BS: Circumcision: pros and cons

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Pete
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 05:38 PM

"Pros and cons"?????????

Sorry, what cons are there?!!!!!

I am so glad I'm circumcised. I saw a foreskin this evening and, as always, it looked so uncomfortable. I feel sorry for someone who is doomed to have to go through life with one!! It ust be almost as bad as a vulva!!!

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM

Hey even Yo Yo Ma had a botched job.
Maybe you've seen penis' that take a dogleg left or right.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:11 PM

I have not heard of anyone volunteering to have it done again once they reached adulthood...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:58 PM

...While there might not be medical reasons, there certainly are religious ones.....

If a religion demands genital mutilation, then the religion is wrong.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: folk1e
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:46 PM

I'm definately keeping mine!
I've had no complaints eather!
If most of the medical benefits are realized after puberty why not let everyone decide for themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:57 PM

fewer than 7%, huh? Wow....that many unhappy disfigured and stunted men could account for much of the war and crime in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 05:58 PM

fewer than 7% of the procedures get botched but generally only end with disfigurment or stunted organ growth. The risk of death from infection is insignificant.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:20 PM

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:18 PM

And circumcising infants is child abuse, unless it's to relieve an existing medical condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:14 AM

"...circumcision reduces a man's risk by as much as 65 percent."

Seems quite reasonable to me...less place for the virus to hide and be retained. But obviously, it's still behavior that makes the risk...mass circumcision would only slow the spread, and is sure not likely...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: jaze
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:52 AM

I always thought it rather odd that God would even suggest circumcision. What he do, decide he'd made a mistake?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:46 AM

AIDS risk lower than thought for circumcised

What was rather a working hypothesis two years ago seems to be found true according to new articles in THE LANCET.

But the final data from the trials, to be published Friday in the British medical journal The Lancet, suggest circumcision reduces a man's risk by as much as 65 percent.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:47 PM

Don't you just hate when that happens ?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Louie
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:45 PM

AAAA----AAUUUA----AAARGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 12 Dec 05 - 04:38 PM

There's this situation to consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:56 AM

"Research suggests that it prevents the transmission of the viruses that cause cancer of the womb, HIV/Aids and possibly a variety of other infections,"

Erroneous and potentially dangerous information.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:23 AM

GUEST Obie: I think you'll find it was sheep, not a goat. Though it often hard to tell them apart, proverbially so in fact. otherwise, you're on the button. It does seem a little on the sadistic side, scaring Abraham like that. God's advice seems very very patchy. Thou shalt not kill, not a bad one. Don't eat pork or shellfish, quite sensible in a warm climate in pre-refrigerator days. But banning the eating of chameleons, and stoning people to death for picking up sticks on Saturday seems to me to verge on the eccentric.
   Male circumcision seems to me to be one of the cleverer ideas, though, and not at all barbaric. Research suggests that it prevents the transmission of the viruses that cause cancer of the womb, HIV/Aids and possibly a variety of other infections, seems pretty sound to me. And various males have attested the fact that it is still possible to manage to have a modicum of fun in the rumpy-pumpy department, even minus foreskin. So why not give it a whirl?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:56 AM

It would seem that this "barbaric practice" is advocated in the Bible as a covenant between God and Abraham. Now I am no Bible expert, but if my memory serves me right God used to entertain himself by messing with Abraham's mind.
"KILL YOUR FIRST BORN SON!"
....as Abraham prepares to comply........
      "WHOA ABRAHAM, I WAS ONLY JOKING! HERE'S A GOAT. KILL IT INSTEAD!"
   From such wonderful exchanges some our religious traditions.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:44 PM

CarolC just might have AIDS. She sure seems to know a lot about it.

I'm going to respond to this one because this is a very serious subject, and it should not be taken lightly.

No, I don't have AIDS. I have a son whom I love very much. And as someone who takes my job as a parent very seriously, I made sure to educate myself as much as possible on this subject so that I could give my son the tools and information he would need to protect himself from this terrible disease. And if you love your children, you'll make sure you do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:39 PM

CarolC just might have AIDS. She sure seems to know a lot about it.

Me, I'm glad I'm circumcised. I wouldn't want to have a dog dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Ian UK
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM

Well I`ve not been done, and it seems perfectly natural to me. I was born with it and I still have it.

Now I could argue that teeth really are "a design fault" that need improving upon, but what the hell, I believe in evolution, so I`m sure over the following centuries teeth will improve, and willies will change. (Grow bigger and have more staying power..says the wife!)

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:41 PM

A good point, bobad, but one that I think would be lost on the sexual partner of someone who contracted HIV/AIDS in that way. I understand the need for accuracy, but I also think we can get too bogged down with the nit picking and lose sight of the mose important message, which is that our behavior can have very serious consequenses for other people as well as ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:54 PM

I agree with the points you are making CarolC but I have one teeny tiny nit to pick, and that is in regards to this statement "assuming neither of you uses injectible drugs". The risk is not in injecting drugs but in the sharing of the paraphernalia used in their injectiion.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:16 PM

This part...

