I’d estimate that there have already been at least 40 studies establishing with a high degree of scientific confidence that circumcision is hugely prophylatic against HIV and other STDs. There have been much fewer finding no difference and much fewer still showing the reverse. It’s more certain than global warming. As Al Gore says, “the debate is over”.
Driveby post:
-1. If the foreskin is such a hindrance and disadvantage, why hasn’t it, in the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, fallen off already?
-2. Condoms are a much better protection to STDs than circumcision. Circumcision is in no way an alternative.
-3. Don’t fucking circumcise your kids. Should there be an advantage, they can decide if they need it for themselves later. They won’t be having any sex for the next twelve years anyway.
Many psychologists and psychotherapists have stated that many men who resent their circumcisions often actually subconsciously resent their parents and blame their sexual frustrations on them and their circumcisions when the psychological problems lie elsewhere.
I know men who have done exactly that.
That’s incredibly ignorant!! Even racist! How the hell do you think the ancient Jews brissed their sons for thousands of years in far more primitive conditions than modern Africa?!? Sheesh!
Your OP was both satisfying, droll, and exemplary, Tuckerfan. Thanks.
May I ask about the construction of your first quoted sentence? Did you mean just to say that circumcision does not protect IV drug users, or did you mean to include homosexuals in that category as well?
You see, everything I have read indicates that circumcision is just (or nearly) as effective in protecting gay men as straight men. Could you clarify?
Driveby reply:
- You’re a fucking idiot. I really wish that someone would trademark the word evolution and require training before it can be used. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the problems with the foreskin apply to later stages of life? Like maybe after you’ve already passed on your genes? Evolutionary pressure only acts when a condition prevents population survival (ie, no or few young).
- No one is disputing that condoms are better for protecting against STDs. Unlike you however, most of us live in the real world and recognize that in many cases condoms are unavailable or won’t be used regardless of availability. If, in those cases, there is a prophylatic measure that is effective and that is, for all practical purposes, “always on”. It should be explored and, if proven, implemented.
- Whew. Just had to spew a little more ignorance before you left, huh? “Hi Opal” would have made you look smarter. Here’s a thought, there’s a debate between formula and breastmilk for infants. I suggest that you feed your child neither until it’s old enough to make the decision on its own. Ditto for vaccinations.
The wonder to me is that, with its endless capacity for self delusion, the human race has managed to survive this long.
Oh, and some further explanation for ambushed alone:
2: condom use nor circumcision are routinely practiced in Africa. Should we promote one of these, I say condoms go first.
Yeah, and they are WAY in the majority. Oh, wait. Also, you didn’t answer the question.
Well, we have these studies of female circumcison to go on. Those are performed * today* in that exact same area and aren’t really all that sanitary.
Yes, I feel silly, fighting on the internet, why do you ask?
-1. So, the folks die after they procreate. Naturally, they are completely useless after that. Cite. No evolutionary advantage at all, there.
-2. Yeah, ‘cuz it’s so much easier to convince them to cut their childrens’ dicks than wrapping rubber 'round em. Or to organise medical training and sterile equipment. Gotcha.
-3. You are actually trying to make a serious point here? Breastmilk and vaccinations are immediately nessecary and are proven. By the time the kid can decide it’s too late. Circumcision is still researched (Hence OP). I’m sure the results will be in by 2020.
Evolution effectively stopped operating a very, very long time ago on homo sapiens. When evolution was acting most strongly on the pre-human species, we were hunter gatherers who went about unclothed. When naked, the glans benefits from some protection against injurious things like thorns and bushes and the like. Clothing has made the foreskin completely obsolete, but evolution had long before effectively stopped working on us so it didn’t disappear.
Circumcision is indeed an alternative form of protection, as the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence shows. True, it is not as effective as a condom, but only a minority (and probably a very small minority) of people use a condom every single time. It is by far the more rational act to have a built-in backup safety mechanism, especially as an act of love and protection for your sons! To deprive them of this important safety “feature” strikes me as simply cruel.
To repeat from a previous post:
Yeah, because that’s worked so perfectly everywhere else. We sure as hell shouldn’t provide a built-in, always-on form of backup protection either, according to you.
No, stupid people who refuse to act wisely in their own best interests are in the majority.
I’d be a tiny bit reluctant, but I’d sure as HELL do it!
Yes, they usually are.
Sounds reasonable.
Cite?
If he did assume, he’d be right. Pain builds character, don’t you know? That’s why male circumcision here in SA is done with a rusty spearpoint, possibly dipped in whiskey first. And it’s done out in the bush, too, not a medical facility. The same implement used for each of a batch of the young men.
