PDA

View Full Version : WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan


haku
28-03-2007, 16:15
WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm)

I am appalled that the WHO is supporting the sexual mutilation of boys as a way to prevent AIDS.
Female circumcision is generally considered a human rights violation, and so should be male circumcision.
Sexual mutilations should be condemned, not encouraged.

the unforgiven
28-03-2007, 16:58
circumcision is also a religious act and we have to respect that, even if every religious thing is not always good

if men wanna have a circumcision because they think it's an opportunity to "protect" them from AIDS, then let's them have it
as far as it's a choice and not an obligation I guess it's ok

Britney Spears
28-03-2007, 18:23
Circumcision is a guy choice. If they think it will prevent them from getting HIV. Then have it done...

haku
28-03-2007, 21:51
99% of genital cuttings are done on young children (without anesthesia most of the time) who have no say on the matter, it's not a "choice".

Adults can do what they want to their own genitals, cut them, scar them, pierce them, whatever, but children should always be protected from body mutilations (including from their parents).

And this is the problem with this WHO push for circumcision. By encouraging adults to get circumcised in countries where the practice was marginal, it's going to lead parents to have their children circumcised as well.
Furthermore, female genital cutting is widespread in Africa, how can we convince an African family that cutting girls is "wrong" while cutting boys is "alright"?
Many cultures can give good reasons as to why it's better to cut the penis of boys, but many cultures can also give good reasons as to why it's better to cut the clitoris and/or labia of girls, does that make it right to do any of that on children?

I am strictly against any kind of genital cutting performed on minors, male or female, i don't think it can be wrong to cut a gender and alright to cut the other. I consider that the genital mutilation of children is a barbaric act that qualifies as a sexual assault.
Adults can do what they want to themselves, but children should be left untouched.

forre
28-03-2007, 22:05
Unbelievable :bum:

chaz
28-03-2007, 22:07
Im circumcised, and Im really happy with it, it was done when I was three, Im 18, almost 19 now ,Im still hapy, it looks better, and if it helps to prevents HIV, better, but I still think its a guy´s choice to do it or not, not a parent´s choice.

Talyubittu
28-03-2007, 22:11
I see two options to this entire mess...

1. Get circumcized as a child like normal.
2. Get Circumcized as an adult/older

___________________________________________

1. If you are unhappy that you were circumzied - then restore.
2. If you had it done as an adult - I don't know why you'd want to restore.



If it helps prevent HIV then it's for the better, even if you don't support it.

Also - Do not refer to it as "genitile mutilation"

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

If you use definition one - the word "irreparably" does not apply here. Becuase it can be corrected. So that option is tossed out. And if you use option two, the word "essential" is used. A foreskin is not essential - therefore that is no longer an argument that's valid. It has been, and always will be a parental choice.

It is safer and healthier to have a circumcision - some research says it dosen't matter, but at the same time. It's ONLY reserach. Not fact. Better to be safe than sorry.

Furthermore, female genital cutting is widespread in Africa, how can we convince an African family that cutting girls is "wrong" while cutting boys is "alright"?

Male circumcision aids in good health, and now helping prevent HIV.

Female cirumcision - can result in urinary tract infections, cysts, hemorrhaging and infertillity, it's not like it's the exact same operation used on a penis only with a vagina. The side effects are much different and much more severe than "Missing your foreskin" - which can be grown back anyways. That is why it is frowned upon.

dradeel
28-03-2007, 22:16
Adults can do what they want to themselves, but children should be left untouched.
Wise words, which I support to the bone. Penn and Teller: Bullshit! has a very good episode on circumcision (season 3, episode 1). There are both ups and downs with the foreskin. But waging the ups and downs should be done by adults that decide over their OWN BODY, not pushing their own sadistic opinions on other persons.

As for circumcision on children. When new born babies have their foreskin cut off, they rarely use any form of anesthetics. Why? "Because the baby is so small it can't really feel anything... and it won't remember the pain later in its life." - True that the baby might forget about it - just as you forget about the pain of breaking your leg when you went snowboarding 2-3 years ago... but a baby is actually over-sensitive to pain, and the foreskin is loaded with nerves. When babies are "quiet" and don't cry even if its cut off, it's not because they don't feel it, it's because they are paralyzed by the pain... It's fucking crazy that doctors can go to sleep at night without a huge amount of guilt hanging over them. It disgusts me...

As for adults cutting the skin off -- it's not anything more serious than body art, which I have nothing against. I'm even for plastic surgery. So yeah, that's just fair enough. You should have the right to do what you want with your own body without anyone telling you it's right or wrong :) It's just wrong that babies that can't say yes or no have to go through because someone else thinks they shoud.

If it helps prevent HIV then it's for the better, even if you don't support it.
A condom does the trick. Point is that this could lead you to think that circumcision is a CHOICE for the condom. Well, if you want full protection, you need the condom. And if you have the condom, why would you have to get circumcized?
It is safer and healthier to have a circumcision - some research says it dosen't matter, but at the same time. It's ONLY reserach. Not fact. Better to be safe than sorry.
There are both ups and downs. There are some studies that show un-circumcized people have less chance of getting some kinda infection (it was actually mentioned one in specific) in the urin-channel because of the natural protection of the foreskin. (However, another study said something else about another infection. Hahaha.) The foreskin gives the surface of the penis more friction, which actually helps when stimulating your partner sexually. Also, uncircumcized guys have a more sensitive head. Now, some might say that this will make them cum faster, allthough the difference there isn't much for "trained guys". But guys with a more sensitive heads will be able to enjoy a better orgasm.

And then you have the downs; - that the sensitive skin is easier to get small wounds and stuff, where sexual transmitted diseases will get to the blood in an instant. And I guess other diseases follow as well. But you know, I can't say that worries me. :p

All in all, it doesn't matter what the ups and downs are, cause they wage up against eachother imo. And if you have a condom all the disease-stuff is pointless to be discussing, cause they're out of the whole debate.

So in my opinion better safe than sorry would be to leave the dick alone. Hehehe.

Talyubittu
28-03-2007, 22:31
A condom does the trick. Point is that this could lead you to think that circumcision is a CHOICE for the condom. Well, if you want full protection, you need the condom. And if you have the condom, why would you have to get circumcized?

Abstinence is the only guarenteed way. And if the condom rips, and you're circumzied, you may be able to save your life if you are with someone who has HIV.

fortyfeet
28-03-2007, 22:42
Whether or not circumcision is ethical, that is another debate.

There should not be a need to even create a circumcision plan if people would just stop spreading the disease. It's really not that hard to not be promiscuous, and even then it's easy to get tested, or simply not sleep around with questionable people.

Sure, it may lower your chance of getting the disease when having sex with an infected person, but here's a wonderful idea: DON'T HAVE SEX WITH INFECTED PEOPLE. It's not complicated.

------
As for circumcision alone, the only benefit really of having done as a child is that the scarring is very minimal or apparant to adults who have it done. I think it's a big issue that many parents do not educate their children about their foreskin, or otherwise, and leave it up to schools to inform. I'll be honest, I didn't know until a few years ago that I wasn't circumcised, and I found out all by myself.

dradeel
28-03-2007, 22:44
And if the condom rips, and you're circumzied
If you use a condom correctly, the chance of it ripping is like ... extremely minimal!! Hehehe. It's crazy what tests condoms go through to actually be allowed selling. And I think it's ALOT cheaper to show people correct use of condoms, than to start set up equipment and guidelines for circumcision in all the hugely HIV-affected countries, training people in the prosedure while keeping it all acceptably health-secured, and then have people come in for free circumcision.

PowerPuff Grrl
28-03-2007, 23:02
You can't possibly even compare female genital mutilation with male circumcision.

FGM has nothing to do with religion, it's purely cultural and used to remove the sexual agency of young women in the most painful and barbaric way (and by the way it happens around the time when girls hit puberty). It goes hand in hand with female subordination to a patriarchy and to equate that to the argument against male circumcision which, I believe does none of the above, is just not right.

