Bad Threads on Circumcision

[curious_woman]

I agree with you Ducy, Clever, sera somepoints. I think some of these points made are *very* immature and taking the point a little too far. On that note, I'm done with this thread because there are a few...who refuse to become un-blinded by the sh!t in front of them. Its useless trying to explain my opinion when its just shot down.

Have a nice day all .

[sera300]

Originally Posted by fassol

I had to respond to this. First thanks for the well wishes if they truly are sincere. After all, heated debates in one area do not mean I cannot be civil regarding another topic. I no longer have issues, however. Which is one reason also why I'm taking my leave now. I did have one issue and now it's all better thanks to yours and Doc2's advice.

I did bring up me sneaking in, however. After she mentioned that I should, I said that I had already thought about it. She gave me the password for her house, and I have snuck in twice already for cuddling and an afternoon romp. It was a ton of fun.

Regards,

-F-

Glad it worked out & yes meant and asked honestly out of wonder.

[andremara]

Bad debate style shouldn't bar anyone regardless of their stance. I should hope we don't live in a dictatorship. Full disclosure: I advocate against cutting any body parts from unconsenting minors. As a cut male, I have studied this topic with the goal of informing the public through writing and speaking about the harms I believe it has caused me. I am in process on a book about this, and believe with a little accurate education, people can understand more clearly the range of issues relevant here: physical, ethical, legal, psychological and societal. It has far-reaching impacts that, while understood by a broad and diverse base, have not been clearly discussed. It is my belief that the two primary obstacles we have are some lingering sexual unease in public discourse and an intractable medical profession whose bias has effectively blunted their capacity for cogent thought on the matter; only secondarily is the issue of money obtained through cutting in that profession pertinent to their reasons for desiring status quo. Financial incentive, however may be driving the larger pushes on the part of the immense corporations whose pro-cutting stance benefits their bottom line, as infant foreskins are extremely valuable for generating new skin as well as other grown biologics.
Overall I suggest we elevate the debate, and that both sides do their reading. For me, it has been about 15 years, and I find I am still learning, primarily through symposia materials, doctors, psychologists, and not through mass media.

Sometimes the truth is not a clean geometry, lying equidistant between two points. Sometimes truth lies clearly outside such equations.

Andre Maranhao
Aston, PA
June 2008

[lnt1103]

Hey, elevate the debate is a great concept-if it can STAY elevated. But true debate has no place for personal attacks. The two strings Brandye suggests removing (and I agree) go on for pages upon pages, with several people personally attacking those who disagree. I think if we dust off our Psych 1 notes, and flip to the page on BF Skinner and Behaviorism, we'll find those discussions under 'Reinforcement'. Personal attack begets personal attack, and the point of the debate gets lost.

[Ducy]

Oh my god...censorship...you really wanna talk about censorship. Guess what. This forum is a public forum but the peopple who run it (Mod I II and III) all own it. They pay for the web space they pay with their time and money that they had to invest to create so technically it is a "public" privately owned website..

They can do whatever the hell they want. Your rights end where anothers begin. Your right to speak and be heard ends at their delete button because in this forum the mods are god, buddah and mel gibson.

And these posts are not being advocated for deletion because they dont like what the other advocating for, its because it is a bunch of children bickering, not adults discussing matters as adults.

I will admit, at the risk of someone showing up and complaining, some of the posts in the threads are just ridiculous. They do show some intelligence behind their debate, stating the death rates of failed circumsisions and such. But rather than use all the facts (Like the exact odds of someone who gets a screwed up cut, or what the exact causes that lead to complications such as an inexp doc or a crappy hosptial) They just decide to show the "side effects" and they then go on to do silly arguements like desensitized.

Thats not an arguement. Thats like saying I dont like wearing condoms cuz they desensitize me. BFD show me a true blue arguement that is supported by fact. Dont show me this crap about sensitivity or cosmetic

[BigKahuna]

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how this is even a topic for debate... and I'm waiting for the pro-cutting side to come up with something that isn't completely bogus... The non-side wants babies left alone... the pro side wants to cut the babies... consequently the burden of proof here rests on their shoulders...

This is rather sick and twisted religious tradition survived much longer then it ever should have, and now we have a medical profession backing it because a few biased studies claim its good... I guess that shows you what our medical community is worth.

