Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Genital mutilation is not even remotely a 'fix' for making sure your kids don't get HIV.☭proletarian☭;2090753 said:And studies refuting them. I posted some links early in the thread.
Also, did you know that girls who have their labia removed and their pussies sewn shut almost never get pregnant or herpes?
But there have been no studies to refute the effect on the transmission of HIV.
And that is really the rub.
Herpes doesn't kill you. Syphilis is curable. HIV is the problem.
Holy cow some of you are nuts claiming this is "mutilation".
Let's see, how many circumcised people here had a traumatic snipping experience? Who even remembers it?
☭proletarian☭;2091006 said:Holy cow some of you are nuts claiming this is "mutilation".
It is mutilation/disfigurement by definition.
Let's see, how many circumcised people here had a traumatic snipping experience? Who even remembers it?
Who remembers being raped when they're given roofies?
Rape is cool, then, right? So long as I giver you a drug that makes sure you don't remember anything?
☭proletarian☭;2063850 said:Circumcision Resource CenterCircumcision Myths and FactsBased on a review of medical and psychological literature and our own research and experience, we conclude that male circumcision causes serious, generally unrecognized harm and is not advisable. Circumcision is a social and psychological issue that is disguised as a medical issue.
Most common circumcision mythsMyth number 2: The intact penis is more susceptible to infection. In infancy the absolute opposite is true. The foreskin is attached to the glans protecting the penis from all bacteria and irritants. What can cause infection is the premature retraction of the foreskin. Pulling the foreskin back before it releases naturally causes tiny micro-tears which introduces and traps bacteria as the foreskin re- adheres to the glans. Never retract the foreskin or allow any medical professional to do so either.
Myth number 4: Circumcision reduces sexually transmitted diseases. I will be short and to the point. The studies done to prove and disprove this theory are extremely conflicted to say the least. What is not under question is the fact that safe sex practices have much more to do with STD's including HIV that circumcision status. So much so, that it seems like insanity to perform surgery on an infant that will only provide a small fraction of what safe sex and condoms will provide.
circumcision myths and factsle decision for their child.
Myth #1: Circumcision is recommended by doctors and medical organizations
Fact: Circumcision is not recommended by any national medical association in the world. Fifteen national and international medical associations have extensively studied infant circumcision and its effects and found no significant evidence to support this practice. In March 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded that infant circumcision is not recommended as a routine procedure.1 The circumcision policy statements of the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Family Physicians have concurred with this position.2-3 The AMA calls infant circumcision non-therapeutic.
Myth #2: Its just a little piece of skin, he wont miss it.
Fact: The prepuce (foreskin) makes up as much as half of the skin system of the penis.4 It is an extension of the shaft skin that folds over onto itself, completely covering and protecting the glans (an internal organ) and provides the mobility of the shaft skin necessary for frictionless intercourse and masturbation.The foreskin has three known functions: protective, immunological, and sexual. It contains about 10,000 highly specialized nerve endings and several feet of blood vessels. An adult male foreskin, if unfolded and spread out, would be about the size of index card (3 x 5 inches), much more than a little piece of skin. Many sexually active men circumcised in adulthood report a significant decrease in sexual pleasure and comfort because of the loss of sensitive nerve endings, skin mobility and natural lubrication.
Myth #3: The care of a circumcised penis is easier than an intact penis.
Fact: For the care of an intact penis, the AAP recommends, Leave it alone. 5 No special care is required an intact child should have the external surface of his penis (and the rest of his body) washed regularly to keep clean. When a male is older and can retract his foreskin (which typically occurs by puberty), a simple rinsing is all that is necessary. 6 Other cultural myths about special cleaning procedures are just that myth.
Myth #4: Circumcision protects males from urinary tract infections.
Fact: Overall, urinary tract infections (UTI) occur at about the same rate in male and female infants during the first six months of life.7 Regardless of circumcision status, infants who present with their first UTI at 6 months (or less) are likely to have an underlying genitouninary abnormality. In children with a normal underlying anatomy, a study found as many circumcised infants with a UTI as those who retained their foreskin.8 The appropriate treatment for UTI, in males as well as females, is antibiotics, not prophylactic excision of the prepuce. According to the AAP, Urinary tract infections are usually not life threatening and are easily treated in most cases. Breastfeeding provides some measure of protection against UTI during the first six months of life.9
Myth #9: Circumcision prevents AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Fact: Some studies show that circumcision has a slight preventive effect for AIDS and some STDs; however, other studies show an insignificant or opposite effect, especially for chlamydia. The bottom line: sexual practices have a much greater effect on the chance of becoming infected than circumcision status. If someone acts on the misconception that circumcision alone will protect them, they are taking unwise chances.