Though I'm not as opinionated in this matter as some of you, I'll have to side with the anti-circumcision brigade.
Afterall; your penis your choice, right?

Sean Jon
28-03-2007, 23:20
I personally have nothing against circumcision. Sexually, I prefer circumcised genitals on guys. I don't believe it's a big deal at all.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
28-03-2007, 23:48
I believe if the guy wants to do it, he should.
I dont agree with circumcision being done on babies.
i dont see how circumcision can help prevent aids/hiv
either way if u have sex with an infected person you will
get it..what is the difference?

fortyfeet
29-03-2007, 01:10
either way if u have sex with an infected person you will
get it..what is the difference?

No, actually there isn't a 100% chance of being infected when having sex with an infected person, even without a condom I don't think there is a 100% chance.

And I don't think it's that simple for a guy to want it and go do it. Atleast I'm torn up about doing it, because once it's gone, it's gone forever.

QueenBee
29-03-2007, 01:19
Atleast I'm torn up about doing it, because once it's gone, it's gone forever.

But you can do this nifty thing that's called foreskin restoration (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html)?

fortyfeet
29-03-2007, 01:55
But you can do this nifty thing that's called foreskin restoration (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html)?

Well.. I guess there is that option..

Talyubittu
29-03-2007, 02:07
But you can do this nifty thing that's called foreskin restoration (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html)?


:) I talked about that earlier. Either way you can get it back - or get it removed. Saying it shouldn't be removed at a young age - only means excessive pain when you're older if you want it done. And having it done - means waiting a year for it to be restored - thats a MUCH smaller price to pay than excruciating pain.


i dont see how circumcision can help prevent aids/hiv
either way if u have sex with an infected person you will
get it..what is the difference?

There was an article in the first post. Had you read it you'd have known what the issue at hand was about.

Whether or not circumcision is ethical, that is another debate.

There should not be a need to even create a circumcision plan if people would just stop spreading the disease. It's really not that hard to not be promiscuous, and even then it's easy to get tested, or simply not sleep around with questionable people.

Sure, it may lower your chance of getting the disease when having sex with an infected person, but here's a wonderful idea: DON'T HAVE SEX WITH INFECTED PEOPLE. It's not complicated.

I hear aids can be passed by blood to blood contact too...I might just be dumb though.
I'm being a smartass yes because - many people with HIV don't know they have it. It can take 10 years before you see symptoms. Pricking your finger and touching a bandaid someone with HIV had that has blood on it or another bodily fluid could infect you. Our school carries HIV cleansing kits in the office. It's an oxygen spray you spray on blood anywhere in the school - HIV is killed by Oxygen in high concentration. So it's not that simple to know if you're infected or not, other than testing. Which not everyone is going to do. People in the 80's believed it was "Gay Cancer" because five gay men had it before anyone else in America. People today still believe it's a big gay diessease, even though the majority of people with it are heterosexual. Not to mention - a lot of people now think it's just from sex. It's not a pregnancy so it's not only transmitted by sex.

This abstinence education system the world is adopting is really realy sad. Nobody knows what's going on with anything anymore.

QueenBee
29-03-2007, 02:22
I also didn't get the impression that the article refers to boys being forced into it... but men having the opportunity. Maybe I got it wrong though.

Personally I would never even dare to have sex with someone who is infected... obviously you can't be 100% safe, I wouldn't find the sex enjoyable 'cause I'd be all worried throughout the whole thing :bum: But obviously this strategy isn't working out so well...

Khartoun2004
29-03-2007, 03:01
I personally have nothing against circumcision. Sexually, I prefer circumcised genitals on guys. I don't believe it's a big deal at all.

gotta agree there. un-cut dicks are ugly and wicked gross.

Anyway, I'm Jewish so I'm going to stay out of this debate, except to say that in the US as far as I know it is common practice to preform a circumsicion on a newborn boy, unless the parents request that they don't. It's cleaner in general to be cut... why? because bacteria and other foreign objects can't get trapped under the foreskin if it isn't there.

They have also done studies that say circumsicion prevents certain types of cancer. Sorry but cancer isn't exactly something you can avoid by putting on a condom.

