• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Circumcision

Yeah. It used to be called 'teasing', but to keep up with the times it's been relabeled 'tormenting'.

I prefer 'verbal abuse'.

No one wants to call it what it is, and that's non-mutilated penis envy!
 
Beth said:
Congratulations. Your son is very lucky to be born into a loving family with strong ties to their history and culture. I'm certain you will be a wonderful father to him for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your kind wishes.
 
This topic came up on another board I post on and so I crafted the following poem and dedicate it to Mercutio:

Alas, my eyes have never seen
an uncut naked handsome peen,
and though the gals don't like them cut
they fit much better in the butt.

They say the cut will keep it clean.
but cutting babies, that's just mean.
Though flapping skin can be obscene
why circumcise a happy peen?
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7202487.stm

Rwanda has successfully managed to lower the spread of Aids in recent years thanks to its HIV campaign.

Figures from the World Bank last year put the prevalence of Aids in the country at about 3%, down from 11% in 2000.

...

"We will start this campaign with the new born and young men in universities, the army and police."

While it will be nominally voluntary, correspondents say many in the armed forces will regard it as an order.
Click to expand...

What's also rather bizarre is that in 2005 3.8% of circumcised men in Rwanda were HIV positive, compared to 2.1% of uncircumcised men.

ETA: And in 2005, while Muslim men had the lowest incidence of HIV (1.6%) and Catholic the highest (2.4%), Muslim women had the highest (11.1%), the next highest being Catholic women (3.9%). So why won't circumcision just shift the HIV burden even more towards women?

What, exactly, is mass circumcision supposed to achieve in Rwanda?
 
Last edited:
Forgot to post my source for the levels of HIV infection:

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf

15.3.6 HIV Prevalence and Male Circumcision

The RDHS-III included questions on whether men had been circumcised. These data can be used to examine possible relationships between HIV prevalence and male circumcision. Among men age 15 to 59 who were tested for HIV, 9 percent had been circumcised.

Table 15.11 indicates higher prevalence of HIV among circumcised males (3.5 percent) than among uncircumcised males (2.1 percent). This pattern is found for all sociodemographic variables, except urban residence, where prevalence among circumcised men (5.0 percent) is slightly lower than among uncircumcised men (5.7 percent).
Click to expand...
 
So circumcision lowers any man's risk of getting HIV by about 1%.
 
I started working on regrowing my foreskin about 8 months ago, and I am just around halfway done.

As someone who has been sexually active without and now with half, I can honestly say it is much better with even just a half.

Just thought I would chime in.
 
ladida said:
Hummm - as anyone can see from this thread, the "benefits" from circumcision of infant boys is debatable at best! That's why I didn't allow my son to be circumcised; the procedure was described to me (including the clamping of his hands!), but no one could give me any good reason to put him through it. If he wants to change that later, well, then, that's his choice. But there was no way I was going to sign off on strapping this little infant down and allowing someone to cut part of his body off for no clear-cut benefit. Period.
Click to expand...

Removing a woman's breasts at birth will no doubt reduce her risk of breast cancer.

And wouldn't that argument be admitting God's design of a foreskin has problems?

And is this the best the religious can come up with? The fraud that God wants you to mutilate a baby's genitals not for good old fashioned archaic, ritualist religous reason, laughable in modern day, but for the new justification that it's more healthy?

Yet the religious must admit to the laughable reason as the real reason, even if the medical reason (highly questionable) was completely false. For to stop doing it would be going against what God wanted them to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom