[Banana]

That certainly is your option.I'll give my kid the automatic almost 50% less chance to get HIV without him doing anything.

I hope you also feel good about giving him the following possibilites: http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html

[Blondie]

Do you have any idea how stupid you just made yourself sound?

Why should this day be any different than the others?

[Banana]

Jimmy's thoughts on the subject?

Jimmy tries not to think of penises. He leaves that to me.

[Pickle]

Circumcision is wrong. If my son acquires AIDS, we have bigger issues than what his penis looks like. There are a multitude of reasons to chop off female genitalia, but we don't, because it's unnecessary. Boys who are circumcised these days are the odd ones out, most doctors are unwilling to do circumcision, for a reason.

[Banana]

In Calgary, only Jewish doctors (and only 2 of them in a city of 1.2 million) will perform a circumcision. This obviously is rooted in their religious beliefs. It says a lot about the current stance on circumcision.

[Banana]

If we routinely didn't cut our babies foreskin off, and we told them as adults "hey, you can wear a condon, or have the skin on the tip of your penis lopped off to maybe, possibly, slight chance of, preventing HIV" wonder what they'd say?

Now, let's look at an adult who was circ'd as a baby "Sure, you have a dead penis, but hey, you won't get AIDS!" wonder what the reaction would be?

[BIRD33]

Do you have any idea how stupid you just made yourself sound? These are RATES, not numbers. They are based on PERCENTAGES, not population.

And why can't we talk of female genital circumcision. Did you bother reading the very first thing I linked in this thread?

So, if I get this straight, you are promoting circumcision because one African study suggested that HIV rates may be lower among African adult males, and you are ignoring the other research which suggests other factors play more important roles and that the studies may not be considered statistically sound?

You are right about the %'s.It seems there is some debate on how gays catch AIDS compared to straights.Is it possible that since a majority of AIDS patients are gay in America that could skew those %'s compared to the african studies?I don't know I'm just asking.

I don't know anything about female circumcision so thats not what I'm arguing about.No I didnt read the link.

If you don't like me referring to the African study than how about the one preformed by some mother fuckin doctors from Johns Hopkins ya heard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28283510/




[B]Preventing AIDS[/B]
In the third report, Lee Warner of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues tested African-American men in Baltimore and found 10 percent of those at high risk of infection with HIV who were circumcised had the virus, compared to 22 percent of those who were not.

"Circumcision was associated with substantially reduced HIV risk in patients with known HIV exposure, suggesting that results of other studies demonstrating reduced HIV risk for circumcision among heterosexual men likely can be generalized to the U.S. context," they wrote. Studies supporting circumcision to reduce HIV transmission had all been done in Africa and U.S. studies were less clear.
Dr. Ronald Gray of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues said they found the reports encouraging.
"In the United States, circumcision is less common among African American and Hispanic men, who are also the subgroups most at risk of HIV," they wrote in a commentary.
"Thus, circumcision may afford an additional means of protection from HIV in these at-risk minorities."
But they noted that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision for newborns.
"As a consequence of this AAP decision, Medicaid does not cover circumcision costs, and this is particularly disadvantageous for poorer African American and Hispanic boys who, as adults, may face high HIV exposure risk," Gray and colleagues wrote."

[BIRD33]

Circumcision is wrong. If my son acquires AIDS, we have bigger issues than what his penis looks like. There are a multitude of reasons to chop off female genitalia, but we don't, because it's unnecessary. Boys who are circumcised these days are the odd ones out, most doctors are unwilling to do circumcision, for a reason.

Unless you live in Foreskandinavia I don't think this is true.

[BIRD33]

I hope you also feel good about giving him the following possibilites: http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html

One circumcision compared to my kids hundreds of sex partners.I like the odds of my decision.

[BIRD33]

In Calgary, only Jewish doctors (and only 2 of them in a city of 1.2 million) will perform a circumcision. This obviously is rooted in their religious beliefs. It says a lot about the current stance on circumcision.

