RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference?

RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

somethndif -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:52:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually the correlation of circumcision to standard of living can explain the lower risk of women with high risk partners. The same issue of early detection meaning early treatment could be the causative factor here as well. Without a longitudinal(sp?) study of a large number of women this correlation simply cannot be considered strongly supported. Also I hope you mean the value of the HPV vaccine not value of the HPV virus. The longitudinal study you ask for, was done in studying the effect of circumcision on the tranmission of HIV. Here is a quote from the report I posted the link to earlier. "Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 15–49 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised. The results of the study were so significant that researchers halted the study early and offered circumcision to all participants." In other words, the study took 6,000 previously uncircumcised men, randomly assigned half to be circumcised, then studied what happened. And what happened is that the circumcised group had a much lower incidence of HIV infection than the uncircumcised group. In fact, the results were so unequivocal that the study was halted, and the uncircumcised group was offered circumsion, because not to offer it put them at greater risk. I am assuming that other potentially confounding factors, such as SES, were taken into account. And, according to the report, two other studies have reported similar results, which strongly supports the conclusion that circumcision does, in fact, reduce the risk of contracting the HIV virus and AIDS. Dan

caitlyn -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:54:34 AM)
Just the word "smegma" has already killed what little sex drive I have left. The religious right owes you a royalty. [;)]

darchChylde -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:56:01 AM)
i say ask the newborn, if he says "yes" then circumcise; if he says "no" then don't; if he cries, you have terrified him and he wants to keep his entire wangdangdoodle; if he says nothing, he's considering and will tell you in his own good time, then you just wait until he says "yes" "no" or cries... the first response from that list will be his answer

Zensee -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 12:01:33 PM)
Riotgirl (it's he btw - lol) I admit to emotionalism but that does not dismiss the rational argument or the moral one. A forskin is not a pathological condition and removing it has no clear benefit. There is no comparing that to the preventative measures you took to preserve your daughter's health (I am assuming she was suffering from chronic problems or family history sugested she would). Of course parents consent to medical procedures for their children all the time - necessary procedures. The ones you describe have proven benefits for treating specific conditions. Circumcision, in the majority of cases, neither treats a illness nor does it return clear benefits. It also presents significant and life altering risks. My emotional response is not to unreasoned motives of my own but to the ill conceived actions of parents who would expose their children to such trauma and risk for cosmetic or "cultural" reasons. Z.

aviinterra -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 12:41:17 PM)
I have been with both types of men, and I prefer uncut. They are far more sensitive and that's great fun during play. :) The whole 'clean' agrument is just bullsh*t and made up by lazy parents who are too puritan to teach their boy how to clean his cock. I have decided that if I were ever to have a son, he would be uncut, as is almost every other man in the world. There is no reason that I can find to do this surgery during infancy when he can choose it himself at any age thereafter. I guess it's a consent issue for me, and I do not feel I should be consenting for my newborn about his most guarded piece of anatomy.

DomKen -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 1:09:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: somethndif quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually the correlation of circumcision to standard of living can explain the lower risk of women with high risk partners. The same issue of early detection meaning early treatment could be the causative factor here as well. Without a longitudinal(sp?) study of a large number of women this correlation simply cannot be considered strongly supported. Also I hope you mean the value of the HPV vaccine not value of the HPV virus. The longitudinal study you ask for, was done in studying the effect of circumcision on the tranmission of HIV. Here is a quote from the report I posted the link to earlier. "Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 15–49 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised. The results of the study were so significant that researchers halted the study early and offered circumcision to all participants." In other words, the study took 6,000 previously uncircumcised men, randomly assigned half to be circumcised, then studied what happened. And what happened is that the circumcised group had a much lower incidence of HIV infection than the uncircumcised group. In fact, the results were so unequivocal that the study was halted, and the uncircumcised group was offered circumsion, because not to offer it put them at greater risk. I am assuming that other potentially confounding factors, such as SES, were taken into account. And, according to the report, two other studies have reported similar results, which strongly supports the conclusion that circumcision does, in fact, reduce the risk of contracting the HIV virus and AIDS. Dan Ummm... no. I was talking HPV and cervical cancer in the partners of circumcised/uncircumcised males not anything at all to do with HIV/AIDS. Anyway the above study has some issues. Is circumcision 100% or even 90% effective at preventing HIV infection? No. It correlated to a 50% reduction in the rate of infection compared to the control group. Therefore recommending circumcision in place of real safer sex practices is just a route to an early grave for thousands (millions?) of men and their partners. So what was the point of the study? Certainly not to have a significant effect on HIV infection rates in sub Saharan Africa since no attempt to circumcise every male on the continent is underway. To improve understanding of how the HIV virus spreads? No, it was already well understood that the virus spreads best between functional mucus membranes which the glans of a curcumcised male is not. To justify the ongoing mutilation of infant males? I think we have a winner!