Hundreds of young men get circumcised every winter here. A percentage of them die from infections. Others have to have their penises amputated, or end up hospitalised with septic infections. If that’s the kind of thing that stops AIDS, well, I don’t know, I’ll stick to the rubber hood, thanks.
Like I said, I think that a potentially hazardous operation to the genitals is an even harder sell than wrapping rubber around it.
Somehow, I doubt it. It seems to me that the folks arguing in favour are cut, and the ones who aren’t aren’t. Oh, and this guy:
(You know, the dude who didn’t bother to respond to your Freudobabble.)
Thanl God the American Academy of Pediatrics has you. I don’t know what those doctors would do without a spittle-flecked internet retard to explain public healt to them. The research in the past 10-20 years has not favored circumcision at all. Take a look at the statement of the AAP.
{QUOTE]Two of them are: (1) there are sudden, in-the-moment passionate encounters where neither party has a condom to consider, and (2) there are considerable number of men who have sex with a mistress, stranger, or prostitute who then go back to their marriage beds and infect their partner because the wife thinks her husband isn’t cheating on her. Don’t these wives have a right to this added protection?
[QUOTE]
Exactly my point. Going bareback causes HIV infections. You’re right, though. If you tell a man that his risk is reduced, he’s a lot more likely to get that standup in the alley when he has a little extra cash.
I find myself wondering why people who are fundamentally opposed to male circumcision tend to hop up on the soapbox and shrill to their heart’s delight about the evils of female circumcision.
What rational argument has been made about the virtues of female circumcision vs. the multiple studies showing clear evidence for the benefits of male circumcision?
And if none exist for the former (and none do), why does that automatically make the latter equally ineffective?
Anyone? :dubious:
I propose we elect you to be in charge of ensuring that every man wear a rubber when he has sex. We’ll eliminate all those pesky worries and debates about the loss of penile sensation for men during sex due to circumcision.
Now all we need is a volunteer to enforce strict moral codes concerning fornication before and outside the marriage.
As a nurse serving the public, does your entire argument really consist of: “Hey, just use a condom everybody! Problem solved.”
Really? :dubious:
Well, I agree that this appears to be the case, and responses in this thread seem to prove it.
My question is this: what, in your opinion, motivates such a strange POV? (I myself have never heard of these people 'till recently, and I must say, they do appear to have a pretty hefty bee in their bonnets over something as minor as circumcision. :dubious:
I really think I need pictures to get a firm grasp on this debate.
Well ambushed offer a hypothesis that I think explains a great deal of it:
Certainly not all of the anti-circ idiots fall into this category, but I think a lot of them do. Go back and read the text of the Craigslist ad I linked, the guy looking for a foreskin transplant (here). Anyone who bemoans “the lack of advancement in stem cell research as it pertains to foreskin re-growth” is not dealing rationally with the subject. “Alzheimer’s? Parkinson’s? Cancer? Hell no! We’re gonna devote cutting edge scientific resources toward regrowing a few inches of useless skin!”
It’s a lot better than performing an operation that will give men the idea that they don’t have to worry about HIV. Men in the United States get HIV quite frequently, despite the fact that most malkes infants are cicumcised. Not as frequently as in Africa, but then American use condoms a lot more. If we hadn’t started using them with that frequency, do you really doubt that our infection rates would be as high as Africa’s? The statistics cited by Helen’s Eidolon do not demonstrate causality.
I don’t know where ambushed got the idea that infection is not a concern. I had enough trouble keeping my sons’ form getting infected, and I live in the United States. The Jews have been doing it for years, but of course their infants have been dying for years, too, just liek everyone else’s, so we’re not going to know if they had “any problems” with it or not.
For the record, the first study I cited wasn’t looking at transmission, it was doing a study of who HAS AIDS - and the number one risk factor was being uncircumcised.
I don’t even want to go into the rest of it, it seems totally pointless, but what the heck. First, NO ONE IS ADVOCATING CIRCUMCISING EVERYONE THIS SECOND. More studies need to be done. Second, no one is saying we shouldn’t encourage condoms. There are problems with condoms as a be-all-end-all protection against AIDS in Africa: the Catholic church has shown itself from time to time to be against them, availability issues and willingness issues stemming from lack of education. If circumsision HELPS (also not a be-all-end-all solution), it should become routine.
I get opposition to circumcizion in absence of medical reasons, although I don’t agree. I don’t get this sort of opposition.