TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Male Circumcision Update
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Male Circumcision Update

post #1 of 51
7/24/07 at 12:10pm
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/...ids_conference


So, there IS proof that it is beneficial for men to be circumcised.
Reply
post #2 of 51
7/24/07 at 12:24pm
That has been known for awhile, there is more room for bacteria to grow in an incircumsized penis (of course hygeine can be easily maintained either way)...
Reply
post #3 of 51
7/24/07 at 12:43pm
How about just know what kind of diseases your partner has. Use protection.
Reply
post #4 of 51
7/24/07 at 1:10pm
Thread Starter 
But we all know that doesn't happen, people should wear protection but don't.

I guess what I have trouble with is, the powers that be want to make the HPV vaccination mandatory for school age girls and that is fine with many people. But then people look down on circumcision. That seems strange to me.

Plus the fact that people LIE, so how would it be possible to know what diseases your partner has FOR SURE?
Reply
post #5 of 51
7/24/07 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Plus the fact that people LIE, so how would it be possible to know what diseases your partner has FOR SURE?
Well, I know this is easier said then done... but why are you having sex with people that you don't trust 100%? You should have sex with people that you love, and trust. If you truly love the person and they truly love you then they will tell you whether or not they have any diseases.

Plus, you should use protection until your ready to have a kid anyway so then that GREATLY reduces the risk!
Reply
post #6 of 51
7/24/07 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mybabyphx View Post
Well, I know this is easier said then done... but why are you having sex with people that you don't trust 100%? You should have sex with people that you love, and trust. If you truly love the person and they truly love you then they will tell you whether or not they have any diseases.

Plus, you should use protection until your ready to have a kid anyway so then that GREATLY reduces the risk!

In a perfect world that may be true but we don't live in a perfect world.

Sex isn't always about love except when you are young and still have stars in your eyes. I've known married couples that don't always trust the other spouse - does that mean you stop having sex with your wife/husband? True love does not equal truth. There have been many folks who did not tell their partner of disease because they thought they would lose them, or they didn't love the person as much as the person obviously loved them, or any other number of reasons.

I wish I had a nickel for every time "protection" has failed. I could retire now instead of in a few years.

As we get older we tend to have seen more, lived more and realize that things aren't always black or white - there are indeed large grey areas.
Reply
post #7 of 51
7/24/07 at 1:37pm
Simple, demand HIV and std testing! If a man cant respect that I treasure my body and that I demand safe sex practice then he isnt worth my time. This is much easier said than done (getting men and females to get tested at their partner's request), I think everyone should get tested yearly or whenever necessary for their own sake of mind. As for the Gardisil (sp) vaccination, I myself am a little leary on it since it is still fresh... I like to wait to see the effects of a new drug, vaccination, or treatment over a course of time before I jump on it... In ex: look what went down with the birth control patch. All medications and vaccinations have their side effects and risks, therefor I like to see the overall effects and statistics before I volunteer myself as a guinea pig... Not to mention gardisil(sp) isnt a promise against std or hpv, but rather lowered risks (hpv and cervical cancer), which Ive noticed many young women ive talked to misconceive that notion and think they are 100% free and clear to contact hpv... IMO nothing is completely full-proof! I think it should be held off as mandatory for children, we do not know of its long term effects at this point...

On a final note, I never trust the words "Im clean" unless I have proof in my hands, then again Im not a very trusting person (which is not necessarily a bad trait in this situation).
Reply
post #8 of 51
7/24/07 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/...ids_conference


So, there IS proof that it is beneficial for men to be circumcised.
Huh? The article I see at that link is titled: Study: HIV-infected babies can be saved
.
.
.
Reply
post #9 of 51
7/24/07 at 3:54pm
Thread Starter 
That's right it does. They changed it. Why would that happen?
Reply
post #10 of 51
7/24/07 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
That's right it does. They changed it. Why would that happen?
It's a news site and only displays the current story. I don't know what the other article was about, but I entered "circumcision" in the search bar and chose "Yahoo News Only" and found some links. Was it one of these?

If so maybe you could edit your original post and add in the new link?

http://in.news.yahoo.com/070724/139/6ideh.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070724...v_070724095550

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/..._conference_17

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070719...v_070719091902

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070724/...cumcision_dc_1

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20070724...e-33df70f.html

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070724/ap/d8qinu6o0.html
Reply
post #11 of 51
7/24/07 at 5:10pm
Since I live in the UK I find this whole discussion bizarre. The only men I know who are circumcised are either American or it's done for deeply fundamental religious reasons - which makes it a complete oddity here and not something one comes across that often!
Reply
post #12 of 51
7/24/07 at 5:16pm
There's an episode of Penn & Teller's show Bull**** (yes, that's what the show is called) about male circumcision. For those in favor of male circumcision, I recommend viewing that show.
Reply
post #13 of 51
7/24/07 at 5:22pm
Thread Starter 
Penn and Teller, YUCKO.
Reply
post #14 of 51
7/24/07 at 9:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I guess what I have trouble with is, the powers that be want to make the HPV vaccination mandatory for school age girls and that is fine with many people. But then people look down on circumcision. That seems strange to me.
Because HPV is a lot more common than HIV, and it's a vaccination. HIV is a lot less common in the general community, and there's no vaccination. Gardasil can protect against cervical cancer, so why not make it compulsory??

