Circumcision

[lik_m_ade]

I know there's been a fair bit of heated discussion on the topic of late with many folks opposing it as unnecessary and even dangerous. I found it interesting that just after I read that I came across the following:

UN agencies recommend circumcision to fight HIV
Updated Wed. Mar. 28 2007 11:07 PM ET

Associated Press

GENEVA -- UN health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of "compelling" evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent.

But World Health Organization and UNAIDS experts said men need to be aware that circumcision is only partial protection against the virus and must be used with other measures.

Read the rest at:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070328/circumcision_070328/20070328/

Now with this directive from the WHO, would anyone change their stance on circumcision? Would you give someone different advice?

Personally I'm uncircumcised, very happy about it and the fact that the UN is suggesting it makes me more not less wary of it. But I was curious what impact new information might have on posters to the forum so I thought I would ask.

 

[FurryFury]

I know there's been a fair bit of heated discussion on the topic of late with many folks opposing it as unnecessary and even dangerous. I found it interesting that just after I read that I came across the following:

UN agencies recommend circumcision to fight HIV
Updated Wed. Mar. 28 2007 11:07 PM ET

Associated Press

GENEVA -- UN health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of "compelling" evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent.

But World Health Organization and UNAIDS experts said men need to be aware that circumcision is only partial protection against the virus and must be used with other measures.

Read the rest at:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070328/circumcision_070328/20070328/

Now with this directive from the WHO, would anyone change their stance on circumcision? Would you give someone different advice?

Personally I'm uncircumcised, very happy about it and the fact that the UN is suggesting it makes me more not less wary of it. But I was curious what impact new information might have on posters to the forum so I thought I would ask.

No, I don't change my stance in light of this. I would not give someone different advice. There are other ways to combat HIV. than mutilating your baby boy's genitalia. He can always get circumcised later if he feels the need whereas getting it put back, well, that isn't so easy. In fact I'm not sure if it's possible?

Fury

 

[SweetErika]

If it ELIMINATED the risk of HIV, I might change my stance, but that's just not the case. So, my son would still need to use condoms every time, which eliminates the benefit of circumsizing (provided the condoms don't tear/slip off).

Like Fury, this doesn't change my anti-circumcision stance, and I figure our son could always decide to have it done when he's old enough to weigh the benefits and problems of having his foreskin whacked off for himself. We'll certainly educate him on those and respect his decision either way.

I guess I'm not so much anti-circ as I am anti-circ-before-maturity; I believe it has big consequences and is a decision people should make for themselves as mature beings, much like cosmetic or any other type of elective surgery.

 

[NippleMuncher]

An equally absurd fact is: Removal of the breasts is a 100% effective method of preventing breast cancer? (before anyone starts to rant on me about this one, I had a personal friend that willingly went in and had her perfectly normal breasts removed because there was a history of breast cancer in her family ... no joke )


BTW, it's called an elective mastectomy. Some national news anchor just had it done and chronicled it from start to finish for her news agency.

 

[erodream351]

xxxxx

 

[FurryFury]

An equally absurd fact is: Removal of the breasts is a 100% effective method of preventing breast cancer? (before anyone starts to rant on me about this one, I had a personal friend that willingly went in and had her perfectly normal breasts removed because there was a history of breast cancer in her family ... no joke )


BTW, it's called an elective mastectomy. Some national news anchor just had it done and chronicled it from start to finish for her news agency.

Wow.

I've heard about it but it's still hard for me to wrap my mind around. I detests doctors, hospitals and invasive procedures. I can't imagine having my boobs cut off. I rather love them. They are so soft and fun. Plus I'd have trouble feeling good about myself sexually if I did. OTOH, I do want to live longer but hell no. I don't think I could do it. Thankfully there is no such history of breast cancer in my family.

Wow.

Fury

 

[lik_m_ade]

Hi all,

Thanks for your feedback, it's making for interesting reading. As I said in my intro it wouldn't be enough to change my thoughts on the subject, and I'm not ecpecting men to line up for the procedure any time soon.

