Circumcision: What do you really think????

[13788]

virgo695: I was cut at birth, and I just wish that I'd been given the option make my own decision. I mean, 10,000 very sensitive nerve endings, gone in an instant. I guess I dunno what I am missing, but I wish I could have a foreskin for a day and see how it is. (Uncut cocks are great! Lotsa fun to nibble on....)

 

[Pappy]

There are studies currently being conducted that are proving the forskin has receptor cells in it that are actually more receptive to the HIV virus. This results in a greater possibility of contracting HIV during unprotected sex.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Gubernogin link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#81 date=04/08/04 at 21:01:38]There are studies currently being conducted that are proving the forskin has receptor cells in it that are actually more receptive to the HIV virus.  This results in a greater possibility of contracting HIV during unprotected sex.[/quote]
Citations? Peer-reviewed journals, please. Here are examples of citations:

"It is equally plausible that the AIDS virus enters the active male partner, involved in vaginal or anal sex, through the fragile columnal cells lining the urethra. Circumcision removes the protection normally provided by the foreskin, thus predisposing the penis to meatal ulceration and subsequent meatal stenosis ... One could extrapolate his [Dr. Fink's] hypothesis to suggest that the absence of circumcision [i.e., the presence of a foreskin] may actually protect against transmission of AIDS by protecting the urethral mucosa." (Letter from Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 11, 1987)

"Several new studies have shown that circumcised males are at higher risk for developing genital warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, non-gonococcal urethritis, and HIV infection." (Robert S. Van Howe, MD, Letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Nov. 17, 1995)

"[T]he data also show a somewhat higher incidence of genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis, and scabies in the circumcised men ... examination of large numbers of healthy [circumcised] men in both military and civilian circumstances discloses a very substantial incidence of persistent suture holes, microsinuses, skin tabs and bridging, and irregular scarring--all subject to abrasion and the accumulation of moist debris." (Letter from John G. Swadey, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, June 11, 1987)

Oh, BTW, according to the CDC, Indians have lower rates of HIV infection (about a factor of three) than whites. We also have much lower rates of circumcision; most of us don't trust hospitals enough to deliver our children because for much of the 20th century, Indian women were forcibly sterilized.

 

[Pappy]

Here are a couple of links that support what I stated. Please take the time to read both. They're not saying it prevent you from being infected but that it reduces your chances.

1. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/75/89608.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

2. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/25/1728_58353.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

 

[jonb]

I said peer-reviewed journals. WebMD isn't one. They also had this article. Note that homeopathic medicine is essentially magic water; the medicine is so dilluted that not even a molecule of the original substance remains.

It's interesting that Szabo and Short's pro-circumcision study that the foreskin aids in contracting HIV because it has too many ELCs contradicts Weiss's pro-circumcision study that the foreskin aids in contracting HIV because it has too few ELCs. (Weiss, Gerald N.; Sanders, Melinda; and Westbrook, Kent C. "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, Vol 29 No 1, January 1993)

Now, there are only three possible states:

• The foreskin has more ELCs than the glans
• The foreskin has fewer ELCs than the glans
• The foreskin has an equal number of ELCs to the glans

Only one of these can be true. And it's not guesswork; one only need look under a microscope. So one or both are lying.

 

[13788]

ORCABOMBER: So in other words, it's okay to shag with no condom, because if you're cut, you "can't have aids", yet you can cause pregnanancy and have the other STDs?

It's a bit like saying that white men are less prone to being bombed by B52s recently.

Just because there's a trend, doesn't mean that's the full picture.

 

[Pappy]

[quote author=ORCABOMBER link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#85 date=04/19/04 at 02:03:33]So in other words, it's okay to shag with no condom, because if you're cut, you "can't have aids", yet you can cause pregnanancy and have the other STDs?

It's a bit like saying that white men are less prone to being bombed by B52s recently.

Just because there's a trend, doesn't mean that's the full picture.[/quote]

ORCABOMBER, Did I miss a post somewhere? ??? I haven't read a post anywhere the even remotely suggests what you just posted. Unprotected sex isn't an option unless you're in a monogamous relationship and have a desire to bring a life into this world. Even the studies that have concluded that cut men have a lower infection rate of HIV recommend practicing safe sex.

One last thing, just because you practice safe sex doesn't mean you are 100% protected and I have 27 year old proof that supports that claim!!

 

[jonb]

You missed my post in which I asked for peer-reviewed journals apparently.