You know thats all about liability and not whats best for the child.

[Banana]

Unless you live in Foreskandinavia I don't think this is true.

It is. Current American rates are 55% (based on 2001 - last National Center for Health Statistics rates). That means it's down 6.3% from the year previous.

Current Canadian rates are ...not very current 38.8% in 1977. I have read elsewhere that current rates (2005) are at about 9%. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/

Though I would never cir'c my child because of HIV(for the same reasons I don't pull out all my child's teeth in case he doesn't clean them and gets peridontal dissease), I actually respect that you at least have a medical reason for wanting to circ. I don't think it's a good enough reason for me, because it's not consistent enough in it's findings, nor do I think it outweighs the risks. But, I really hate the aesthetic reasons for circ'ing and the cleanliness argument.

As for the gay men and AIDS thing, my understanding is that it is harder to acquire AIDS from a female partner than from a male because the rectum is prone to tears, much more so than the vagina. As such, an HIV positive female will only likely expose her partner to HIV if she has a tear, which is unlikely. But, this is not true of rectums. So, I think the study should say "heterosexual vaginal penetration" since men and women have anal sex too.

[Paddy]

As for the gay men and AIDS thing, my understanding is that it is harder to acquire AIDS from a female partner than from a male because the rectum is prone to tears.

This is Flumper's cue.

[Banana]

You know thats all about liability and not whats best for the child.

So, you are acknowledging that there are serious medical risks associated with circ'ing? And yes, they would be serious for them to stop considering it, because minor risks can be paid off very easily. I've written reports for medical malpractice suits. Legal counsel for doctors have VERY deep pockets and medical liability is a very, very difficult thing to establish. You have to prove that the doctor intentionally acted in opposition of the child's best interests.

[BIRD33]

It is. Current American rates are 55% (based on 2001 - last National Center for Health Statistics rates). That means it's down 6.3% from the year previous.

Current Canadian rates are ...not very current 38.8% in 1977. I have read elsewhere that current rates (2005) are at about 9%. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/

Though I would never cir'c my child because of HIV(for the same reasons I don't pull out all my child's teeth in case he doesn't clean them and gets peridontal dissease), I actually respect that you at least have a medical reason for wanting to circ. I don't think it's a good enough reason for me, because it's not consistent enough in it's findings, nor do I think it outweighs the risks. But, I really hate the aethetic reasons for circ'ing and the cleanliness argument.

As for the gay men and AIDS thing, my understanding is that it is harder to acquire AIDS from a female partner than from a male because the rectum is prone to tears, much more so than the vagina. As such, an HIV positive female will only likely expose her partner to HIV if she has a tear, which is unlikely. But, this is not true of rectums. So, I think the study should say "heterosexual vaginal penetration" since men and women have anal sex too.

Is it ever.

I'd imagine the rates of circumcision are higher in the US with our vast amounts of pro religion areas.I havent heard of a place around here where you can't find a doctor to do it.

I also think a good argument for getting cut is it lowers the chance of of giving a woman a disease based on the article I posted.

"This finding explains why women with circumcised partners are at a lower risk of cervical cancer than other women," they wrote in their report.

[BIRD33]

So, you are acknowledging that there are serious medical risks associated with circ'ing? And yes, they would be serious for them to stop considering it, because minor risks can be paid off very easily. I've written reports for medical malpractice suits. Legal counsel for doctors have VERY deep pockets and medical liability is a very, very difficult thing to establish. You have to prove that the doctor intentionally acted in opposition of the child's best interests.

I'm acknowledging the main factors of why they won't do it is out of liability concerns for themselves.What is the % of circumcisions that go wrong a year and then I'll tell you if its a serious consideration of the patients health or more about the doctors livelihoods.

[Banana]

Is it ever.

