All is well and fitting that as we reach the magic century mark in this thread, mangeorge has weighed in heavily in his lighthearted manner with… what… the last word? (Peace, o uncut brother). Has everyone had their say?
Nickrz
Yer humble mod
yer humble mod
Sure, Nickrz. As far as I’m concerned you can go ahead and close it, although ambushed may have one more post in him.
I think he’s out looking for some more numbers. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Work like you don’t need the money…
Love like you’ve never been hurt…
Dance like nobody’s watching! Source???
Thanks for allowing me one last post here, Nickrz. (And call me humorless if you like, but with all due credit to mg for some funny lines early in, I honestly don’t see what’s so witty about deliberately distorting someone’s words. I didn’t realize that this was supposed to be a comedy forum, where style counts for more than substance. I thought we were at The Straight Dope, not the vapid and sophomoric ZUG! But I’m probably over-reacting…)
mangeorge, you certainly did misunderstand! Big time! But was this misunderstanding accidental? Hmmm… Looking back to the post in question (06-16-99 11:05 PM), let’s examine some of the key words and phrases I used:
interpret : “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE”
In other words, a conjecture or speculation.
might : “used to indicate possibility”, or “less probability or possibility than may”
In other words, a conjecture or speculation.
consider : “suppose”, “to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal”
In other words, a conjecture or speculation.
maybe : “perhaps”, or “possibly but not certainly”.
In other words, a conjecture or speculation. Were you honestly unable to recognize that I was merely hazarding a guess rather than asserting incontrovertible fact? Oh, come on!
As for the bit about giving you a break, I was referring to the fact that I went out on a limb and trusted that you were genuinely curious about one of the conclusions of that single citation out of fifteen that I listed, fourteen of which you obviously couldn’t find anything to pick at. I naively thought that maybe, just maybe, we could jointly participate as adults in open speculation about that single curious result. Clearly I was wrong. I regret my error.
(I’m sorry about the tone of this post, but I wouldn’t have taken the annoying schoolmarm approach if I wasn’t so sure that mangeorge knew perfectly well that I was engaging in pure speculation and guesswork yet deliberately decided to misrepresent my words in order to make me look foolish. If I’m wrong and mangeorge is dull-witted or doesn’t understand English very well, I apologize.)
That’s a distortion of my words. Although looking back it seems I have to take some of my own medicine for screwing up and inadvertently misconstruing the gist of your earlier statement, I contend that there’s a more useful and adult way to object to that sort of thing other than manufacturing your own distortion and childishly throwing it back in your opponent’s face.
And although “flippancy” was perhaps not the best word I could have chosen, I certainly never said it was “flippant” to use or recommend safe sexual practices, as you so disingenuously suggest!
But even ignoring these misrepresentations, your point about avoiding risk factors and the virus itself is ludicrous. Yes, it’s certainly true that if you avoid the HIV virus you won’t get infected by it, just like if you avoid flu viruses you won’t get influenza, or if you never board an aircraft you will never crash in one. How trite. The question is: does being circumcised help you avoid the HIV virus! And 12 out of the 13 reports cited in this thread (including at least 33 studies) answer with a resounding YES! And they show that it offers very substantial help indeed!
The only way to be one-hundred percent (or 1, since some people apparently feel that percentages are exaggerations) safe from HIV is to abstain from sexual relations. The things you listed are extremely helpful, but are not 100% effective. Circumcision is obviously a useful avenue of additional protection to add to that list, even though circumcision alone is inadequate (just like all the others you listed). Your complete, out of hand dismissal indicates that you aren’t being at all fair or logical.
Finally, you’re being naive to the point of absurdity if you think that you can rely on everyone – or even just one’s own children – to always and everywhere follow the proscriptions on your list. I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t have condoms during my early sexual encounters, particularly since they were rarely planned (they began at 11 years old, for crying out loud!) How many 6’th graders at a Catholic elementary school have access to condoms?
Circumcision is the only way a concerned parent can medically and proactively help protect their children from HIV and other STD’s (not to mention protecting them from UTI and penile cancer). Everything else they might try are mere words. If I as a parent couldn’t have ideal safety, I would nevertheless be very grateful for up to a 960% (or 9.6 times, since I apparently need to spell it out for mangeorge) risk reduction. (See Morris’ reference in one of my recent posts for the 9.6 figure).