Even protected promiscuity is dangerous. But the problem is, you're essentially marketing circumcision as a substitute for fidelity, just as ORCABOMBER implied. It's that same "When in doubt, circumcise" motto that the AAP finally got rid of recently and that all non-American medical associations had gotten rid of ages ago.

 

[13788]

ORCABOMBER: Guber,

I think JonB's summed it up, but regardless, it's true, condoms aren't 100% safe. But if you're practising safer sex, what's the issue with "circumcision to reduce the chance of AIDs" then? I believe that with hygiene, an uncut penis will not "let you down" as it were, most cases of disease are probably just hygiene issues.

I'm not saying "an uncut penis stops AIDs", I'm saying that it's bad practise to say "that because more people with uncut penises have AIDs, then that's a cause an effect." Wasn't the article based on Indian Tribes? I thought most of them weren't cut anyway, so that biases the sample.

To repeat Jon, it just brings out the "cutting is safer than sorry" idea. Heck, if I removed my eyelids, I know I would a reduced chance of conjunctivitus (sp?)

 

[Pappy]

[quote author=jonb link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#87 date=04/19/04 at 21:47:34]You missed my post in which I asked for peer-reviewed journals apparently.

Even protected promiscuity is dangerous. But the problem is, you're essentially marketing circumcision as a substitute for fidelity, just as ORCABOMBER implied. It's that same "When in doubt, circumcise" motto that the AAP finally got rid of recently and that all non-American medical associations had gotten rid of ages ago.[/quote]
Well I guess this is a useless discussion. JonB and Orca want to say that I said things I did not say.
JonB, I have never said that cutting is a substitute for fidelity. Nor did I say when in doubt to cut.

[quote author=ORCABOMBER link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#88 date=04/20/04 at 00:58:05]Guber,

I think JonB's summed it up, but regardless, it's true, condoms aren't 100% safe. But if you're practising safer sex, what's the issue with "circumcision to reduce the chance of AIDs" then? I believe that with hygiene, an uncut penis will not "let you down" as it were, most cases of disease are probably just hygiene issues.

I'm not saying "an uncut penis stops AIDs", I'm saying that it's bad practise to say "that because more people with uncut penises have AIDs, then that's a cause an effect." Wasn't the article based on Indian Tribes? I thought most of them weren't cut anyway, so that biases the sample.

To repeat Jon, it just brings out the "cutting is safer than sorry" idea. Heck, if I removed my eyelids, I know I would a reduced chance of conjunctivitus (sp?)[/quote]

There is no issue with circumcision at all, it's strictly a personal decision made by parents upon the birth of a son. I did not say that circumcision reduced the chance of contracting AIDS. I said that uncut men had a higher rate of infection. That could simply mean that uncut guys are having more sex than cut guys.

No one said that an uncut penis was a cause and effect.(See Above) Actually I think the study was based on Indian as well as African Tribes.

I did not say cutting is safer than sorry. I said that the study stated that uncut men had a higher rate of infection with HIV than did those men that were cut.

Being cut at birth I can't under stand why guys feel so violated and angry at their parents for having them cut. Your parents did what they thought was right for you. They had your best interest at heart. The one poster that said he was cut at age 11 because the doctor was and idiot, I do understand his anger as he has had it both ways. For those of us who have only had our penis one way, whether cut or uncut, we don't know what the other way feels like, we only know what we've read or what friends or relatives have told us as to how the other way feels.

I hope this clears the air so to speak.

 

[jonb]

*His* article was based on urban sub-Saharan Africans. Really stupid choice, since the uncircumcised don't really have many potential sex partners other than prostitutes in urban SSA. So even if he's correct, the causation would be A -> B -> C rather than A -> C, and we can prevent B by educating people about the uncircumcised penis.

My mentioning lower rates of HIV among Indians was largely as a counterexample. The cases of HIV infection we do have are more often from non-sexual cases, such as sharing needles, blood transfusions, etc.

Oh, here's another mistake his second article makes:

Most HIV-positive men were infected through the penis.

Most patients were infected through the anus. You see, as far as AIDS is concerned, not all sexual behaviors are created equal. Since the anus is paper-thin, active-to-passive anal transmission is the most common: It's eight times as likely as passive-to-active anal transmission, ten times as likely as female-to-male transmission during coitus, and a hundred times as likely as passive-to-active transmission during fellatio. So much for most being infected through the penis. Once again, I get my data from the CDC; unless Gubernogin or those he cites has epidemiological credentials, he should STFU.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Gubernogin link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#89 date=04/20/04 at 09:49:00]Being cut at birth I can't under stand why guys feel so violated and angry at their parents for having them cut. [/quote]
Nice ad hominem there. Just two problems:

1) I'm not cut.
2) Whatever the issue at hand is, we're discussing the medical issues, not the ethical issues.

