WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan

[Talyubittu]

Das ist stimmt!

[Amy_Lee_Rocks]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

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]

You cannot clean away cancer.

[Amy_Lee_Rocks]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Amy_Lee_Rocks

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.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

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]

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]

Originally Posted by haku

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

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

I disagree! 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.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

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.

Originally Posted by fortyfeet

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.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dradeel

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

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]

Originally Posted by dradeel

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]

Originally Posted by Khartoun2004

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]

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]

ICGI denounces the WHO call for mass male circumcision

[Talyubittu]

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.