Also, the US started preforming circumsicions routinely after WWII, because it is a well known fact that the Nazis use to make Jewish men drop their pants in the middle of the street to prove they were Jewish and humilate them.

Talyubittu
29-03-2007, 03:04
Das ist stimmt!

Amy_Lee_Rocks
29-03-2007, 03:23
It's cleaner in general to be cut... why? because bacteria and other foreign objects can't get trapped under the foreskin if it isn't there.



To avoid bacteria and other foreign objects a man or boy should clean himself.
Its not to hard to clean yourself. Just put your foreskin down towards
the body and clean!.

Talyubittu
29-03-2007, 03:41
You cannot clean away cancer.

Amy_Lee_Rocks
29-03-2007, 03:58
You cannot clean away cancer.

I never knew you could get cancer under your foreskin.
You may not clean away cancer. But you can clean away
other things. I think it just all depends on how clean
the guy really is.

haku
29-03-2007, 04:02
Regarding my analogy with female circumcision, i know that people generally say that genital mutilation is worse for a girl than a boy, and it probably is, but for me that's beyond the point, it's still a child who is cut, it's still a child whose body is violated by adults.
It's like when people debate how much pain is really torture, or how many million dead really make a genocide, it's only a matter of degree for something that is a violation of human rights no matter what.

I remember seeing a documentary a couple of years ago, it showed a boy, maybe 8 years old, being circumcized by his family in North Africa, it's done with a small knife and some sort of clamp that holds the penis and forcefully retracts the foreskin so it can be cut, without anesthesia of course, the boy was kicking and sceaming and was held in place by two adults (besides the one who was cutting).
So maybe that boy suffered less than a girl would during a female circumcision, maybe he suffered 10 times less, 100 times less? And maybe boys are not sufficiently evolved to be psychologically scarred by such events. I don't know. But isn't the pain already enough to make it an inhumane act nonetheless?

And even if it's done at a much younger age when a boy can't really kick, it's still a child whose body is violated by adults.
Strangely, if parents take a toddler to a piercing parlor and ask that their child's tongue to be pierced for example, they'll most probably have the police called on them and people will just say "those parents are insane". But if those parents take that toddler to a doctor and ask their child's penis to be cut, it'll be done right away, no questions asked. And finally if that toddler happens to be a girl and her parents ask for even a slight genital modification, suddenly it becomes wrong again.
Those double standards make no sense, either parents should be allowed to pierce, tattoo, scar, or cut their children as they wish, or no body modification of any kind should be allowed.

To avoid bacteria and other foreign objects a man or boy should clean himself.
Its not to hard to clean yourself. Just put your foreskin down towards the body and clean!.Exactly, girls labia and clitoral hood can also get dirty, i rarely see people suggesting that all girls should have their labia and clitoral hood cut at birth.

Ears get dirty as well, maybe we should cut them at birth too.

You cannot clean away cancer.The most common cancers in men are testicular and prostate cancers, should we remove the testicles and prostates of boys at birth too to avoid any risks?

Similarly the most common cancers in women are cervical and breast cancers, i rarely see people suggesting that all women should have their breasts and cervix removed as a precaution.

Talyubittu
29-03-2007, 04:10
I remember seeing a documentary a couple of years ago, it showed a boy, maybe 8 years old, being circumcized by his family in North Africa, it's done with a small knife and some sort of clamp that holds the penis and forcefully retracts the foreskin so it can be cut, without anesthesia of course, the boy was kicking and sceaming and was held in place by two adults (besides the one who was cutting).
So maybe that boy suffered less than a girl would during a female circumcision, maybe he suffered 10 times less, 100 times less? And maybe boys are not sufficiently evolved to be psychologically scarred by such events. I don't know. But isn't the pain already enough to make it an inhumane act nonetheless?

You know - when I was circumcized, my parents just did it in the hospital. We're really cheap. I don't think they wanted to spear the expense of having it done profesionally in Africa.