gregor2001us -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 5:14:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: somethndif quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually the correlation of circumcision to standard of living can explain the lower risk of women with high risk partners. The same issue of early detection meaning early treatment could be the causative factor here as well. Without a longitudinal(sp?) study of a large number of women this correlation simply cannot be considered strongly supported. Also I hope you mean the value of the HPV vaccine not value of the HPV virus. The longitudinal study you ask for, was done in studying the effect of circumcision on the tranmission of HIV. Here is a quote from the report I posted the link to earlier. "Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 15–49 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised. The results of the study were so significant that researchers halted the study early and offered circumcision to all participants." In other words, the study took 6,000 previously uncircumcised men, randomly assigned half to be circumcised, then studied what happened. And what happened is that the circumcised group had a much lower incidence of HIV infection than the uncircumcised group. In fact, the results were so unequivocal that the study was halted, and the uncircumcised group was offered circumsion, because not to offer it put them at greater risk. I am assuming that other potentially confounding factors, such as SES, were taken into account. And, according to the report, two other studies have reported similar results, which strongly supports the conclusion that circumcision does, in fact, reduce the risk of contracting the HIV virus and AIDS. Dan You have to be careful with these summaries and what is reported in the media. They make it sound so compelling. And they never qualify it by saying that the authors do NOT recommend it in the US. The other figure often quoted is a 50% reduction in HIV incidence. And this truley sounds like a big improvement. But, when you actually look at what the findings were, it doesn't sound so compelling. In the figures i have seen, circ’d men had a 1.6% chance of contracting aids, while the normal men had a 3.4% chance. Or if you were circ’d you had an incidence of 16 men out of a 1,000, while normal men had an incidence of 34 men out of 1,000. This doesn’t sound as compelling. Or use the number in a more familiar and less frightening context. Relate that 50% to birth control, a similar situation in which you want to be very certain that you are safe. How many people will be satisfied if their birth control method only reduces the chance of pregnacny by 50%? Flip of a coin, in other words. On top of all this, in the details they point out that, in reality, the circ'd person still has to do all the other more effective things like condom use. So in effect, all they get for their circ is a 50 50 chance of being safe when they fail to do the other stuff reliably. How many partners or times do you want to have sex if you only have a "flip of a coin" expectation of being safe? Finally, research indicates this is NOT effective in preventing anal or IV transmission, and therefor (since those are considered the main routes in the US) it will not be effective in the US. So basically, no need to circ unless you anticipate that you or your son will be going to Africa to have sex. and will be unlikely to use condoms or other methods reliably. You need to be an informed consumer of information. Don't expect the News Media to help you. Regards,