Now doesn't that ruin your nice little picture?But here's a nice one to take its place

 

[Pappy]

[quote author=jonb link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#90 date=04/20/04 at 16:54:20]*His* article was based on urban sub-Saharan Africans. Really stupid choice, since the uncircumcised don't really have many potential sex partners other than prostitutes in urban SSA. So even if he's correct, the causation would be A -> B -> C rather than A -> C, and we can prevent B by educating people about the uncircumcised penis.

My mentioning lower rates of HIV among Indians was largely as a counterexample. The cases of HIV infection we do have are more often from non-sexual cases, such as sharing needles, blood transfusions, etc.

Oh, here's another mistake his second article makes:

Most patients were infected through the anus. You see, as far as AIDS is concerned, not all sexual behaviors are created equal. Since the anus is paper-thin, active-to-passive anal transmission is the most common: It's eight times as likely as passive-to-active anal transmission, ten times as likely as female-to-male transmission during coitus, and a hundred times as likely as passive-to-active transmission during fellatio. So much for most being infected through the penis. Once again, I get my data from the CDC; unless Gubernogin or those he cites has epidemiological credentials, he should STFU.[/quote]

What does beind cut on uncut have to do with potential sex partners?


Actually jonb I'll STFU whenever I want to STFU!!!! My statements were from a very well respected site that deals with medical issues. Now as for your CDC , correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they government funded?? They are and we all know how much we can trust the government to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, now don't we. The government tells us what they want us to know and not a word more. I worked for the government for 15 years and they didn't tell us everything but they told us more that they did non-employees.

 

[Pappy]

[quote author=jonb link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#91 date=04/20/04 at 17:08:20]
Nice ad hominem there. Just two problems:

1) I'm not cut.
2) Whatever the issue at hand is, we're discussing the medical issues, not the ethical issues.

Now doesn't that ruin your nice little picture?But here's a nice one to take its place[/quote]
For those like me that had to look it up here's the meaning of ad hominem.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

[13788]

ORCABOMBER: Best way to solve this, make female and male circumsicion perfectly acceptable?

After all, it's a choice issue, and ties in nicely with equal rights as well.

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Gubernogin link=board=youth;num=1075341523;start=80#92 date=04/20/04 at 19:02:57]My statements were from a very well respected site that deals with medical issues.[/quote]
Which is why I found an article endorsing magic water (essentially what homeopathy is) on that site, I'm sure.

Now as for your CDC , correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they government funded??  They are and we all know how much we can trust the government to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, now don't we.  The government tells us what they want us to know and not a word more.  I worked for the government for 15 years and they didn't tell us everything but they told us more that they did non-employees.

Ah, a paranoid conspiracy theory, I see. I've got a bombshell for you: They may have laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

[KinkGuy]

Interesting discussion...but...wasn't the original discussion about the brutal mutilation and barbaric torture of tiny infant males? Oops, just another opinion...and guys, we've all got one and can generally find the data to support our positions.

 

[13788]

hung: I was not cut at birth because my parents were considered poor. I am glad that was the case. You can view a peeled back look right here. Of course you have to be aware that you must clean your body on a daily basis; but most of us do that anyway. Enjoy what you have and do not worry about what was done in the past.

 

[13788]

dancinfool: that brings up something in my mind...

a lot of people claim that being uncut is unclean or something because oyu have to clean it a lot. however, i've found that i dont really have to go out of my way to clean my foreskin. i usually jack off in the shower, and the clean up for that means washing the excess cum off of my dick. i don't really wash my foreskin anymore than that.

so basically i am kind of sick of people claiming that being cut is so much better because its cleaner and safer. honestly, thats a whole lot of bullshit. circumcision is a personal and family issue, and there is no other discussion besides that. i think its sick that parents cut their kids because they've "heard that its cleaner" thats bullshit.

 

[13788]

okiejustin: just a personal opinion that has no merit.

i am cut and like it. it looks better in my eyes. i like other guys that are. when/where i grew up, everyone was.

its like preferring blue eyes to brown. one is not better than the other, but i indeed have a preference for one.