Honestly - are you serious? That is not a circumcision.....well it is but, it's not an ETHICAL one. Nobody does it LIKE THAT unless you're there! African tribes are full of aids as well, so I should thing that circumcision there would be GREAT! not to mention - there are many many more serious problems facing africa other than a few missing foreskins I think.

Your examples are completely deranged as well! A tongue piercing? A tongue piercing is MUCH different than a circumcision. We already explained the benefits of a circumcision. The only bad thing is that it may violate a right - and you can once you are old enough correct a circumcision if you wish to.

PowerPuff Grrl
29-03-2007, 06:26
So maybe that boy suffered less than a girl would during a female circumcision, maybe he suffered 10 times less, 100 times less? And maybe boys are not sufficiently evolved to be psychologically scarred by such events. I don't know. But isn't the pain already enough to make it an inhumane act nonetheless?
I wasn't measuring the pain nor the method between either forms of circumcision. It's the intention behind it that worries me the most. Female genital mutilation is tantamount to putting a freaking lock on a woman's sexuality. Male circumcision (when done correctly) is done, according to WHO, to prevent the spread of diseases and if I go by the testimonies of some of the men here, it doesn't even sound a fraction as bad as female genital mutilation.

So no, I still don't think it is comparable. That doesn't mean I encourage it... despite what my avatar says.

haku
29-03-2007, 16:44
PowerPuff Grrl, yeah, i think we mostly agree actually, that's why i didn't quote you because i didn't want you to feel particularly targetted, it was more meant as a general remark.

As i understand it, there are many forms of female genital cutting, from a simple circumcision (hoodectomy) which only involves the trimming of the clitoral hood to expose the clitoris (a procedure identical in principle to its male counterpart since hood=foreskin and clitoris=penis), to various types of excision (removal of clitoris and/or trimming of labia minora), to an extreme infibulation (removal of everything and sewing together of labia majora).

From what i've read, excision and infibulation are only practiced in Africa or among African migrant groups.
Countries from the Arabic peninsula to Indonesia only practice simple female circumcision (hoodectomy), suposedly to enhance sexual pleasure for women since the clitoris is permanently exposed and also for esthetic reasons.

And this is where Western countries have an hypocritical attitude regarding male circumcision. Female circumcision is indentical in nature to male circumcision, in both cases it involves trimming the prepuce (foreskin for males, clitoral hood for females) to expose the glans (penis or clitoris head), the female version is no more invasive, traumatic, damaging or (un)necessary than the male version, and yet female circumcision on minors is not allowed in Western countries (but it's allowed on adult women, i've read that trimming of clitoral hood and labia minora is on the rise in plastic surgery) while male circumcision on minors is perfectly legal.
At the very least, the law should be identical for boys and girls, either parents should be allowed to have their boys and girls circumcized, or it should be illegal for minors of both genders.

dradeel
29-03-2007, 18:58
gotta agree there. un-cut dicks are ugly and wicked gross.
I disagree! :D I love my un-cut dick. Hahaha.

In america it's become fashion more than anything, which I can't understand - but that's prolly because I don't live there. Hehehe. Either way, that again is a man's choice tho, just like it would be with body art.

I hear aids can be passed by blood to blood contact too...I might just be dumb though.
True that. Drug-addicts sharing needles have a big danger of spreading HIV. Most body fluids can transport HIV... people have been afraid of it spreading through spit, however it's not known to have happened tho. Never a rule without exceptions I guess. :)No, actually there isn't a 100% chance of being infected
I read one time that there is like a 30-40% chance. I can't say this is a fact tho, but clearly it's not a 100% chance of getting infected. :)
Your examples are completely deranged as well! A tongue piercing? A tongue piercing is MUCH different than a circumcision. We already explained the benefits of a circumcision.
The point of the examples was to show that something "as little as a tongue piercing" will give you a huge reaction if you'd come and ask for a tongue piercing on your 2 year old boy. However, if you asked a doctor to cut of the foreskin of you 2 year old boy, there won't be a single question asked.

And I've already mentioned benifits with un-circumcized penises. Which adds to the "violating a human right" imo.