gregor2001us -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 5:21:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl You all are driving me nuts. i'm about to have a little man pop out in 3 months and i have yet to figure out what to do on this issue. Personal feelings aside, i want to do the RIGHT thing for him. i want whats best. BUT i cant figure it out. What is the best thing? What is the right thing? With tons of information backing up BOTH sides of the coin and tons of mis information out there........ whats a mother to do? I do not want to make a decision for some one elses life based on my personal feelings. It has to be a logical, correct answer. like i said, i have my own personal feelings. Yet i am trying to steer clear of them. It would be nice if there could be solid medical facts on the issue. Here are some things to consider: Medically speaking, circumcision has no relevant health benefits that can be objectively used to justify its practice, although many members of the medical establishment speculate on its benefits. The foreskin of a healthy newborn penis is an integral part of the body: he, and all other males before him, came into the world with this body part intact and untouched. Either human evolution, Mother Nature or perhaps the Creator has brought him into the world with this part of his body intact. Only in the cases where keeping the foreskin intact poses a clear threat to the health of the newborn male should it be removed through circumcision. But systematic circumcision for any other reason is a violation of the newborn's right to justice. Circumcision also violates the principle of beneficence, which, in a nutshell, states: "when dealing with an individual, you should only do what is good." This principle (as in the Doctor's Hypocratic Oath) requires one to "do no harm" when making choices that will affect another individual. But circumcision, even with use of anesthetic methods, likely causes significant pain. And we do not understand the psyche of newborns enough to know what effect it may have psychologically. Since we do not know the psychological impacts of the surgery on newborn males, we should not simply assume that nothing happens to them. Doing so is like blatantly disregarding the newborn's human rights and violating the principle of non-maleficence. Circumcision also violates another ethical principle: the principle of autonomy. Even though a newborn male has no legal autonomy, the law does protect him from having healthy parts of his body amputated, just as the law protects him from having his arms, legs, head, or testicles amputated. All human individuals must have legal protection of the integrity of their body, and newborns should not be any different. Finally, circumcision is a procedure that can be performed at almost any age, however, it creates serious ethical considerations when being performed on a newborn male who has no say in what is being done to him and its imminent and distant implications. Therefore, if parents and everyone else who thinks that circumcision is beneficial want him to be circumcised, they should wait until he is of legal age to decide whether or not their arguments in favor of circumcision are valid. He may then opt to have the procedure performed or not. Regards,

ExtremeMP -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 5:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterNdorei This is not what you asked, but it is something to consider. When my son was born he weighed 7 lbs 9 oz. When he was circumsized he dropped 9 oz body weight. A 9 oz foreskin DAYUMMMM I'm impressed !?!?! What was he a linebacker? Sumo wrestler? Sorry just couldn't resist! [;)][:D]

slavegirljoy -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 8:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl You all are driving me nuts. i'm about to have a little man pop out in 3 months and i have yet to figure out what to do on this issue. Personal feelings aside, i want to do the RIGHT thing for him. i want whats best. BUT i cant figure it out. What is the best thing? What is the right thing? With tons of information backing up BOTH sides of the coin and tons of mis information out there........ whats a mother to do? I do not want to make a decision for some one elses life based on my personal feelings. It has to be a logical, correct answer. like i said, i have my own personal feelings. Yet i am trying to steer clear of them. It would be nice if there could be solid medical facts on the issue. As the mother of two, there has not been one single decision i made concerning either of them that was not based on my personal feelings. After all, these two babies of mine are my greatest joys in life and there is no way that i am going to make a decision regarding either of them that is not very, very personal. You can read a million different opinions and studies on everything from vaccinations to bedtime rituals and it still comes down to this, what do you - this baby's mommy - feel is right for your baby, in order to give him the very best life you can offer him. Of course, it's good to get input from reliable sources - trusted doctors, family members, other moms - but it still comes down to you doing what you feel is right for your baby. And, when you care so much, you tend to make the best decision. Best wishes to you and your baby. slave joy Owned property of Master David