Seriously... how are we even talking about the medical benefits of such barbarism? Again, cutting off limbs prevents all the problems related to those extremities, and none of those procedures are given any consideration as wise! The foreskin is not a birth defect... it is a part of the body that developed with a purpose. Sure, it serves as a bit of an Achilles heal, but call that nature's way of reminding all of us that we shouldn't be having sex with so many partners.

Picture series showing the festivities: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/plastibell.htm

Video: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x41...s-sto_politics

Its useless trying to explain my opinion when its just shot down.

Your opinions get shot down because they are not well thought out. Instead of giving up, try to come up with a reason that can't be shot down so easily!

[sera300]

Here is some additional information to take under consideration ML in your research, which is well stated:

1)"higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%)" p.9-11. Additionally realize the crux was to push for Gardasil and to limit the HPV cases & STD'S in the US.

Cited CDC in conjunction with Dept of Health & Human Services. I found most interesting the rates cited out of the US. You can post against the procedure; however, fairly the sources that are pro & their rationale should be included as well.

As I stated multiple times; informed, parental consent without a bias.

Much like informing women regarding the BCP--every implementation has failure and risks.

2) Additionally I found According to the BMC Infectious Dieseases (2006):

“Male circumcision, which is routinely practiced in the Middle East, northern and western Africa, and western Asia, was associated with lower rates of certain STIs, HIV and cervical cancer (a proxy for HPV), but not with infections transmitted by non-sexual routes. In general, more male circumcision was strongly associated with lower cervical cancer rates and fewer HIV cases, independent of religion. Furthermore, male circumcision was independently associated with HIV among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, and not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission. These findings all suggest that male circumcision is a true protective factor that reduces the sexual transmission of HIV and possibly HPV, independent of Muslim and Christian religions.”

3)Additional info from another source:

"Background It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer in his female partner.

Methods We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case–control studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries. Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9 percent).

Results Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6 percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical examination.

Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners. "

Cited NEJM

[Massdebator]

Sera, that is the kind of evidence that I'd like to see people from both sides showing. Thank you for providing sourced information for the community.

[BigKahuna]

#1) As stated, cutting off a foot is an excellent way of preventing athlete's foot... does this make it an effective way of dealing with the problem? Also.. think about how many more stds could be avoided if even more of the penis was cut off!!! Better yet, lets castrate all men... that way they can't sexually contract an std or infect others!

- Null point.

#2) Check this scenario: there is a home for people who have lost their feet... this clinic uses a certain type of dish-soap that is really rare... compared to the general population, the clinic boasts incredibly low infection rates for athlete's foot... does that mean that the dish-soap is effective at preventing the condition? Of course not... and you'd accuse anyone who told you it did of having "unpure" intentions... either pulling your leg, or trying to sell you the soap.

- Null Point.

#3) Studies can be done a lot of ways to give false conclusions. Again, the study only considered a small number of variables... at first glance, the quoted study stinks to me already... why you ask, several reasons:

- Study is not balanced... 847 uncut, 292 cut...
- Study does not mention availability nor use of condoms in the regions
- Study does not include BG information on the regions being studied - who are the couples... how were they chosen...

After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders

- After some magic math that is not explained, they come up with some odds... if you are going to give a number, you should give the formula for how it was attained so people can verify it... simply stating a number doesn't mean much... and anyone who has taken a post-secondary level stats class knows how easily numbers can be spun...

- Also... the study, at least the excerpt, does not provide details on who the researchers were... if for example the research was done or funded by a muslim or jewish group... then bias may be another issue... (it stinks of bias to me, but that's just a gut feel from the data you provided...)

- You could argue that this study means that its worth studying properly... but as it stands, to call this study anything remotely close to conclusive would be lying.

[curious_woman]

Originally Posted by BigKahuna

#1) As stated.........(post removed)lying.

This is exactly why I said what I did, sera is not advocating either side, just presenting facts and all you do is stubbornly, blindly, defend your points, without actually reading what people say. Someone responds, and you automatically say "CIRCUMSISON IS BARBARISM! STOP CUTTING!" regardless of what the poster said. It is like debating with a brick wall.