I'd imagine the rates of circumcision are higher in the US with our vast amounts of pro religion areas.I havent heard of a place around here where you can't find a doctor to do it.

I also think a good argument for getting cut is it lowers the chance of of giving a woman a disease based on the article I posted.

"This finding explains why women with circumcised partners are at a lower risk of cervical cancer than other women," they wrote in their report.

What that study doesn't address is the reason women who have uncircumcised partners have a higher risk. My understanding is that it's commonly been linked to poor genital hygiene on the part of the man. If the man can't wash his own damn penis, I'm not sure you should be sleeping with him. Really, how hard is it to pull back the skin and wash? Paddy? Can't imagine this to be any more difficult than brushing your teeth. Probably easier because it's a penis and men love playing with their penises.

For me, I will remain against infant circumcision. Infants (barring something unspeakable) have a zero percent chance of acquiring an STD or giving a woman HPV.

[Paddy]

Really, how hard is it to pull back the skin and wash? Paddy? Can't imagine this to be any more difficult than brushing your teeth. Probably easier because it's a penis and men love playing with their penises.

It's part of the routine, fun and easy.

[Banana]

I'm acknowledging the main factors of why they won't do it is out of liability concerns for themselves.What is the % of circumcisions that go wrong a year and then I'll tell you if its a serious consideration of the patients health or more about the doctors livelihoods.

Looking for this information now. I think it's hard to know, because a lot of the complications aren't realized or "seen" until a man reaches sexual maturity.

I found this interesting:

"A man who is circ'd will inevitably say that he is just fine, that he enjoys sex and that there is nothing wrong with him. He's not desensitised! He will swear up and down that this is the case.

He is like a person with no sense of taste. Sure you can still eat, and probably even enjoy the varying textures, smells and tempratures of the food. they might say "what do you mean food could be better? I love eating, its so satisfying. I couldnt imagine it ever being any better than this." But thats the problem, having never had a chance to experience taste, he woulnt be able to even imagine what he is missing.

Not only that, a person with no sense of taste can still EAT and CHEW as well as anyone, so obviously their mouth works just fine, right? They can blow bubbles with bubble gum, whistle, play a wind instrument... there is nothing WRONG with a mouth that can't taste.

A man having never experienced a foreskin would be unable to imagine that sex could be better. He would have nothing to compare it to. It just isnt possible. Its liek trying to describe colors to a blind person. they might get the vaguest idea of what it is, but they just don't know. Or sound to a deaf person. Or taste to a tasteless person. Its something outside of thier experience."

I think it's hard for a lot of us to imagine, because for so long we've been told circumcision is just a "little snip" and the foreskin is "extra skin"...but it's not "extra", it comes standard...and circumcision removes 1/3-1/2 of the penile skin system, or what would become 15 square inches, including 3-4 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves, and 10,000-20,000 specialized nerve endings. I can't help but think what sex might be like if I'd had a similar amount of genital tissue removed from my most private parts, but went through puberty and grew into adulthood never knowing any differently.

[Pickle]

I'm acknowledging the main factors of why they won't do it is out of liability concerns for themselves.What is the % of circumcisions that go wrong a year and then I'll tell you if its a serious consideration of the patients health or more about the doctors livelihoods.

Between 10-35% of men circumcised as infants have complications. The numbers are so skewed because many times the complications aren't obvious until later in life.

[BIRD33]

What that study doesn't address is the reason women who have uncircumcised partners have a higher risk. My understanding is that it's commonly been linked to poor genital hygiene on the part of the man. If the man can't wash his own damn penis, I'm not sure you should be sleeping with him. Really, how hard is it to pull back the skin and wash? Paddy? Can't imagine this to be any more difficult than brushing your teeth. Probably easier because it's a penis and men love playing with their penises.

For me, I will remain against infant circumcision. Infants (barring something unspeakable) have a zero percent chance of acquiring an STD or giving a woman HPV.

They have a good chance of getting or giving either or 16 years after birth.