Circumsized or uncircumsized?

It was totally in our power to make the choice for circumcision. So, you're pretty darn wrong about that.

 

So what do you prefer again?

 

Wrong, for example, the selective service.

Pft, look at you making up statistics, the WHO estimates that about 1/3 of men are cut. In fact here's a nifty graph:

Thank god. Whenever this thread gets bumped somehow accounts that are never active except to go on a rampage against circumcision come back to life to call our dicks mutilated.

 

I said I preferred uncut cocks but didn't actually give my opinion on circumcision.

I'm not agaist it, as long as it's not done without a guy's consent. I'm COMPLETELY against parents circumcising their kids while they're still babies. That's something they should decide themselves when they're adults.

 

Yea but to sum up:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=6471905&postcount=476

 

^ Yeah, but at least you wouldn't have had something done to you without your consent.

 

Yea but I wouldn't have surgery done as an adult when I could consent because, well really I don't want to have surgery anywhere if I'm old enough to remember it.

 

Most wouldn't. Most don't. That's why we make the decision on our child's behalf. Perhaps it's an article of faith, but I know my life has been easier for it, and I'm grateful.

 

So thoughtful of those parents...

 

I'm appreciative that you are willing to lie right out loud instead of being sneaky about it.

NOT ONE national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. Many roundly condemn it.

Of the medical society statements that have been updated recently, they are quite clear. Norway's chief ethicist says circumcision must end: http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/top-norwegian-doctor-wants-circumcision-phased-out/. Holland's medical societies unanimously renounce genital mutilation: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/k...rapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

It's HIS body, and morally the choice about amputating part of it for cosmetic reasons is HIS alone.

Of course circumcision is harmful. From page 11 of the cited Dutch policy:

The Dutch EXPERTS again disagree with you. They devote a whole section of their policy statement to why it is relevant to compare male and female cutting.

The Hebrew sage Maimonides knew in the 12th century:

From Chapter 49, THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED by Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines. University of Chicago, 1963.

This guy's work is widely read. Nobody can pretend the harm from circumcision to male and female sexual enjoyment has not been well understood for centuries.

 

I see a post, but all I see in it is "please circumcise me" *gets out guitar strings for the job*

Oh also the WHO recommends circumcision
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

 

Again you have the courtesy to lie in living color.

Yes, the WHO, which is a politicized desperate charity not a medical association of doctors, acknowledged in 2007 that ADULT VOLUNTARY circumcision may have a role in fighting AIDS - explicitly ONLY in places where the epidemic is so rampant and condom use so difficult (for them) to imagine that lives potentially saved are not outweighed by adverse outcomes (like the 100+ infants who die annually in the US).

HOWEVER, their pronouncement came before it was revealed in 2009 by Wawer/Gray et al that HIV+ men they circumcised in a Tuskegee-esque Uganda experiment were 50% MORE LIKELY to transmit HIV to their female partners than HIV+ men they left intact were. This more than offsets the supposed 60% risk reduction (to males) from the 3 trials the WHO was commenting on in 2007, because females get most of the HIV infections throughout Africa.

Statements in Holland, Finland, Norway, Canada, and Australia have been reviewed since 2007. Not one national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. Infant circumcision is banned in Australian public hospitals and it's illegal for minors under 16 in South Africa.

95% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise. The non-circumcising world is not doing research trying to justify or refute circumcision any more than they are trying to justify or refute amputation of the pinky toe. They just don't consider it. Every mammal evolved a foreskin. None needs surgical correction at birth.

 

I believe that the "Tuskegee-esque" experiment in Uganda is reported here:

http://www.icgi.org/Downloads/IAS/Wawer.pdf

The "Tuskegee-esque" part is false--nobody was denied medical treatment, and all the participants got anti-AIDS education.

You're right about the complete failure of circumcision to reduce the transfer of HIV to women. In fact they stopped the test because early results were so clearly discouraging. On the other hand, the first sentence of the Introduction to the report says:

Three trials of male circumcision in HIV-negative men,
including one undertaken in Rakai, Uganda [the same place
as the male-to-female HIV transfer experiment] showed
that circumcision reduced male acquisition of HIV by
50–60%; as a result, male circumcision is now a
recommended strategy for HIV prevention in men.

As for the fact that the women were more likely to pick up HIV from circumcised partners, it was clear that this related to how soon after the operation the couples started having sex:

The rate of female acquisition of HIV
in couples from the control group was similar to that for
couples in the intervention group who delayed
resumption of sex but significantly lower than the rate in
couples who resumed sex early...