But I was curious about the effect a statement like that from an "authority" (in this case the WHO) would have on intelligent folks who have a strong enough opinon on the subject to share it in a forum. It was enlightenig to see why it failed to convince you to change your opinion, or what would have changed it for you in the case of SweetErika.

There was a similar story in the news here yesterday on babies being breastfed by HIV infected mothers in Africa.

This last story did have an impact on me-it made me debate the pros and cons of encouraging the mothers to breastfeed exclusively versus the potentially horrendous outcome if this particular study is wrong. I still haven't made up my mind on it.

So thanks to those who contributed and those who took the time to view (I was surprised by the number of viewers), feel free to contibute if you wish, but I have a sense of what I was looking for at this point.

Cheers,

Lik

 

[sutherngent985]

No, I don't change my stance in light of this. I would not give someone different advice. There are other ways to combat HIV. than mutilating your baby boy's genitalia. He can always get circumcised later if he feels the need whereas getting it put back, well, that isn't so easy. In fact I'm not sure if it's possible?

Fury

I have to agree. When my son was born we elected not to have him circumsized (the $400 bill didnt help either ) and got nothing but grief from both our families AND his pediatrician...hes jewish and admitted he had very few iuncirced patients. At first my then wife was all for it but after I showed her things online she became a convert to not having it done. If he wants to have it done when hes grown, then its his business but I would still advise him against it.

 

[yoshimitsu]

I know there's been a fair bit of heated discussion on the topic of late with many folks opposing it as unnecessary and even dangerous. I found it interesting that just after I read that I came across the following:

UN agencies recommend circumcision to fight HIV
Updated Wed. Mar. 28 2007 11:07 PM ET

Associated Press

GENEVA -- UN health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of "compelling" evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent.

But World Health Organization and UNAIDS experts said men need to be aware that circumcision is only partial protection against the virus and must be used with other measures.

Read the rest at:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070328/circumcision_070328/20070328/

Now with this directive from the WHO, would anyone change their stance on circumcision? Would you give someone different advice?

Personally I'm uncircumcised, very happy about it and the fact that the UN is suggesting it makes me more not less wary of it. But I was curious what impact new information might have on posters to the forum so I thought I would ask.

If we just sewed all womens vaginas shut at birth it would reduce their chances of getting aids by like 99%.
It would also reduce the chances of a lot of men getting aids.
I think that would be a much more effective method.

That's in no way meant to sound agressive to you, I see where you are coming from but you get my point.

 

[NippleMuncher]

Wow.

I've heard about it but it's still hard for me to wrap my mind around. I detests doctors, hospitals and invasive procedures. I can't imagine having my boobs cut off. I rather love them. They are so soft and fun. Plus I'd have trouble feeling good about myself sexually if I did. OTOH, I do want to live longer but hell no. I don't think I could do it. Thankfully there is no such history of breast cancer in my family.

Wow.

Fury

Don't get me wrong, if there is valid medical reasoning for the removal of tissue, be it breast, penile, or any other portion of the human body, I'm not opposed to it as an effective means of curbing diseased growth. However, removal of diseased tissue is NOT a cure, it's only removing damaged tissue, the cause still remains. The idea of removing perfectly health tissue as a means of "prevention" is absurdity of the highest degree and any doctor or surgeon offering this option should have their license revoked. This may be a strong opinion, but mutilation as a "prevention" or "cure" is nothing of the sort.

At first my then wife was all for it but after I showed her things online she became a convert to not having it done. If he wants to have it done when hes grown, then its his business but I would still advise him against it.

I was cut because the skin was too tight to retract and the doc told my mother that removal was the only solution. After the fact, she was then told that the skin could have been carefully stretched and would function as normal as I grew older. needless to say she was more than pissed at being lied to and having me cut.

 

[SweetErika]

The idea of removing perfectly health tissue as a means of "prevention" is absurdity of the highest degree and any doctor or surgeon offering this option should have their license revoked. This may be a strong opinion, but mutilation as a "prevention" or "cure" is nothing of the sort.

For women who have an overwhelming number of family members who have had/died of breast cancer and have the genetic markers for it themselves, a preventative double mastectomy is often a viable option that's recommended by many of the best doctors in the world as a means to greatly reduce the odds of getting this type of cancer. It's certainly not something to be taken lightly, but it's also definitely not a cause to have a license revoked.

This would be a very difficult decision for me, but if I'd watched my mother, sister(s), grandmothers and aunts die a terrible, painful death from breast cancer, and knew the odds of me getting it would decrease dramatically with removal of that tissue, I believe I'd do it to give myself a better chance at spending another few decades with my remaining family. My breasts are not worth my life or having my loved ones see the horrific things that cancer often brings.

 

[yoshimitsu]

For women who have an overwhelming number of family members who have had/died of breast cancer and have the genetic markers for it themselves, a preventative double mastectomy is often a viable option that's recommended by many of the best doctors in the world as a means to greatly reduce the odds of getting this type of cancer. It's certainly not something to be taken lightly, but it's also definitely not a cause to have a license revoked.

This would be a very difficult decision for me, but if I'd watched my mother, sister(s), grandmothers and aunts die a terrible, painful death from breast cancer, and knew the odds of me getting it would decrease dramatically with removal of that tissue, I believe I'd do it to give myself a better chance at spending another few decades with my remaining family. My breasts are not worth my life or having my loved ones see the horrific things that cancer often brings.

But if you knew it was likely wouldn't regular checkups keep you about as safe?
If you catch it early enough and remove the effected area wouldn't you be about as well off?
I don't know these things for sure, it's just the impression I have been under.

 

[SweetErika]

But if you knew it was likely wouldn't regular checkups keep you about as safe?
If you catch it early enough and remove the effected area wouldn't you be about as well off?
I don't know these things for sure, it's just the impression I have been under.

I'm not sure how effective early detection methods vs. preventative mastectomy is, but the mastectomy has a prevention rate of about 90%. I'd imagine the good chance to not get breast cancer at all is the most attractive option for some women with a very strong family history of breast (and even ovarian) cancer.

And some types of cancer are far more aggressive and/or harder to detect with the screening we have now than others, I think. Even with early detection, the treatment could be long and more harsh, and the survival rates lower than typical.

In the end, I think preventative mastectomy is about a numbers game and empowerment. If I had, say, a 90% chance of getting an aggressive form of bc that killed several of my close family members, but a preventative mastectomy offered a 90% of not having to face that at all, it'd likely look like a pretty good option to me. I don't think I'd want to give myself a 90% chance of dealing with cancer, only to have to have a mastectomy anyway when I had such a good shot at preventing it altogether. Plus, I think I'd feel empowered by greatly lowering the chance before the cancer could strike, instead of waiting until it did and having the sense that I was on the same path as my family members.

 

[lik_m_ade]

I'm not sure how effective early detection methods vs. preventative mastectomy is, but the mastectomy has a prevention rate of about 90%. I'd imagine the good chance to not get breast cancer at all is the most attractive option for some women with a very strong family history of breast (and even ovarian) cancer.

And some types of cancer are far more aggressive and/or harder to detect with the screening we have now than others, I think. Even with early detection, the treatment could be long and more harsh, and the survival rates lower than typical.

In the end, I think preventative mastectomy is about a numbers game and empowerment. If I had, say, a 90% chance of getting an aggressive form of bc that killed several of my close family members, but a preventative mastectomy offered a 90% of not having to face that at all, it'd likely look like a pretty good option to me. I don't think I'd want to give myself a 90% chance of dealing with cancer, only to have to have a mastectomy anyway when I had such a good shot at preventing it altogether. Plus, I think I'd feel empowered by greatly lowering the chance before the cancer could strike, instead of waiting until it did and having the sense that I was on the same path as my family members.

