and distribution of birth control and safe sex information. All of this has had effects and the rest is simply a cover up.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Posts
- 442
- Media
- 33
- Likes
- 250
- Points
- 363
- Location
- Rainforest dweller
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Another inflamitory thread designed to stir up shit rather than discuss scientific research.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Media
- 421
- Likes
- 2,675
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
What rubbish some people write! The foreskin is a mistake of nature. It is impossible to have really good sex with a loose foreskin. All baby boys should be circumcised until foreskins can be removed by genetic modification. Men with foreskins look as if they have boys' penises! Foreskins look at best comic but most look silly, and when pulled back the slimey red glans is repulsive - so I say again: circumcision is essentialy for good sex (and hygiene). Consider oral se: who would suck an uncircumcised penis unless it had just been washed? Stoppping foreplay to go and wash is a total turn off.
scottredleter
Sexy Member
People get all kinds of infections... if you want to prevent ear infections for instance, just have your children's ears dug out of their head and close them up... that would decrease the scourge of childhood ear infections.
Anyone read what Richard Dawkins view on foreskins is? Evolutionarily speaking if youve got one, there is or was a good reasons for it. Nature does not make mistakes, especially if what you are suggesting is that having a foreskin will make you less attractive to sexual partners, or make you more likely to catch a nasty disease which will prevent you breeding. The fact we still have one is quite good evidence that this makes it more likely we will get to be fathers than if we don't.
Um. well it never occurred to me to think so.
So i take it you think people should not bother cleaning their teeth before having sex with someone, and no need to have a shower? Or maybe having all their teeth removed would get rid of the biggest source of bad breath and yukky bacteria? This is daft reasoning. Being circumcised does not affect the need to be hygienically presentable when engaging in Sex!
FuzzyKen said:
so
1) Hitlers final revenge was to impose circumcision on his enemy yea unto the tenth generation
2) He popularised the Jewish practice of circumcision????
Oh, and returning to the original posting, the article quoted has some interesting posts at the end. It seems to say that in 7 out of 8 african countries where statistics were available, circumcised men are more likely to be HIV positive than uncircumcised ones. This being the case the differences in penile flora between circumcised and not are somewhat academic, unless you are looking for virus eating bacteria lurking under those foreskins which are actively soaking up the HIV and preventing all those africans from getting the disease?
There are several scientific american articles which link each other, but the problem with them is that they basically report the published conclusions of the studies, which on the basis of the only one I looked at in more original detail, just werent justified by their own findings.
Last edited:
That happens to be PERSONAL OPINION NOT MEDIAL EVIDENCE
Last edited:
circumcision = mutilation. Just found that women can also be mutilated and is still a practise in some parts of Africa and one of the reasons is to private women from pleasure/sin. Is male circumcision origins derive from same principle since is also a deprivation of men's pleasure? Any info?
Not so. There were some very high HIV infection rates for various African countries going around some time ago, but the majority of these have been revised downwards. There were some serious statistical errors in correlating these statistics, and in some countries the HIV infection rates were reduced to around one-quarter that which had been previously estimated. There are a number of reasons why HIV was overstated in Africa, and these include false diagnoses of deaths attributable to AIDs, and extrapolating AIDS to estimated HIV infection rates, which were then significantly overstated. Another problem was extrapolating inner-urban HIV infection rates across whole populations, which was not statistically valid.
That's real science all right.
The day a woman's vagina has no bacteria, is the day I'll get circumcised.
Circumcision health benefit virtually nil, study finds - The Globe and Mail
Sorry you gave it up for nothing.
All this does is postpone the inevitable HIV infection, even if it lowers the risk.
If you have unprotected sex in Africa with multiple partners, you will become infected. Will it buy you a few months? Probably. Is that a way to really fight HIV? No. No one says it is, but so many people are clamoring for circumcision, without really thinking it through, and while ignoring the studies in the six African countries in which uncut men were shown to have lower infection rates.
Don't know who you've been with, but it is possible to ask them to wash.
Interesting. I used to hang out with a guy who sucked anyone, anywhere,
pre-AIDS, and often 3 a day. He was circumcised, but he said he never got a unclean one, or one that smelled bad, ever.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Media
- 421
- Likes
- 2,675
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Posts
- 733
- Media
- 421
- Likes
- 2,675
- Points
- 498
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Male
mutilation...
what extremist nonsense...
women in this part of the world greatly prefer them cut.
And both my sons are glad I had it done to them when they were too young to remember.
And so are their girlfriends.
Uh.. look, try boning up on courses in reasoning....
If it reduces the risk of infection... HOW DO THEY DETERMINE THAT?
FEWER INFECTED PEOPLE... that is how.
Reducing transmission means fewer people GET the disease... when fewer enough get the disease, the ability of the disease to spread epidemically is drastically reduced.
The reason transmission in the heterosexual community is so low in the US is because a large percentage of men are circumcised.
In the gay community, transmission i closely associated with drug use and Anal penetration... which often damages rectal tissue offering a way in that a circumcised dick does not.
really... its fine if you want to keep your foreskin... fine if you want to deny your child a minor procedure that will significantly reduce his exposure to sexually transmitted disease...
But its time you foreskin fanatics STOPPED with the 'harm' argument.
The science is conclusive. getting cut reduces not only HIV transmission, but many others...
I should have the right to bestow this added protection on my child in the exact same way I have my child inoculated against common diseases.
And your foreskin fixation is not a valid argument for outlawing the procedure.
Similar threads
