Circumcision

[Stevenpfo]

@King Alexander: The point of including female circumcision in the poll was to (a) see if anybody actually supported it and what their reasons were, and (b) because I view it as flat-out hypocrisy to accept one kind and condemn the other.

That's completely rediculous. I view a male cicumcision as a hygenic process and the female circumcision as one done purely for the enslavement and control of women. Re: The link I posted above.

Edit: Here in Canada the doctor asks you if you want to have you son circumcised. They don't just automatically do it. I dunno about other countries. (I'm posting this because of earlier mentioned statements made saying some places just do it automatically)

 

[Quiet Sound]

I dont see the problem. having this done to males has no side effects, and can prevent infection while they are young.

How's scar tissue in place of a frenulum for a side effect?

 

[Stevenpfo]

Here's an excerp from one of the links within the page I posted earlier (because I realize some people don't like going to sites and reading everything).

Link to article: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/hiv052002.htm

Last Updated: 2002-05-28 11:00:16 -0400 (Reuters Health)

By Emma Hitt, PhD

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters Health) - Circumcision, or removal of the foreskin of the penis, is known to reduce the risk of HIV infection, and now researchers may understand why. The findings could help in the development of new therapies to prevent the spread of the AIDS-causing virus.

According to Carlos R. Estrada from Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois and colleagues, about 80% of HIV infections occur during sex, and the route of entry for most HIV-infected men is via the penis. Circumcision is known to reduce the risk of infection 2- to 8-fold, but the reason why has been unclear.

In their study, presented here Saturday at the American Urological Association's annual meeting, researchers evaluated 14 samples of foreskin tissue from children and adults. They also examined specimens of female cervical tissue.

To determine how susceptible the tissue might be to HIV infection, they counted the number of three types of immune system cells that are known to become infected with HIV in each specimen. The researchers counted CD4+ T-cells, macrophages and Langerhan's cells.

Compared to cervical tissue, the foreskins contained higher numbers of the three infectable cell types. Adult foreskins contained the highest proportion.

Further, when they tried to infect the samples with HIV, they found that the inner surface of the foreskin was seven times more susceptible to infection than the cervical tissue and the outer foreskin.

"During sexual intercourse, this inner layer is the area that becomes traumatized and infected," Estrada told Reuters Health. "In fact, we were not able to infect the outer layer of foreskin."

According to Estrada, adult patients that have had recent infections, whether sexually transmitted diseases or some other type of infection, also have a higher proportion of these infectable cells, and therefore may be at increased risk of HIV infection.

Estrada and colleagues also measured the numbers of HIV-specific receptors on the surface of the cells. These bind to the virus and help it to gain entry into the cells. One type, called CCR5, was especially predominant.

The researchers suggest that agents capable of blocking these HIV binding sites that could be applied topically to the penis or vagina should be developed.

"The US is one of the few countries in which circumcision is performed on a regular basis," Estrada said. "We think that in a third world country such as Africa, where AIDS is an epidemic, circumcision of children could provide a protective effect down the road."

 

[Speedo]

I dont see the problem. having this done to males has no side effects, and can prevent infection while they are young. the procedure in females is tourture, and has no posistive effects.

Actually circumcised infants have much higher rates of infection in the first weeks of life, since it's basically an open wound. Beyond that, any parent who washes their kid and teaches them how to bathe is going to keep it clean enough. Besides, removal of all teeth would prevent cavities, but we don't pull them all out....

Where I live, I was under the impression the doctors did it to pretty much everybody unless the parents said no.

Roughly 62% (as of mid-late '90s: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/) of infants in the US are circumcised. It's much lower in the rest of the world- in fact the US is the only nation considered "medically advanced" to still perform it on the majority of infants...

 

[NateDawgNY]

Originally posted by Speedo
Actually circumcised infants have much higher rates of infection in the first weeks of life, since it's basically an open wound.

If that's true, then it's because it hasn't been done properly. There is a reason why it's supposed to be done on the 8th day. For us Jews, it is a sign of the covenant agreement between G-d and Abraham. That's why we do it. If you're not Jewish, then it's up to you whether you want your children circumcised or not.
For the record, I am completely opposed to female circumcision. It is nothing less than sheer torture.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Stevenpfo

If you find something, send me a PM if you wouldn't mind. I have a habit of visiting the forum for a few days and then not doing so for quite some time and thus would likely miss anything you post.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: It took a while to have a think about this. Debate is fairly mature, so please carry on like that (although please keep away from specific discussions on the impact on sexual pleasure etc)

 

[CenturionV]

Male circumcision is ok and actually healthy for males, plus part of religious tradition, so I would not oppose it. Female circumcision is inhumane, and should not be allowed anyware.