Having never imagined I would ever disagree with SweetErika, after a couple of days thought I'm about to do so in a hopefully charitable and respectful manner.

I have significant cancer indicators on both sides of my family and both of my parents passed away from it. There's also heart trouble and diabetes, so I'm definitely considered an "at risk" person.

Given the number of cancer deaths in the family, my cousins and I have adopted most of the responsive positions on the spectrum: denial, fear, outrage, zealousness and so on, as each of us finds our own way to respond to the perceived risk.

In the case of my father having colorectal cancer, it has been suggested that any possible suggestion of trouble be the cue for a visit to have most of my lower bowel yanked "to be proactive" before actual cancer develops.

Given the history of cancer in the family and it's typical unresponsiveness to treatment as well as a tendency for liver cancer to develop if continued treatment occurs, this is being looked at as a best practice.

While some of my cousins think it's a wonderful idea and are making plans to do it, if they feel it necessary, I disagree. While I can rationally understand how for some, risk avoidance is their key decision factor, the idea of whittling myself away in the hopes of being safer, simply conflicts too much with my sense of what it means to be a person.

There are issues of diet, of environmental impact and of mental attitude that also play a tremendous role with this illness. Given the tremendous amounts of money being donated for research and education, telling me or someone else that the "best" they can come up with is to cut out potentially cancerous parts is to me simply unacceptable for "experts".

I know not everyone agrees with me (believe me,we family members have questioned and debated one another on multiple occasions, while still remaining charitable and loving, most all of the time) but it strikes me as a fall-back to medieval medicine. I think people deserve better and deserve a respect that makes any suggestion of this type a totally unsatisfactory stopgap that should be improved on and discarded ASAP in favour of something that supports the whole person.

That's my 2 cents, my frustration and my dissatisfaction with the status quo and what passes for treatment in many cases-rest assured that it's not directed at anyone here.

Thanks for letting me share.

 

[FurryFury]

My Dad also died of colon cancer. He was 52.

I'm also very resistant toward invasive anything medical.

I understand.

*hug*

Fury

 

[lik_m_ade]

My Dad also died of colon cancer. He was 52.

I'm also very resistant toward invasive anything medical.

I understand.

*hug*

Fury

Thank you

Mine was 63, still much too young.

*hug*

 

[temp256]

I was cut because the skin was too tight to retract and the doc told my mother that removal was the only solution. After the fact, she was then told that the skin could have been carefully stretched and would function as normal as I grew older. needless to say she was more than pissed at being lied to and having me cut.

Pretty much the same thing happened to me. I still have complications from it, and doctors just ignore me, saying it's normal. As you can imagine, I was depressed for some time.

But, I've decided to become a girl, so none of it really matters anymore. I already have soft squishy breasts to make up for it!

Don't forget to read my signature.

 

[chris5vx]

The agencies said much depends on the situation in a given country, and little general benefit will result in countries where the HIV epidemic is concentrated among sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men.

I don't think these studies mean to suggest that circumcision for everyone would be helpful. If you're planning to engage in risky sexual behavior maybe it would be a good idea. You might have more to lose than gain otherwise.

 

[temp256]

I also think it's a good idea to explain why circumcision can reduce HIV:

As the mucous membrane of the glans is exposed to the air, it dries out and undergoes keratinization. This mean a harder, thicker layer of skin forms to protect the vulnerable flesh. A callus. The foreskin is there to keep the glans soft and moist. Think of your eyelids. They keep your peepers in a clean, healthy state. Without them the eyes dry up, and a callus forms, just like the glans. This is not a good thing.
----

To whoever mentioned sewing vaginas shut as a form of HIV prevention, you're quite wrong. I remember a study on an African chastity project. Young women were heavily encouraged, and even inspected, to make sure they didn't have sex. The idea was to help reduce HIV.

A funny thing happened. HIV rates rose considerably. In order to keep their hymen intact and pass inspection, the women chose anal sex instead, an act much more likely to spread HIV than vaginal sex.