I never suggested otherwise, Greg. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I mention both contracting as well as TRANSMITTING the desease in reference to multiple partners.

Is in reference to your suggestion that one only gets HIV/AIDS from one person... NOT in reference to your suggestion that it is responsible behavior to make connections between getting circumcised and spreading HIV/AIDS.

I repeat... it is highly irresponsible to give anyone the idea that they are protected from contracting (and tranmsmitting) HIV/AIDS by getting circumcised because it is completely untrue that being circumcised protects anyone from contracting and transmitting HIV/AIDS. It may reduce your chances, but it doesn NOT protect you.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:09 PM

I never suggested otherwise, Greg. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I mention both contracting as well as TRANSMITTING the desease in reference to multiple partners.

But all of this has nothing whatever to do with the actual point I am trying to make, which is and has been the FACT that circumcision (being circumcised or not being circumcised) is totally irrelevant to the issue of preventing the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS, and the question of whether or not to circumsize should NEVER be linked to the issue of preventing the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS, because it gives people a false sense of security and encourages risky behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM

You are repeating precisely the point I made, Carol. You get it from ONE person. You may then pass it on to several, if you misbehave appropriately. I repeat, you get it from contact with one person, and only one person. Condoms are very good for preventing this. Circumcision, not too good at all, but significantly so statistically, according to the latest research. There is nothin whatsoever responsible in drawing people's attentions tot hese basic facts of life. Quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

One last point on your post, Greg...

While you only need one partner to contract HIV/AIDS, the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS (once you have contracted it) requires that you have sex with more than one partner (multiple partners). First, the person from whom you got it, and then the one to whom you give it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:15 PM

...but regardless of which of the above things you do, getting circumcised (or not getting circumcised) is completely irrelevant, unless you plan to have unprotected sex with anyone you are not in a committed relationship with (and whom you are confident has not cheated on you). If you are sexually active and not in a long term committed relationship, it can be safely assumed that you are having sex with multiple partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:09 PM

Greg, you are not understanding what I am saying. Either that, or you are deliberately missing the point.

If you are going to have multiple partners, you should always use a condom.

If you are in a long term committed relationship, and if you have had any sexual partners prior to the one with whom you are sexually involved currently, you (and your partner, if he or she has also been sexually involved with anyone prior to you) should be immediately tested for HIV/AIDS, and again in about six to nine months (incubation time). You should use a condom until both tests come back negative for both of you. Then, as long as both you and your partner remain only sexually active with each other, and no one else, you can safely have unprotected sex (assuming neither of you uses injectible drugs or has received any tainted blood through a blood transfusion, or has been accidently pricked with a contaminated needle, or has engaged in any other kinds of non-sexual high risk (for HIV/AIDS) behavior.

Aside from complete abstinance, this is the ONLY way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS through sexual contact. Everything else is just a stupid game of Russian roulette.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Tasteless
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:17 AM

PHEWWW! Be a man, be a reeeaaal man ... and I'll clean you up a bit, bobad

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:34 AM

CarolC: I'm afraid you haven't understood what's going on here medically. You absolutely do not get HIV by having sex with mutiple partners. You get it on the occasion you have sex with one partner, who is infected himself/herself. and they transmit the infection to you. You may then, of course, pass it on if you go on to have sex with someone else. But when you get it, you get it from sex with one partner. If you use a condom on that occasion you reduce the risk. Likewise, this modern research is suggesting you may reduce the risk if you are circumcised. It is not at all irresponsible to do this kind of research, or to publicise and discuss the results. It would, of course, be grossly irresponsible to recommend getting circumcised as a reliable means of avoiding getting, or passing on, any sexually transmitted disease: because it's not very effective!.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:57 PM

The cabin boy, the cabin boy, the dirty little nipper...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:56 PM

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Till it's gone
They take off a little slice
And you miss out on a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:26 PM

Eat you heart out Mr. Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:56 PM

Having unprotected sex means you not only 'sleep' with that person, but with every other person that individual has slept with, and they have slept with, etc. Basically, it's a really stupid idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:32 PM

Better analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:23 PM

Yes, and it's also like putting a six shooter with only one bullet in it up to your sexual parners' heads and saying, "if I pull the trigger, there's only a one in six chance that I'll kill you".

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 04:54 PM

Agreed CarolC

Sort of like saying, "I think I'll deliberately poke my eye out with a sharp stick. If I wear my sunglasses I might miss."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

The only thing that should be taught about preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is that nothing can guarantee that it won't be contracted and spread except the use of condoms and/or sex with only one long-term partner. Anything else is completely irresponsible, and encourages irresponsible behavior.

The only reason someone would get circumcised for the purpose of preventing HIV/AIDS would be if they intended to have unprotected sex with multiple partners. Otherwise they would have zero risk of contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual contact. If you suggest that they get circumcised for that purpose, you are encouraging them to have unprotected sex with multiple partners (otherwise circumcision for that reason would be irrelevant).