somethndif -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/28/2007 11:28:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Ummm... no. Anyway the above study has some issues. Is circumcision 100% or even 90% effective at preventing HIV infection? No. It correlated to a 50% reduction in the rate of infection compared to the control group. Therefore recommending circumcision in place of real safer sex practices is just a route to an early grave for thousands (millions?) of men and their partners. So what was the point of the study? Certainly not to have a significant effect on HIV infection rates in sub Saharan Africa since no attempt to circumcise every male on the continent is underway. To improve understanding of how the HIV virus spreads? No, it was already well understood that the virus spreads best between functional mucus membranes which the glans of a curcumcised male is not. To justify the ongoing mutilation of infant males? I think we have a winner! It is obvious to me, that regardless of how compelling the medical evidence regarding the benefits of circumcision, you will reject them for some unknown, likely very personal, emotional reason. Your dismissal of a 50% reduction in the rate of HIV infection is frankly mindboggling. I don't know what the rate of HIV infection among men is in Africa, but let's say its 100,000 per year, and it is probably much higher. To me, reducing the infection rate by half, to 50,000, by this relatively simple procedure, would be dramatic and fantastic. And no one is recommending circumcision instead of safe sex practices, as you wrongly state, certainly not the authors of the study, NIH or me. In fact, I expect that the use of safe sex practices among the circumcised and uncircumcised men in the study was approximately the same, or was accounted for as an obvious potentially confounding factor. And still the study found a 50% reduction in the rate of infection. The fact remains that this study and others have shown that there are medical reasons -- good ones in my opinion -- for circumcising male infants and, for that matter, sexually active adult men. Instead of just attacking the existing research showing the medical benefits of circumcision, can you point to one, just one study, that reaches the opposite conclusion, that not circumcising has medical benefits? I do not know of any, and I doubt that you do either. To me it seems that your argument comes down to, "don't remove what God has placed there." Which, to me, is not an argument based on facts or evidence at all, it is an argument based on religious and moral reasons. If you want to base your decisions about circumcision on religious and moral reasons, that's fine. But why do you feel you must attack the scientific evidence, which I think is considerable, and compelling? That is what I really don't understand. Finally to argue that the purpose of the study was to "justify the ongoing mutilation of infant males," is just insulting and irresponsible. It also says more about you and your feelings about circumcision, than it does about the researchers who conducted the study. Dan

NorthernGent -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/28/2007 11:36:27 AM)
Right, I'm going to speak up for the foreskin adequate members of CM. Half an inch of extra girth. You have to be happy with that.

MsOpal -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/28/2007 11:43:53 AM)
Just my opinion as a reciever of both types ... if I had to select based only on intact or not ... i pick intact. So much more to do with it when ... well, never mind.

NorthernGent -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/28/2007 11:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsOpal Just my opinion as a reciever of both types ... if I had to select based only on intact or not ... i pick intact. So much more to do with it when ... well, never mind. MsOpal, I'm intrigued with the "so much more to do with it" when intact. Like what.........make a dog out of the foreskin as if it were a balloon......or even pull the foreskin out, climb down the shaft and use the foreskin as a sleeping bag? Any info will be appreciated here.

Zensee -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/28/2007 10:39:19 PM)
Dan, by introducing God into the argument are you attempting to typify those who favour leaving a tip as purely superstitious? (Talk about insulting.) Asking for studies proving medical benefits of not circumcising is, in essence, asking to prove a negative (as scientific no-no). Why don’t you try and find medical studies on the medical benefits of any normal, healthy human body part or function. They don’t exist either. All studies are on pathologies and their treatments. A foreskin is not a pathological condition. Questions about the methodology, results and interpretation of those studies “proving” significant reductions in HIV risk amongst circumcised men, leave much unanswered and have much to answer for. They are hardly sufficient to justify a policy of universal circumcision amongst sexually active adult males, let alone Routine Infant Circumcision. Please consider the following links as an introduction to the contrary argument: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html Projecting the dubious results of the African studies onto another continent and upon a future generation seems irresponsible. By the time today’s male UMs become sexually active it is likely that a vaccine or other effective treatments for HIV AIDS will be developed. Circumcising all male children today for STD prevention tomorrow begins to look rather like a knee-jerk, emotional reaction itself. Given the ambiguity of the “science” the question reverts to a moral and ethical one. Whose penis is it? Well it’s not daddy’s and it sure as hell isn’t mummy’s. Z.

sleazy -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (3/1/2007 1:51:26 AM)
If the claimed co-relation between cervical cancer & uncircumsised males is correct, then surely North America and Isreal should have the lowest per head of population cervical cancer rates of the world. I would suspect this is not the case. Penn & Teller once devoted one of their Bullshit shows to the issue, perhaps that may give you some useful information if you are able to obtain a copy. Hygeine is a non issue really, if you can teach a child to brush their teeth you can presumably teach them to take care of other body parts. I find it odd that OP appears more worried on the effect of their offspring pleasing women rather than their offspring having the best experience for themselves, although I could be misreading that. Here in the UK circumcision is seen as purely elective (normally.) and only done with a justifiable medical reason or on religous grounds, I really dont understand the US mindset as regards it being "normal"

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125