Talyubittu
29-03-2007, 19:31
And this is where Western countries have an hypocritical attitude regarding male circumcision. Female circumcision is indentical in nature to male circumcision, in both cases it involves trimming the prepuce (foreskin for males, clitoral hood for females) to expose the glans (penis or clitoris head), the female version is no more invasive, traumatic, damaging or (un)necessary than the male version, and yet female circumcision on minors is not allowed in Western countries (but it's allowed on adult women, i've read that trimming of clitoral hood and labia minora is on the rise in plastic surgery) while male circumcision on minors is perfectly legal.
At the very least, the law should be identical for boys and girls, either parents should be allowed to have their boys and girls circumcized, or it should be illegal for minors of both genders.

Can you read Haku?

Female cirumcision - can result in urinary tract infections, cysts, hemorrhaging and infertillity, it's not like it's the exact same operation used on a penis only with a vagina. The side effects are much different and much more severe than "Missing your foreskin" - which can be grown back anyways. That is why it is frowned upon.

haku
29-03-2007, 19:34
I disagree! I love my un-cut dick. Hahaha.Haha, yeah, i too am happy with my uncut dick, i certainly don't think it looks "ugly and wicked gross", i think it looks quite nice actually, lol. :gigi:

And yeah, the US is a special case in the West (as usual), over 50% of boys are circumcized over there (apparently it's even 80% in younger generations, totally insane), while less than 10% of boys are circumcized in the rest of the Western world (Europe and South America).

the unforgiven
29-03-2007, 19:59
I hear aids can be passed by blood to blood contact too...I might just be dumb though
are you kidding? no offence but everybody knows that you can catch AIDS by blood contact

anyway, I've read an article about this circumcision stuff today and it said that it could decrease of 55 to 60% the risk of being infected and that it could prevent 6 millions of infection in the future

Khartoun2004
29-03-2007, 21:39
The point of the examples was to show that something "as little as a tongue piercing" will give you a huge reaction if you'd come and ask for a tongue piercing on your 2 year old boy. However, if you asked a doctor to cut of the foreskin of you 2 year old boy, there won't be a single question asked.

ummm Boys in the US are circumcisied right after birth by a doctor... sometimes Jewish boys, assuming of course that it's done by a rabbi, are cut right at 7 days old in a special ceremony... so I really don't know where you are getting the 2 years old from?

I'm just going to chalk this debate up to cultural differences. I don't see any problem with circumcision. The foreskin is totally unnecessary and having it removed seems to do more good than harm in terms of protecting boys from future risk of infection. The same cannot however be said for female circumcision, so comparing the two is ridiculous as well as comparing it to a tongue piercing.

dradeel
29-03-2007, 21:51
so I really don't know where you are getting the 2 years old from?
Oh my... understand that it was just an example. Let's say 7 days old babies instead. It just enhances the point really. Would you go and ask if you could have the tongue pierced on your 7 days old baby? And if you did, would there be huge reaction? Aye. But none if the foreskin is being cut off. Both are body modifications on small babies that can't say yes or no. THAT was the point.

freddie
30-03-2007, 09:23
I think it's not really as harmless as some of you might think. It brings with it a certain consequences at the very least. For one: the penis gets less sensitive once the foreskin is removed and that (I assume) would play a role in adult sexual life. It would at least make it DIFFERENT. And imo as a 100% liberal I'd have to go with the notion that every person has an absolute right to choose what things will be done to their bodies.

Maybe it can prevent the spread of AIDS, who knows. In that case maybe they should educate young men about it once they reach puberty and maybe even encourage them to get a cut, so they'd be safer. But I just don't believe in other people making choices for us. That goes against everything I stand for.

haku
30-03-2007, 15:22
ICGI denounces the WHO call for mass male circumcision (http://www.icgi.org/)

Talyubittu
31-03-2007, 05:11
I was kidding when I made the blood to blood contact statement The Unforgiven

Also - As I said. A tongue piercing does NOTHING to aid in health as circumcision has been proven to do! So stop arguing that.

Why don't we just compare killing a human to smashing an earth worm while we're on that train of thought.