Ha! AuraSeer nailed you completely, mangeorge!! But do you step forward and admit your mistake like a man, George? Oh, no… You stoop to that last resort of childish ego-defense: “I meant to do that!” Furthermore, even if we ignore the fact that your use of the statistic is completely wrong, in your scenario it would not mean 820 uncut men with HIV for every cut man: it would mean only about 8 uncut men for every cut man, not 820! You are the one who’s exaggerating things all out of proportion!
How sad. At least you had the integrity to admit you’ve been “playing games” with the contents of my posts!
Sir, on what basis do you so rashly accuse me of “greatly exaggerat[ing] the risks of being uncut?” Since when is reporting the fact that one’s odds of being infected with HIV are “up to 8.2 times greater” as being “up to 820% greater” an “exaggeration”? 8.2 times greater is 820% greater! One might suppose that you didn’t realize that until you were called on it by Aura… Admit it: Your decision to portray my perfectly valid choice of using percentages as “a great exaggeration” was the only “great exaggeration” involved!
Another pointless and deliberately obtuse truism. If we had a cheap, simple, and foolproof test (flashlight) to detect the presence of HI
1.7 - 8.2 times as high.
Less than twice to more than eight times as high.
I’ve read your posts, ambushed, so I know you’re intelligent. So why don’t these numbers stink to you, as they do to me.
Times what? What percentage? What’s the sample?
Of 1 million 16 year old boys who have sex, how many will be infected with HIV? Of these, how many because of unprotected sex? And of these (no condom, HIV+), how many because they are uncircumcised?
This is the number we’re discussing here.
Not plane crashes or auto accidents, but how many men have HIV solely because they are uncircumcised. And what percentage of the total of the men who have HIV do they represent.
Then what percentage of all men who have sex are we talking about?
Simply put;
What are the chances that someone’s son will get HIV because his parents didn’t have him cut as a newborn?
O.K?
This is my last post on this thread, Nickrz.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, avid followers of this thread (assuming there still are any), since it’s time to close up here, I’m starting a sequel thread. I thought about moving to the Great Debates forum, but that’s supposed to be for threads that don’t have a definite answer. Since I strongly contend that the question of whether the benefits outweigh the risks of circumcision has just such an answer (i.e., yes), I decided to keep the new thread here in the “General Questions” forum.
But it would have been nice if before we left this thread, my two primary opponents would’ve had the honesty and integrity to admit they misrepresented my statements and positions on more than one occasion, and completely ignored or dismissed a priori all the evidence that challenged or refuted their emotionally-based positions.
I make mistakes too, as I’m sure you’ll all readily believe. But I try to behave like an adult and acknowledge my errors when they’re pointed out or when shown strong evidence contradicting my position. Check out some of my posts in a few other threads and you’ll see I’m telling the truth.
But perhaps that kind of integrity was too much to hope for…
Anyway, see you all in “The Slice is Nice: Circumcision II!”
This subject seems to have been side-tracked to sex and aids.
As one who has been circumcised at birth by an amateur idiot doctor or nurse I still bear the scars of that experience which to this day at the age of 44 makes me feel ashamed of my appearance at times and several girlfriends have looked at my thing questioningly as if I had some loathsome disease.
I believe that in the process of the circumcision they used clamps or some other device which penetrated the skin in several places around my penis so that I have holes in the skin some of which are like tunnels through which a wire like device could be pushed through. I suppose I could be generous and think that they did this with the intention of providing me with an interesting place to put rings as they do nowadays, but nevertheless the problem has caused me a lot of grief.
Does anyone else have this problem or am I the only mug unlucky enough to meet the Dr.Hannibal of circumcisions at birth and has anyone done anything about it in terms of surgery,etc. ?
Dear Raygun:
Your story is terrible! I am depressed just thinking about it. I’ve never heard of anything that bad happening to anyone else.
My story is not bad, but it is pretty stupid. I vaguely remember my mother’s instructions as to how I should bathe. “Remember to pull your foreskin back when you bathe.” I wasn’t embarrassed when she said that, so I must have been very young.
The funny thing is, I am circumcised. How stupid is that? She apparently never knew, or didn’t remember. I didn’t really knew what she meant by “foreskin”; I just figured it meant I should be really careful to wash where the remaining skin is loose. Later on, I saw drawings in a book comparing the cut to the uncut, and I figured it out. I was probably 16. The funny thing is, as a kid I could never figure out what the scar was.
I also couldn’t figure out why it is often asserted that “masturbation makes noise”. Huh? How could you possibly masturbate fast or vigourously enough to make any noise? Well, it’s obviously different if you are unaltered.
If you hadn’t guessed, I think circumcision is barbaric. I’m not interested in the STD arguments. I mean, what should we do to prevent eyelid infections? Amputate?
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
My husband was circumcized badly. He has recurring cysts at the scar line and some odd adhesions similar to what Raygun described. The scarring from from postoperative infections narrowed his urethra and other complications lead to his infertility. It is a wonder it works at all. Lucky for me it does!
I am strongly opposed to routine infant circumcision. If it is for religious reasons, I understand. I do not fathom religions anyway and do not wish to interfere. BUT the people who get their kids circumsized for cosmetic reasons are not very bright IMHO. There is too much of a risk for that.
I agree that the religious dimension is a touchy part of the whole deal. We don’t want to interfere with religious practices, right? Still, I don’t really understand the role of circumcision in the Jewish faith. Why is it done at birth and not just before the bar mitzvah? Isn’t that when the boy is considered old enough to make his covenant with God? The explanation I usually hear is that it is less traumatic and complicated to circumcise infants, but I don’t know how you’d establish this. “When asked his opinion about being circumcised, the infant said nothing. When asked if he felt any pain, the infant said nothing. When asked if he was glad to have undergone the operation, the infant made a few sounds which were unintelligible.” A more likely reason is that, if circumcision to be delayed until a boy was no longer helpless and mute, no one would get them.
Until recently, the medical community was convinced that infants could not feel pain, notwithstanding the screaming, shaking, accelerated heart rate, and reduced blood pressure infants undergo after being circumcised without anaesthesia. So you’ll have to forgive me if I treat judgements about how traumatic these procedures are with utmost skepticism when those judgements come from the medical community. (They are the ones who smoke Camels more than any other brand.)
I wonder if anyone has studied how influenced the VD statistics are by sexual dysfunction. I mean, how much is the sexually-transmitted disease rate among circumcised males depressed by the fact that some of them can’t have sex?
Obviously the foreskin-hating crowd will make the point that some erectile problems are cured by circumcision, which means nothing to me. We are using a pound of prevention where we should be using an ounce of cure. “Routine male circumcision” is an accepted surgical procedure in the United States, just as “routine female circumcision” (infibulation, clitoridectomy) is an accepted surgical procedure in Somalia. I bet the doctors smoke Camels there too.
Here’s another study on the benefits of circumcision of all those Mr Johnsons and HIV transmission which was found on AFRO-NETS [PRO-MED] message board.
BMJ 2000;320:1592-1594 (10 June)
EDUCATION AND DEBATE
How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
Robert Szabo, medical resident a, Roger V Short, professor b.a Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Wellington Road, Melbourne 3168, Australia, b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women’s Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Melbourne 3053, Australia
For full text see:
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
Uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men, according to new evidence in this week’s BMJ.
Using information from over 40 previous studies, researchers in Australia suggest that the virus targets specific cells found on the inner surface of the foreskin. These cells possess HIV receptors, making this area particularly susceptible to infection. The researchers propose that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection by removing most of the receptors.
The most dramatic evidence of this protective effect comes from a new study of couples in Uganda, where each woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not. Over a period of 30 months, no new infections occurred among 50 circumcised men, whereas 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected - even though all couples were given advice about preventing infection and free condoms were available to them.
Although cultural and religious attitudes towards male circumcision are deeply divided, the authors conclude that, in the light of the evidence, male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in countries with a high level of infection.
Alternatively, say the authors, the development of “chemical condoms” (products which can block HIV receptors in the penis and the vagina) might provide a more acceptable form of HIV prevention in the future.
END QUOTE
Sigh, still nothing about female circumcision and HIV transmission.
Other thoughts not previously mentioned.
the AAP still allows that parents can make up their own minds, BUT not only is anesthesia required, but the two most commonly used forms are NOT SUFFICIENT. Forget EMLA in most cases, and go for the ring block.
breastfeeding pretty near erases all risk of UTI, circ or not, so if you plan to bf, you can drop that risk significantly (even if you only make it for a few weeks).
