[QUOTE=ambushed]
The AAP is merely the victim of intense political pressure from deluded, mentally unbalanced zealots who are driven by emotion and post-modern political theory and their lust for sucking uncut cocks, like cirp.
…
IMO mainly to the hypothesis that these are primarily gay men who so fervently desire uncut male partners that they are desperate to increase the supply of them.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your lovely homophobia. I don’t even understand what you mean (and excalibre seems to wholeheartedly disagree with it from personal experience), but thank you.
Anyway, Tuckerfan, I’m glad you’ve agreed that if cutting out pieces of the vulva were to protect people from AIDS, you would encourage it.
As I said several times (although not as I’ve implied in my tone, I suppose), I can easily see how genital mutilation could be an acceptable countermeasure to mass death.
I must be pissing many of you off by using such language, and my main goal was to attract attention to how differently our culture considers the cutting of men and women. We have to look at this carefully, and figure out what we truly believe.
And even if circumcision is recommendable, we must also think very carefully if we can force it onto non-willing newborns and the adults who they will become. Of course a big difference between forcibly circumcising adults and circumcising them as newborns is that they’ll never know what they’re missing (and if they’ll actually miss anything is another debate to continue, but it might be best to deal with the argumentative contingencies first). Again, it must piss you off to hear me say that, but honestly, think hard about what else could make forcibly snipping newborns more acceptable than forcibly snipping men. (And no, just because a relative condones it does not mean it is not forcible).
Now, I’m not about to search out for any argument that I can to counter circumcision. WhyNot brought up that circumcision imparts trauma on the child. I do not agree with that. I have been to a Jewish ritual circumcision, and to my surprise the baby did not even wince when his skin was cut. In fact, he only cried when they rubbed him clean afterward (proving that he wasn’t drugged). Now I’ll bet doctors in hospitals might be much less skilled than experienced rabbis, but the procedure does not appear inherently painful.
However, a great deal of sensitive tissue is cut off, and the rest undergoes a process where it becomes calloused (ie, irritation leads to keratinization). This cannot simply be dismissed. True, the philosophical question of missing something you’ve never had is still relevant. The point that sex is in large part psychological (and pleasure swings widely with mood) is an even bigger factor, by far! As you can see, I’m trying to bring up arguments from all sides (and I do not play that game of hoping that my opponents will be clumsy). If I had let emotion rise too high, I apologize.
Now we had those two posters who underwent adult circumcision. They maintained that their sex life did not face a downturn. However, if you are still reading, I beseech you to answer my question regarding condom use. If you have always been using condoms and not rolling down your foreskins, it would not be possible to make an accurate comparison with the present. (Please answer, the truth serves everyone). In fact, condoms do a great deal to interfere with the normal mode of operation of the foreskin. The majority of its pleasure is derived from it being slid up and down (this affects the nerves in the foreskin but JUST AS IMPORTANTLY gives extra stimulation to the glans). It is an interesting hypothesis that a foreskin might also reduce condom use. Could this be a contributing factor in the results of the study?
[QUOTE=MostlyClueless]
What I’m saying is that either solution (condoms/circumcision) is a hard sell. You are going for one that only has a minor advantage and gives a false sense of security. For preventing STDs condom use and education are far more effective, efficient and easier to promote.
[/QUOTE]
I made the point in another thread that it might be a good strategy to scare and guilt-trip people from multiple angles (circumcision, abstinence, etc.) with the hope that they will end up at least going with the least painful (condoms). I do not say this in jest, but I admit I am uncomfortable with the by-any-means attitude.
However, the reason it is important to have a long discussion on the effects of circumcision, and then on the ethics of circumcision given its effects.. Why it is important to discuss the ethics despite the millions of lives lost to aids.. Is because circumcision is not the only solution (nor is it even a solution). There are many others, such as antimicrobial gels (which actually attract users because they are good lube), gels which hold AIDS drugs (which prevent the virus from taking hold), cervical rings which release such agents long-term, old-fashioned diaphragms, and low-dose oral prophylactic courses of those same drugs (which, again, prevent contracting HIV). Let us also not forget that using those drugs on people HIV+ (which must be done anyway) greatly reduces the chances of transmission in itself.
Each one of those things probably will do as much to combat the spreads of AIDS or more than circumcision. They all have drawbacks, but let us not go on and pretend that circumcision is above drawbacks.
That is why circumcision, like all those treatments, must be considered carefully. On its merits. And we must refrain from getting too excited or overly-optimistic about any particular treatment.
Should I even bother asking you for a cite?