Myth #10: The history of non-religious circumcision is based on disease prevention.
Fact: Non-ritual circumcision evolved from a misunderstanding of bodily function by physicians of the late-19th century.12 Many doctors of that era believed that a normal foreskin could cause disease and lead to increased incidence of self-abuse. John Harvey Kellogg, of cereal fame, was a proponent of genital cutting as a cure for this horrible practice. He recommended performing circumcision without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary [health-giving] effect upon the mind, especially if connected with the idea of punishment.
Motivations for "medical" circumcisionRoutine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.
Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae
Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. The Auvert study in South Africa reported 20 infections in circumcised males.11 A study in Kenya reported 22 infections in circumcised males. Brewer & found higher rates of HIV infection in circumcised virgins and adolescents.24 The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.
AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70.
Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ.
Medical Research Council Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of male circumcision and the risk of HIV-1 infection in men in sub-Saharan Africa, and to summarize the findings in a meta-analysis. DESIGN: A meta-analysis of observational studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was carried out of studies published up to April 1999 that included circumcision as a risk factor for HIV-1 infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa. A random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all studies combined, and stratified by type of study population. Further analyses were conducted among those studies that adjusted for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Of these, 21 showed a reduced risk of HIV among circumcised men, being approximately half that in uncircumcised men (crude RR = 0.52, CI 0.40-0.68). In 15 studies that adjusted for potential confounding factors, the association was even stronger (adjusted RR = 0.42, CI 0.34-0.54). The association was stronger among men at high risk of HIV (crude RR = 0.27; adjusted RR = 0.29, CI 0.20-0.41) than among men in general populations (crude RR = 0.93; adjusted RR = 0.56, CI 0.44-0.70). CONCLUSION: Male circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of HIV infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those at high risk of HIV. These results suggest that consideration should be given to the acceptability and feasibility of providing safe services for male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy in areas of Africa where men are not traditionally circumcised.
PLoS One. 2007 Sep 12;2(9):e861.
Declining rates in male circumcision amidst increasing evidence of its public health benefit.
Mor Z, Kent CK, Kohn RP, Klausner JD.
Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America. [email protected]
BACKGROUND: Recent experimental evidence has demonstrated the benefits of male circumcision for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Studies have also shown that male circumcision is cost-effective and reduces the risk for certain ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The epidemiology of male circumcision in the United States is poorly studied and most prior reports were limited by self-reported measures. The study objective was to describe male circumcision trends among men attending the San Francisco municipal STD clinic, and to correlate the findings with HIV, syphilis and sexual orientation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A cross sectional study was performed by reviewing all electronic records of males attending the San Francisco municipal STD clinic between 1996 and 2005. The prevalence of circumcision over time and by subpopulation such as race/ethnicity and sexual orientation were measured. The findings were further correlated with the presence of syphilis and HIV infection. Circumcision status was determined by physical examination and disease status by clinical evaluation with laboratory confirmation. Among 58,598 male patients, 32,613 (55.7%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 55.2-56.1) were circumcised. Male circumcision varied significantly by decade of birth (increasing between 1920 and 1950 and declining overall since the 1960's), race/ethnicity (Black: 62.2%, 95% CI 61.2-63.2, White: 60.0%, 95% CI 59.46-60.5, Asian Pacific Islander: 48.2%, 46.9-49.5 95% CI, and Hispanic: 42.2%, 95% CI 41.3-43.1), and sexual orientation (gay/bisexual: 73.0%, 95% CI 72.6-73.4; heterosexual: 66.0%, 65.5-66.5). Male circumcision may have been modestly protective against syphilis in HIV-uninfected heterosexual men (PR 0.92, 95% C.I. 0.83-1.02, P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision was common among men seeking STD services in San Francisco but has declined substantially in recent decades. Male circumcision rates differed by race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. Given recent studies suggesting the public health benefits of male circumcision, a reconsideration of national male circumcision policy is needed to respond to current trends.
You're the idiot who claimed no harm was done because people didn't remember it.☭proletarian☭;2091006 said:Holy cow some of you are nuts claiming this is "mutilation".
It is mutilation/disfigurement by definition.