Only UTI risk is definitively linked to lower rates for infant circ (pre-1st year). other risks change with later childhood and adulthood circ, including cancer. UTI can be nasty, but also is treatable without surgery. If UTI recurrence is a problem in the first few months, THEN circ. After year 1, the UTI-circ-status issue is no longer relevant (UTI no longer linked after 1 year). The penile cancer death rate is lower than the circumcision accident DEATH rate in the US. Granted, I’d rather not have anyone I know lose such a part to surgery, but I’d also not want to lose my son’s LIFE. The American Cancer Society (I beleive that’s the name) issued an open letter to the AAP stating tha tcircumcision is not an acceptable prophylactic for penile cancer. I trust them to know cancer. Plus, the prenile cancer rate is vastly different in the US and other countries that are prdomnantly NON-CIRCd, so there is some suggestion that behavior of American uncirc’d men is different than elsewhere, and therefore it is the behavior, not the circ status that is the risk factor. (of course, we have to figure out which behavior that is…)
In discussing circ with a vet (animal doctor, not veteran), her thoughts on the HIV transission was that 1) pre-existing infections of any kind on the foreskin make other diesase transmission easier across the affected tissue, and 2) lots of dogs show up with yeast infections in their sheaths, despite them licking themselves (don’t you wish?). So perhaps pre-existing infections (yeast, etc.) might be the precursor for HIV. Similar infections in females may also play a role in HIV. Such infections can be affected by diet, lifestyle, and care. Might be a good area to look into, study-wise.
many infants do not cry when circ’d by a mohel - partly because one of the reactions to trauma in infancy is to withdraw into a sleep-like state, partly because a lot of mohels now give the mom a packet of EMLA cream to apply in advance, which the moms apply far more liberally than any doctor would, and hence the pain is a bit lower than otherwise (even if not gone and will come back soon).
I have a bunch of other thoughts on the ethics (right to an intact body being one of the fundamental human rights identified even by the US human rights committees), but that’s been hashed a bit, already.
My son is not circ’d, my husband is. Honestly, I think the little baby terrorist is pretty cute, though it took me a week to get used to it. We read the research, and figured that since we don’t have a religious reason to do it, and it was coming close to cosmetic surgery, and the research seemed to favor leaving it alone AND teaching them to take care of it (more than just saying ‘uh, don’t forget to wash that thing…’), and being upfront and serious about safe sex, we’d leave him intact. I offer my advice to friends, as my OPINION, and say that if they choose otherwise, PLEASE follow the AAP recommendation on anasthetic - get the ring block. I disagree with using it as a standard procedure or cosmetic alteration, BUT I also agree that if you are making the decision based on your medical concerns, you at least have one foot to stand on. In the long run, we can’t know which problem will come up for our sons, whether he’ll hate us for taking the choice from him, or be upset by being intact - or love us for either. You think and think and then make the best choice you can based on what YOU value and what YOU think is important. Maybe you screw up, maybe you don’t. Just don’t take the decision lightly, and if you do circ, make damn sure to get the anesthesia (and find the best doc you can, so you reduce your chances of accidental injury or death), and if you don’t circ, make damn sure you train your child to take care of it. Either way, safe sex is a must. It is far easier to forgive a parent for making the wrong choice if they used the best info they had and made the best choice they COULD with that info. It is also far easier to forgive yourself, should you be wrong. Doesn’t make you less wrong, though (either way).
I bet we’ll have medical studies bouncing back and forth on this issue endlessly, and our children will have the same decision to make.
I am uncut and see absolutely no reason why it should be done. It seems pretty barbaric to me.
Barbaric? Funny, I dont remember the excrucuating pain from being cut.
I’m cut. My son ( age 10 now) arrived from South Korea, un-cut. I fretted, and the wife thought I was nuts. Son DID have a UTI prior to coming to us, while he was still in South Korea. So, at the age of 9 months, I got her to let me take him to a urologist, just for yucks and giggles, to talk to HIM about the whole thing.
Thank god for me and my penile hang-ups. This child had TWO DIFFERENT congenital defects involving his kidneys, and both would have gone undetected for a long time. One was corrected by surgery, one he mostly outgrew. All because I didn’t want the girls to have hang-ups about him. He’ll grow up Asian in a lilly-white town, he’s “different” enough, and I thought it unfair to saddle him with that issue as well. At least when his first lover gets him down to skin, he’ll look like the other boys.
This is coming out sounding kind of wrong, but my fears were for UTI’s/HIS self-image, and the issue of lovers.
Cartooniverse