The association between resumption of sexual
intercourse before complete wound healing and
increased risk of male-to-female HIV transmission
makes it imperative that circumcised men and their
female partners are clearly instructed to abstain from
intercourse until the wound is healed.

I didn't see it in the report, but it stands to reason that if men get less HIV infection as a result of circumcision in childhood, there's going to be a benefit for the women they have as sex partners during adulthood. Then the danger of sex when a man has an injured penis wouldn't apply and anyway--the men wouldn't pass on an infection that they didn't have!

How relevant this is to people in North America or Europe, I don't know. We've got this great experiment running where the circumcised Americans ought to have less AIDS than the intact Europeans, but it doesn't seem to be true. So it would appear that the African results apply best to Africa, not anywhere else.

 

if all the doctors interviewed are saying it's wrong? how right can it truly be? and some doctors btw do in fact look at vaccines with suspicion

 

as an american i know of no such routine like female circumcision being routine. but don;t you just love it how most people who are okay with the idea of a man's foreskin ebing removed? find female circumcision to be barbaric? to me it's just certain demographic groups enforcing their cultural norms on to other segments of the population.

 

lmao, "No medical orginization supports this"
"Actually the largest medical organization in the world supports it"
"NO FUCK THEM THEY'RE NOT REAL"

Most medical groups don't "condone" it because they don't oppose it either, the AMA and it's equivalants around the world in near every country say circumcision carries both benefits and risks, it's not a medical nessecity and is a personal and cultural choice.

Also stop saying lies, circumcision is perfectly legal in Australia, public hospitals just stopped offering free circumcision, though it still has a medicaid subsidy. Now come over here so I can smack you with my beautifully cut dick as punishment.

 

Yes, the WHO, which is a politicized desperately ineffective charity not a medical association of doctors, acknowledged in 2007 ONLY that ADULT VOLUNTARY circumcision may have a role in fighting AIDS - explicitly ONLY in places where the epidemic is so rampant and condom use so difficult (for them) to imagine that lives potentially saved are not outweighed by adverse outcomes (like the 100+ infants who die annually in the US).

HOWEVER, their pronouncement came before it was revealed in 2009 by Wawer/Gray et al (the very team that cooked up the supposed HIV-related benefit of circumcising) that HIV+ men they circumcised in a Tuskegee-esque Uganda experiment were 50% MORE LIKELY to transmit HIV to their female partners than HIV+ men they left intact were. This more than offsets the supposed 60% risk reduction (to males) from the 3 trials the WHO was commenting on in 2007, because females get most of the HIV infections throughout Africa.

Statements in Holland, Finland, Norway, Canada, and Australia have been reviewed since 2007. Not one national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. Infant circumcision is banned in Australian public hospitals and it's illegal for minors under 16 in South Africa.

Your CHIEF lie is to use the word "circumcision" to describe both what is imposed upon infants in the US and also what the WHO is raving about: ADULT VOLUNTARY foreskin amputation ONLY in AIDS-riddled places where any hope of widespread condom availability abd usage is a fanatasy. Even at that, their policy ignores the reality that cut men's partners are greater risk.

Personal choice? Show me the infant who ever chose foreskin amputation.

Your lie there is to call "circumcision" both the medically indicated procedure that some doctors get away with prescribing and also the non-therapeutic, routine amputation of healthy normal body parts which is BANNED in Australia's public hospitals. It is ILLEGAL to use Australia's public health system to perform a non-therapeutic circumcision of the type that happens a million times per year in the US.

 

So you really think this experiment could have been done in the open in the US? Affluent people are going to stand for an experiment where they amputate a healthy normal body part, knowingly performing an ineffective intervention, and then watch to see how many untreated people catch a deadly disease?

The study concludes: "Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention." But they knew condoms were effective before they ever let 18% of cut men's wives and 12% of intact men's wives catch HIV. If condoms are used, what additional benefit is derived from a risky pleasure-robbing amputation?

The study also says 50% of the cut men and 36% of the intact men consistsently used condoms.

So even though their condom use was higher, the cut men were STILL 50% more likely to infect their partners.

This study highlights the problem of the other HIV/circ studies, which failed to control for numerous factors. This one took people in a steady relationship and analyzed only the physiological change. The others ignored the possible change in dating patterns of men who had just undergone a culturally significant coming-of-age ritual.

 

Jesus christ if you're going to keep spewing out paranoid propaganda will you sit still already so I can circumcise you.

 

i'd really love to do a poll on who on hipforums is circumsized and who is not....just to see a little statistics on this.


cirsumsized probably would shoot through the roof.

thats sad.