The rates according to the AMA are:

* 24.5% prevalence of HPV among females 14 to 19 years old
* 44.8% prevalence of HPV among females 20 to 24 years old
* 27.4% prevalence of HPV among females 25 to 29 years old
* 27.5% prevalence of HPV among females 30 to 39 years old
* 25.2% prevalence of HPV among females 40 to 49 years old
* 19.6% prevalence of HPV among females 50 to 59 years old

I think HIV and HPV are very different.

As for the circumcision - we would prefer to teach our son about safe sex rather than have him circumcised.
Reply
post #15 of 51
7/24/07 at 9:42pm
Everything I've read says that the vaccine is only abt 80% effective in preventing HPV infection, and HPV may cause cervical cancer. Now, I can understand vaccinating against highly communicable childhood diseases to avoid infecting an entire school population, but I see NO reason to make vaccination against an STD compulsory, on the off chance it may keep that one child/woman from contracting cancer later in life. JMHO

circumcision? Can't say I'm either for or against, but i was relieved to find out I was having a girl so I wouldn't have to decide
Reply
post #16 of 51
7/24/07 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicaLynn View Post
Everything I've read says that the vaccine is only abt 80% effective in preventing HPV infection, and HPV may cause cervical cancer. Now, I can understand vaccinating against highly communicable childhood diseases to avoid infecting an entire school population, but I see NO reason to make vaccination against an STD compulsory, on the off chance it may keep that one child/woman from contracting cancer later in life. JMHO

circumcision? Can't say I'm either for or against, but i was relieved to find out I was having a girl so I wouldn't have to decide
It doesn't prevent HPV, it's supposed to prevent just the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. Apparently it's a very high percentage of cervical cancer that's caused by these particular strains of HPV.

From the FDA website -

Quote:
HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancers.
Edit to add:

Also from the FDA website:

Quote:
What is the HPV vaccine and how does it work?

The vaccine, called Gardasil, mimics the disease and creates resistance. It is NOT a live or a dead virus. It prevents infection with HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18.
Is it safe?

Tests of the vaccine showed only minor problems. Some people had a slight fever. Others had redness or irritation on their skin where they got the shot.

Is it effective?

Gardasil is between 95-100% effective against HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18.
Wouldn't it be great if the vaccination was compulsory, and we could cut out 70% of cervical cancer??
Reply
post #17 of 51
7/24/07 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
It doesn't prevent HPV, it's supposed to prevent just the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer. Apparently it's a very high percentage of cervical cancer that's caused by these particular strains of HPV.

From the FDA website
Fair enough, but I still don't see the need to make this a required vaccination. As I said, avoiding widespread infectious disease I can understand, but requiring a vaccine to prevent the potential for cancer seems to me to be carrying things a bit too far.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the vaccine's a sham, just that i dont' think we need to legislate it's use.
Reply
post #18 of 51
7/24/07 at 9:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicaLynn View Post
Fair enough, but I still don't see the need to make this a required vaccination. As I said, avoiding widespread infectious disease I can understand, but requiring a vaccine to prevent the potential for cancer seems to me to be carrying things a bit too far.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the vaccine's a sham, just that i dont' think we need to legislate it's use.
I added a little bit extra to it which you may not have seen... I think making anything as simple as a vaccine compulsory that can stop cancer is a great thing!!
Reply
post #19 of 51
7/24/07 at 10:22pm
Saw it -- still don't see that it's necessary to require 12-year-old girls to have a shot to prevent a virus they may or may not come in contact with if/when they eventually become sexually active, that may or may not cause them to contract one form of cancer sometime in the future. Let the individual/family decide if the benefits outweigh the risks, and leave it at that.

I have a family history of cancer. Would I like to see cancer stopped? Absolutely. Lost my mom, my grandmother, and too many friends to it already. If there were a vaccine out there that could protect me against any cancer, would I consider it? You bet I'd investigate it. But to have anyone TELL me that I HAD to take a vaccine that prevents a virus that might cause cancer? NO THANKS, I'll make up my own mind (and I'LL decide for my daughter if/when the time comes). And my having cancer isn't going to affect anyone else's health, so I believe it's my prerogative. Vaccination is a personal choice, not a government mandate.
Reply
post #20 of 51
7/25/07 at 1:56pm
I didn't see this thread in time to read the article that was posted. That being said, there is NO WAY that I would allow my child to be held down while (an integral part of) his penis was cut off. It's a disgusting practice... it's sexual abuse.