Who remembers being raped when they're given roofies?Let's see, how many circumcised people here had a traumatic snipping experience? Who even remembers it?
Rape is cool, then, right? So long as I giver you a drug that makes sure you don't remember anything?
Wow, you just topped your stupid example of the past with that one
OMG, if only I wasn't circumcised, what a wonderful life I would of lived
What're you babbling about?wow "natural childbirth.org" like that doesn't have an agenda there.
Circumcision of children. These RCTs, which studied HIV transmission among adults in Africa, cannot be used to support the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Infant boys do not engage in sexual intercourse so they are not subject to sexually-transmitted HIV infection. They, however, are subject to various complications of circumcision, including infection through an open circumcision wound with various pathogens, such as deadly CA-MRSA.38,39 Other risks include hemorrhage, exsanguination, and death;40 and various surgical accidents, including urethral fistula,41 penile denudation,42 and traumatic amputation of the glans penis.43 By the time todays newborn boys became sexually active, HIV vaccine is likely to be available so circumcision today, in an attempt to prevent HIV infection in the distant future, is contraindicated.
The high infant mortality rate in the African countries hardest hit by the HIV epidemic means many childen will die before they become sexually active, further vitiating any protective effect of infant circumcision. The time, effort and money would be better spent on community health measures that would preserve their lives and those of their parents.
Because of their minority, children cannot grant consent, so any non-therapeutic circumcision of a child is a human rights violation44 and ethically inappropriate.45
Opposing evidence. Both the public and the medical community must guard against being overwhelmed by the hyperbolic promotion of male circumcision and must receive these new studies with extreme caution. There is contradictory evidence that male circumcision is not as effective as proponents claim. One study found that male circumcision had no protective effect for women51 and another study found that male circumcision increased risk for women.52 Grosskurth found more HIV infection in circumcised men.53 Barongo et al. found no evidence that lack of circumcision is a risk factor for HIV infection.54 A study from India found little difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men in the conjugal relationship.55 A study carried out in South Africa found that male circumcision offered only a slight protective effect.56 A study carried out among American naval personnel found no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between non-circumcised and circumcised men.57
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates
potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision;
however, these data are not sufficient to recommend
routine neonatal circumcision.
Twenty years ago, I wrote a short article entitled 'AIDS in Third World countries' by way of a letter to the editor of the New York State Journal of Medicine, vol.86, August 1986. In that short article I proposed the hypothesis that the lack of male circumcision in Africa is partly responsible for spreading the AIDS virus in that continent and in other third world countries of the world. I gave the example of balanitis, phimosis, and paraphimosis, represented entry point for the AIDS virus to transmit from female to male during sexual intercourse. I was the first one in the world to propose this idea.
Since that time, many authors have picked up on the idea, have evaluated it using different research models in Africa, and have found it to be indeed true and credible. In the issue of JAMA, August 16 2006, vol.296, No7, Bridget M Kuehn wrote, "Routine circumcision of all men in Africa could prevent 2 million new HIV infections and avert 300,000 deaths over the next ten years." However, interestingly no one has ever mentioned my name in his or her writing as being the first physician to have given birth to this most important idea.
Believe me, I know Rightwinger isn't a rightwinger at all, and the only person I see defending this is Proletariat. I still fail to see how "mostly right-leaning types" support this.
Rick
I think the important thing to remember when arguing about this study of AIDS transmission is that these results apply to men in Africa, which is completely different from how men are raised and live here in the states, for the most part. American men have the luxery of protecting themselves from STIs and becoming educated in many ways that individuals from other 3rd world countries aren't.
How about our men protect themselves by having safe sex (condoms) or just abstaining from sex with an infected partner/get tested? Why must we cut skin from their penis?
Just seems so barbaric for 2010.
I think the important thing to remember when arguing about this study of AIDS transmission is that these results apply to men in Africa, which is completely different from how men are raised and live here in the states, for the most part. American men have the luxery of protecting themselves from STIs and becoming educated in many ways that individuals from other 3rd world countries aren't.
How about our men protect themselves by having safe sex (condoms) or just abstaining from sex with an infected partner/get tested? Why must we cut skin from their penis?
Just seems so barbaric for 2010.
Well, that's the first rational argument I've heard.
In answer, I'd say that teenagers don't always think with their big heads.
And, again, if I want to circumcise my son, that's my business. There is no proof of any long term harm that comes from circumcision. If there was, then that would be a different story.