That's just stupid. You and Wolfgang really ought to know better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM

CarolC: if uncircumcised sex is being shown to lead to the spread of HIV/Aids, it seems to me an incredibly sensible thing to consider encouraging circumcision. You call that irresponsible...I really can't see why. It is just the same with condoms: their use prevents the spread of infection, so use them. Pretty obvious isn't it? Of course, in some idealised world, people wouldn't be having sex with the wrong people....but we are dealing with human beings here.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM

280 posts! WOW! That's a lot of dickering around.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:40 PM

You're the one who is talking nonesense, Wolfgang. People use that kind of information as justification for things all the time. Just look at this thread as an example. There are several posts on this thread by people suggesting that prevention of HIV/AIDS is a good justification for circumcision. Prevention of HIV/AIDS should NEVER be used as justification for circumcision, but we see people right here in this thread who are using it that way.

And that is the only thing I am disagreeing with. I don't disagree with the results of the studies. But I do disagree with anyone who uses the results of the studies to suggest that people can use prevention of HIV/AIDS as a justification for circumcision. To do that is highly irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:21 PM

Risk for contracting/transmitting HIV/AIDS should not be linked in any way to someone's decision about whether or not to be circumcised. There just shouldn't be any connection there whatever. (Carol)

Carol, you are talking nonsense. Whether the relative risk is related to circumcision or not is an empirical question and not a question of political expedience or personal preferences. Facts (if they are corroborated, for up til now it's just one prospective study) and evaluation should never be muddled.

I always prefer knowledge to a state of not knowing. What I make of the facts and the knowledge is something entirely different.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:00 PM

Risk for contracting/transmitting HIV/AIDS should not be linked in any way to someone's decision about whether or not to be circumcised. There just shouldn't be any connection there whatever. If someone is thinking along those lines, it means that they are thinking about having unprotected sex with multiple partners. People should not be encouraged in any way to do this. Anyone who sponsors such a study and allows it to be used as a part of trying to promote the practice of circumcision is behaving very irresponsibly. If people are going to consider circumcision as an option, they should be doing it for other reasons. HIV/AIDS should not be one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM

Nobody is seriously claiming that circumcision prevents getting AIDS. The claims are about a risk reduction, not more and not less.

In that recent study in SCIENCE I have referenced above 3274 South African men considering circumcision were split in two equally large groups, one was then circumcised, the other not. At a follow up after two years, 20 in the circumcised group tested positive for HIV, and 49 in the uncircumcised group. The self reported sex patterns were comparable.

Now, if you want to make this difference of 29 look big you report the relative risk reduction for it is 61 %. If you want to make this difference look small you report the absolute risk reduction which is close to but less than 1 %.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

Body piercing wimps, burn design wankers and self inflicted bullet wound wierdos stand aside, make way for men with real guts...

Men with EXTREME circumcisions.
EC - the ultimate in self mutillation is only surpassed by the Ultra EC...yet not to be outdone a rare few have opted for the yearly UCH aka YUEC.

Getting a yearly UEC every hour would be a YEUCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:46 PM

Circumcision is no guarantee of not getting heterosexual HIV/AIDS. It is foolish for anyone, male or female, circumcised or not, to have unprotected sex (sex without a condom) with multiple partners.

Promoting the idea that being circumcised protects people from getting (and more importantly, transmitting) HIV/AIDS is incredibly irresponsible. My advice to my son, from the time he was old enough to understand, has been, don't have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and don't have unprotected sex with anyone who has had any other partners besides him. This means, of course, don't have unprotected sex with anyone with whom you are not in a long term committed relationship.

And if he follows this advice, whether or not he is circumcised becomes completely irrelevant from the standpoint of contracting and/or transmitting HIV/AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM

Well, the papers today are full of research which appears to show that circumcision is remarkably effective at stopping you getting HIV/Aids, at least from heterosexual sex. That sounds like a significant benefit in anybody's book. Mind you, I'm not totally convinced: I believe the research was done on adults who had been circumcised, and covered a couple of years after the operation. Maybe they were just a bit sore, so didn't bother about much activity for a while?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:51 PM

The only beneficial outcome of circumcism I am aware of is the slicing and culturing of discarded foreskins to produce temporary skin for burn victims. One foreskin can grow up to a couple hundred sq. yards of skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:10 PM

FROM RITUAL TO SCIENCE: THE MEDICAL TRANSFORMATION OF CIRCUMCISION IN AMERICA

The article provides a historical view. You'll find that circumcision once was recommended for epilepsy, lunacy, chorea, hernia, orthopedic problems, cancer,...

BTW, the article is a decade old which doesn't matter for the medical history part. But the remarks on the contemporary state of the art are to be read with that in mind. For instance, he complains that the AIDS studies done were only retrospective studies and therefore methodologically flawed. Meanwhile there are also prospective studies (for instance SCIENCE, Vol 309, Issue 5736, 860 , 5 August 2005).

Wolfgang