As far for circumcision helping to lessen the spread of HIV, I would say that teaching our boys to use protection would do the same thing.

For those of you who use this argument as a reason for circumcising, does that mean that you won't teach your boys to use condoms?
Reply
post #21 of 51
7/25/07 at 2:56pm
Thread Starter 
"Sexual abuse" what a joke.

Yes, I taught my son good hygiene. Each to his own. I happen to think circumcision is a good thing and anything that helps stop the spread of AIDS is a good thing.

You can teach your son anything, whether he will follow it 100% of the time is debatable. I wouldn't count on it. I would rather be safe than sorry.

But to say it is "sexual abuse" is ridiculous. I was there when they circumcised my son at 3 days old. He let out one yell and that was it.
And guess what, he doesn't remember it at all.
He is glad he is circumcised.
Reply
post #22 of 51
7/25/07 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jillian View Post
....there is NO WAY that I would allow my child to be held down while (an integral part of) his penis was cut off. It's a disgusting practice... it's sexual abuse. ...
That's complete baloney. All three statements. First of all, being integral means something doesn't work with that part missing. Obviously, penises work quite well without the foreskin. Second, disgust is in the mind of the beholder. It's a very meaningful religious ritual for Jews. And as for sexual abuse? Ludicrous. A little baby's penis is just about the least sexual thing around, as it resembles nothing so much as a fat little worm.
Reply
post #23 of 51
7/25/07 at 3:33pm
Appologies to those who get a mental picture, but I was never circumsized, and the reason is because I was so sick as a baby that it was the last thing on my parent's mind, so they never got around to it. I've personally never had any real problems. I read someone commenting on their S.O. or BF have sensitivity problems, and that one I'll attest to, but it isn't as big of a problem as she made it sound that it was for him. I've always heard about there being more chance of infection and bacteria, but as long as you keep it clean and use common sense, it's not an issue.
Reply
post #24 of 51
7/25/07 at 5:34pm
Sexual abuse are you kidding me thats the first time anyone has ever told me my boys were sexually abused because they are circumcised. Fine you don't like it you would never do it fine. But its down right rude, offensive and uncalled for to say someone sexually abused their sons because they had the procedure done.
Reply
post #25 of 51
7/25/07 at 6:12pm
Right on!!
Reply
post #26 of 51
7/25/07 at 7:16pm
Thread Starter 
It really surprises me that this subject elicits such passionate feelings.
Reply
post #27 of 51
7/25/07 at 7:27pm
Normally I wouldn't have said much other than we had the procedure done and felt ok with it. But I kinda get up in arms when was says its sexual abuse.
Reply
post #28 of 51
7/25/07 at 7:39pm
Really, back when I was born, circumcision was just something that was "done" -- kind of like cut & tie the umbilical cord and snip the foreskin. When us guys got old enough to shower naked after gym class it was the uncircumcised guys who felt like they were the oddities.
Reply
post #29 of 51
7/25/07 at 9:18pm
I did a paper on circumcision years ago...back in college...oh how time flies!lol...the conclusion I came to was that it is totally unnecessary and a cruel act...not sexual abuse but abuse...ofcoarse a baby won't remember it, but they will feel the pain, some will pass out, some will scream. Just because an infant/child doesn't remember an unpleasant moment doesn't mean it is erased from their subconscious and will not affect them psychologically.
If there was a logical reason to do this procedure, eg: health benefits, then I wouldn't disagree with it so much, but there are no health benefits. All arguements in favour for it IMHO were negligible.
Reply
post #30 of 51
7/25/07 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueyes View Post
I did a paper on circumcision years ago...back in college...oh how time flies!lol...the conclusion I came to was that it is totally unnecessary and a cruel act...not sexual abuse but abuse...ofcoarse a baby won't remember it, but they will feel the pain, some will pass out, some will scream. Just because an infant/child doesn't remember an unpleasant moment doesn't mean it is erased from their subconscious and will not affect them psychologically.
If there was a logical reason to do this procedure, eg: health benefits, then I wouldn't disagree with it so much, but there are no health benefits. All arguements in favour for it IMHO were negligible.
I can't imagine that any baby, given how many millions of circumcisons are performed in the world every year, has been psychologically effected by the event, especially because it is so short of an event, and they don't remember it. The baby is only going to remember the pain and not what was done to them.

Those who want to play the abuse argument should look at some sections of the world where boys as old as I believe 8, maybe alittle older, maybe a bit younger, are circumsized as a right of passage. They are awake and fully aware of what is going on. If anything might possibly effect them psychologically, that would, not the same event at such a young age that you don't remember it anyway.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Male Circumcision Update