 

[Archer 007]

How exactly is it healthier?

 

[King Alexander]

@King Alexander: The point of including female circumcision in the poll was to (a) see if anybody actually supported it and what their reasons were, and (b) because I view it as flat-out hypocrisy to accept one kind and condemn the other.

Speedo, I'll try to explain again:

a) I don't support male circumcision, if you wonder and it cannot be harmful under narcosis. Religious reasons for this is a thing that doesn't bother me at all.

b) Female circumcision, however, it's a pure crime, it's the slaughter of a part of the body, like a butcher cuts animal parts. Just look at it in search engines or TV-documentaries.
Females die too often from losing too much blood or from various infections after, because the butchers close the wood with stone-age techniques.
It's one of the most brutal things to do in a human(female in this case). The butchers take away all the human dignity from females and the right to joy their life normally.
Not even cave-men would do this to each other.

That's my personal opinion, you can think whatever you want for me(I'm not reffering to you personally, Speedo); I don't care, simple as that. I'm a male and I'm disgussed and furious with this brutality: just think what females would say.

 

[CenturionV]

According to the study above it helps reduce HIV, and just from personal belief I am sure it won't be very harmful, as God ordered the jews to circumcise there children(male), and God does not do things simply to cause problems, generally there helpful, not harmful (for instance the dietary laws of the old testament actually helped jews avoid meat-borne disease before better cleaning practices where invented).

There is likely people willing to dispute this, but the numbers don't lie, even if its not benificial, it can't be to harmful, speedo's stats say 62% of americans are circumcised, and you don't see the masses breaking out with any genital diseases or anything.

And of course I still would NEVER condone female cirucmcision.

 

[Archer 007]

It may not be harmful, but in the modern world, its not really helpful either. It was alot harder to stay clean back then. With the shower in every home, that isnt a problem.

And happy 10,000 to me!

 

[CenturionV]

It may not be harmful, but in the modern world, its not really helpful either. It was alot harder to stay clean back then. With the shower in every home, that isnt a problem.

And happy 10,000 to me!
.

10,000, thats alot of posts.......back on topic, yes thats true, but there are still plenty of people who might not actually use there showers to the full extent they should (I could name a few ) And if it does not hurt, the chance of infection is not high, and there is the possibility it could keep you healthier, why not do it if you feel the need to? No one is suggesting it should be mandatory, but that it should be availible if the parents want it. (I can't see many growing men wanting to have it done )

 

[Archer 007]

Well, I agree the parents should have the option, I just dont think it should be required.

 

[CenturionV]

Well, I agree the parents should have the option, I just dont think it should be required.

I don't know of any modern western country that has this in place. There is probably some islamic nations that do though.

 

[Archer 007]

I though most of them did.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

Well if Female Circumsision took place at birth, I bet it wouldn't be considerd "torture"; just "unfair". The fact that women have it inflicted upon them as adults is a harsh pain. I disagree with it on the basis on the denial of the woman's pleasure and later (if done as an adult) because of the pain.

If we circumsised men as adults; it also would be considered torture. But as it is done as a baby, it is considered alright

 

[CenturionV]

I though most of them did.

well with a quick google I discovered it was not mandatory in israel, if its not mandatory there in its birthplace, I seriously doubt its mandatory in any other western nations (I know its not mandatory in canada, I was circumcised because my parents believed it was healthier, though we are christians.)

If we circumsised men as adults; it also would be considered torture. But as it is done as a baby, it is considered alright

Of course, because no one remembers it, and when done properly it is not that painful, and heals quickly.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

well with a quick google I discovered it was not mandatory in israel, if its not mandatory there in its birthplace, I seriously doubt its mandatory in any other western nations (I know its not mandatory in canada, I was circumcised because my parents believed it was healthier, though we are christians.)

I beleive in some states of the US it is an option; but I think in others it is still required.

 

[King Alexander]

I just don't understand the point of men discussing about female circumcision. Female are equal to men(at least in civilized nations) and have a right to live just as men have. Females are not our slaves or our toys to play, neither are they experimental "subjects/animals".