Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk

Well.... NOT completely bogus health claims. Check this little gem out.

It is the most simple and common surgical procedure in the management of penile carcinoma. The majority of men with penile carcinoma are uncircumcised.

ref www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

Or this:

Increase in STD's for uncircumcised men

2nd row, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs talk to the health risks of uncirc.

Again, I'm not saying one is better then the other. With the proper care and all things being equal sure. The argument here is whether the GOV will REQUIRE this procedure when BHO/National Health Care comes to town.



Thanks for the flags! Always interesting to see what people think about a thread.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

Originally posted by Roadblockx
Well.... NOT completely bogus health claims. Check this little gem out.

It is the most simple and common surgical procedure in the management of penile carcinoma. The majority of men with penile carcinoma are uncircumcised.

ref www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

To be clear I am against circumcision, but whats good for the goose.

Clitoral Carcinoma

I'd imagine removing their clitoris would stop this from happening. You must also be in favor of pre-cancer double mastectomies.

Let people make decisions for themselves when they are old enough to consider the options.

reply to post by brocket99




Why is it that most on ATS have to take everything to the extreme? Seriously, I'm surprised no one has mentioned how appealing abortion would be to prevent any of these diseases. Did I just take away someone's future point..... D#mn.

Cutting the excess skin of a penis is NOT going to delay ro stop transmission to happen. HIV enters yourbody, through a cut(if thiers blood visiable and yuo make contact its a big risk), and through orifice openings. IF 2 jsut had sex, and he was uncircumsized, and the other partner was not infected, that would still leave HIV on his penis. BUt it owuld be dead with a few seconds not even. I went for my hiv test last year 4 times. IM clean but talked witht he councelor. This was at our local governemnt center. Those are the facts.
It just sounds to me, this idea of having men circumsized is insane and a direct peverted violation of ones self privacy and choice.

"If we can put a man on the moon, then someday maybe we can put a man with AIDS on the moon. And if we can put a man with AIDS on the moon, then maybe someday we can put EVERYONE with AIDS on the moon." - Sarah Silverman.

I have to question the theory that circumcisions will help with the spread of AIDS. People who engage in risky behavior account for most AIDS cases, and those people are likely to repeatedly engage in that behavior until something happens.

Human nature cannot be controlled. We cannot make people get (or not get) circumcisions. We cannot force people to practice safe sex. We can't expect every single parent to love their child enough to teach them how to avoid risky behavior.

The only thing that will stop the spread of AIDS is to find a cure.

Women are very unlikely to get cervical cancer if they only have sex with circumcised men, fact. I thought circumcision helps protect men from the AIDS virus but not protect the wives and female partners of infected men.

Circumcision is entirely different to female genital mutilation one is to stop the woman enjoying sex the other done for hygiene.
Many moons ago it was very difficult for men to be as clean as they are now, where circumcision is prelevant there were problems with sand getting under the foreskin.

Male circumcision is mutilation. I think people came into this discussion not making the proper statements for their opinions. The emotion was there but they described things in the way they’ve heard it spoken. If you could speak the truth about the situation I think the subject would clarify itself.

Male circumcision is not like female circumcision. Male circumcision is the same as pulling the clitoris out of the vagina and leaving it in the air for the rest of the female’s life. The clitoris would protect itself and form what’s called Keratinization. You can look that word up if you like it’s a medical term.

This is also what happens to the male’s penis after being exposed to the environment with no protection. This Keratinization forms tough skin around the exposed glands. This skin makes it very difficult to feel anything and thus reducing pleasure. So if you’re a female and you’re reading this thread consider yourself with a clitoris that has been coated with a thin strip of leather, how would that work during intercourse?

Probably not a good thing right? Also are the several thousand specialized nerve endings cut off during this procedure that you cannot get back. You can restore to a point but you will not get back the nerve endings. You guys can look up restoring if you so desire to go down that road.

In a certain period in my life I did a massive study on this barbaric act to because I had checked every other avenue and found no answers for the problem I suffered from. That road led me to circumcision. You can find a journal on the web written by a Dr who went under the knife later in life and his before and after story.

Most men who grow into their adulthood do not go under the knife, which is half the reason I’m posting this. Most of you if male were circumcised at birth. There’s no way for you to even make the decision now of whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. No offense intended but you really have no idea if you haven’t strolled down both avenues.

A women couldn’t possibly understand the difference except in her experience with a man. The closest she can get is in thinking of her clitoris undergoing Keratinization. No one has the right to make this decision for a child, you’re cutting off half of their sexual organ. That’s why you see some men post with feeling when they respond to topics like these. They’ve been mutilated and are now living with the after affects.

There are support groups on the web for this very thing. I myself have hung around a few while restoring. If a man isn’t allowed to have his foreskin then why do women get to keep the flaps(I do not remember the word for it) covering the vagina? It would be cleaner if those were removed wouldn’t it? Women use feminine washes there and you know what? Men use a similar wash for their foreskin.

The fact is this whole thing started when hospitals started getting government kick backs for performing the operations. During the world wars there was something called a "piss rinse". You see they didn’t have anything to give the soldiers to clean their foreskin with. This became a problem. So here comes the solution, circumcision. I haven’t even scratched the surface on the amount of evidence stacked against this procedure.

Anyhow anyone who wants to research this can. Most of you it looks like take the easy way out and just say what you’ve heard all of your life. You might want to google "circumstition". Those answers just aren’t true. I feel bad for the ones who don’t know any better because they went under the knife at birth. It makes no sense to do it then it causes more harm than good.

It also fascinates me that men are frowned upon for complaining about being mutilated in this manner. It’s our body, if a women doesn’t like it she doesn’t have to be with that man, plain and simple. The majority of the planet sees this as a barbaric act and does not perform it except for religious reasons.