The point is you can't control human behaviour. Sex is fun, and people will find a way to do what they want. In regards to circumcision, if you tell people it will reduce their chances of HIV, they're going to think it's a form of protection in and of itself. They'll be encouraged to have more sex with less real protection, again making HIV worse. And they lose their foreskin too.

 

[usana]

glad im giving someone pleasure

LOL
glad im giving someone pleasure
xo
Sana

 

[raynmakr]

WHAT?!?!?!? That is absolutely ridiculous! I wonder what kind of study they used and how flawed it is. I am an intactivist (someone advocating against circumcision, particularly infant) and I have a real hard time believing this study. It must be some kind of propeganda that American Drs had created to further advance the mutilation for money that they engage in. I have 2 generations of intact guys in my home, my husband and 3 sons, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Not only did my boys nurse better than their cut cousin did, but they didn't have to suffer the side effects of it. As far as sex goes, It's much more comfortable with a man who is intact than one who isn't. ( I hope that I didn't offend any of you gentlemen that didn't have a choice and were cut) The foreskin acts as a rollerberring, thus not requiring as much lube as somone who lacks this part. my husband had to do a paper on the subject for a writing class in university, and I had to help him with his research because I knew more on the subject than he did. I am glad to see though, that there are other like minded people voicing their concerns over this matter as well. the key to preventing AIDS is not only abstinence, but CONDOMS. We need to teach teens the mantra those of us who grew up in the shadow of AIDS were taught, and that is, "No glove, No love."

 

[methos_ruby]

as an uncircumsized male ive never understood why would any one would elect to have it done. In my own exprerince I started masturbating with my foreskin and I intend to not circumsize my male children and would like to also point everyone who has commented here to an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit, the premier episode of the 3rd season dealt exclusivly with circumcision and the reasons behind it.

 

[sutherngent985]

Heres a nifty little tidbit for all of you who dont know...circumcision was started wholesale in the US to try and stop boys from masturbating back in the late 1800s. I read somewhere thats also why cornflakes were invented but I cant imagine what eating cornflakes would have to do with stopping boys from jerking off...

 

[NippleMuncher]

Having never imagined I would ever disagree with SweetErika, after a couple of days thought I'm about to do so in a hopefully charitable and respectful manner.

Me too! (and thank you for your eloquence, something that tends to elude me at times, and it's taken a month for me to hopefully formulate a similarly intended response)

I do respect a persons right to making their own decisions, whatever that may be. What irks me about "studies" like this is the absurdity and resolute fact of the findings. The study isn't about the causation of the ailment, only the "prevention" of possible infection. With "lesser" useful body parts it's easy to remove them as a "preventative" means, but let's think about this for a moment.

Breast cancer - remove the breast
penile cancer - circumcision in the least, removal of the penis in the extreme.
prostate cancer - remove the prostate
testicular cancer - remove the testes
ovarian/uterine cancer - bye-bye to those parts
gall bladder - take it out

What about brain cancer? Shall we preemptively remove our brains to prevent it? What about lung, liver, or other major organs? Shall those go too? How is removing healthy tissues a preventative measure?

Move to a different subject, let's take the fact that our kids are growing larger and maturing at an earlier age than we did as children. Shall their pituitary glands be removed at birth to prevent their premature maturation and health problems that are linked to it? Or shall we look at causations that are to be linked, if not blamed for the problem, such as the growth hormones and steroids that are used throughout the meat industry.

What about disease? Once common diseases were routinely cured with penicillin and other readily available drugs, now, these diseases are becoming resistant to our known cures, why? Because we're "immunizing" our food supply with the very antibiotics that we need for ourselves. We're becoming immune to our cures because we're ingesting them on a daily basis.

[edited] - There was more but it was ranting, and I don't want to do that. Suffice it to say, IMHO, there are ills of this world that we have wrought upon ourselves, and until we recognize this as a species, things are going to get much worse, more body parts are going to be removed, and more people will become afflicted with the aliment du jur.