Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

The WHO's official position matter less than the studies behind those recommendations. And there's quite a bit of data contradicting the supposed anti-STD benefit of cimcurcision. Wikipedia had a rather long list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#Observational_studies
in which they provided a small excerpt about each ponent's conclusions.

[Leafsnail]

And how are we to know that the WHO are neutral in this matter? It is entierly possible that they're just try to appease countries that still practice circumcision on a nationally religious level. Hell, the UN appointed frigging Iran to the Woman's Rights Commission, why should I think the WHO is going to be any more sane (I say this because they're both large international organizations that could very well be appeasing anyone who supports circumcision, and that this possiblity makes me doubt them.)?

I dunno, have you actually checked their sources?

And, more importantly: It doesn't matter if they're right. Even if everything the WHO has found is spot on, that is no justification for the mutilation of male children, and never will be. I would bet that female genital mutilation makes it more difficult to become infected with certain STD's as well, but you'll see no one promoting that. The practice is barbaric and involunarty. It simply should not be allowed, at least not in frigging infants. If people really want circumcisions to take place, it should only be allowed in adults. Go ahead, see how many people actually would choose such a procedure. The number won't be high, because the madness of it is obvious to anyone who is able to look at it with an adult mind. It's easy to hurt those who are too young to fight back.

Ah, yes, the possibility of a comparison is the reason I didn't think this was off topic.

Basically - no.  Female circumcision would do nothing to stop HIV transmission, since STDs aren't usually taken in through the clitoris.  Wheras STDs are very often taken in through the foreskin.  And the later life consequences for female circumcision are almost infinitely greater.  I don't think any comparisons between the two are valid.

You also declare "the numbers won't be high" with confidence, but... surely most people who do it for religious reasons would end up doing it anyway?  And there are plenty of people in AIDs stricken countries who do it electively.  Just because you personally find the idea terrible doesn't mean everyone does...

ChairmanPoo - that's honestly one of the worst Wikipedia pages I've ever seen.  It's just an incoherent, rambling mess, and I'm not exactly sure what it's trying to say.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You also declare "the numbers won't be high" with confidence, but... surely most people who do it for religious reasons would end up doing it anyway?  And there are plenty of people in AIDs stricken countries who do it electively.

I don't know. In my experiance, people are good at ignoring things about their religion that they find unappetizing. Somehow, I doubt that very many adult men would go through with it. And, I wish to point out, the US has both a high circumcision rate and a high AIDS rate. How do you explain that?

[Urist is dead tome]

You also declare "the numbers won't be high" with confidence, but... surely most people who do it for religious reasons would end up doing it anyway?  And there are plenty of people in AIDs stricken countries who do it electively.

I don't know. In my experiance, people are good at ignoring things about their religion that they find unappetizing. Somehow, I doubt that very many adult men would go through with it. And, I wish to point out, the US has both a high circumcision rate and a high AIDS rate. How do you explain that?

Probably because the type of person who would get circumcised for the anti STD benefits would be stupid enough to think that it was a perfect protection. Misuse.

[ChairmanPoo]

It links to different publications on the topic, outlining the results from each. I think that as far as wikipedia goes, it was rather decent.


Let me put it this way. There are a couple of studies stating that there is a tangible benefit for STD transmission prevention in the third world (namely, those studies in Kenya and Uganda that the WHO mentions). There are others that show no benefit, and in particular, there are no studies done in the western world showing any benefit. So yes, it's a controversial topic and it's far from clear there's a benefit.

Probably because the type of person who would get circumcised for the anti STD benefits would be stupid enough to think that it was a perfect protection. Misuse.

It's not been very touted as a HIV preventant until quite recently. It's far more likely that it's protective effects are rather mild.

[breadbocks]

In my experiance, people are good at ignoring things about their religion that they find unappetizing.

ORLY? In my experience, I've not met a single bar/bat mitzva'd jew who hasn't kept Passover for at least the first day, and who hasn't kept Yom Kippur.

Unappetizing indeed.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In my experiance, people are good at ignoring things about their religion that they find unappetizing.

ORLY? In my experience, I've not met a single bar/bat mitzva'd jew who hasn't kept Passover for at least the first day, and who hasn't kept Yom Kippur.

Unappetizing indeed.

This is all still in the hypothetical. To see which one of us is correct, we'd have to ban circumcision untill age 18 and see how many people take it.

In any case, Yom Kippur and Passover aren't really the type of thing I'm talking about, at least not from what I know of them. I'm not trying to belittle the events or anything, but not eating for a day in the name of your religion isn't all that hard to do, and the only complaint I've ever heard from anyone about Passover is that unleavened bread supposedly is not all that great.

Now, a grown man willingly taking a knife to his genitalia? That's a level of dedication that I doubt most have. But we don't know, as to my knowlage there are no countries that have anti-circumcision laws like the one I'm describing.

[breadbocks]

This is all still in the hypothetical. To see which one of us is correct, we'd have to ban circumcision untill age 18 and see how many people take it.

In any case, Yom Kippur and Passover aren't really the type of thing I'm talking about, at least not from what I know of them. I'm not trying to belittle the events or anything, but not eating for a day in the name of your religion isn't all that hard to do, and the only complaint I've ever heard from anyone about Passover is that unleavened bread supposedly is not all that great.

Now, a grown man willingly taking a knife to his genitalia? That's a level of dedication that I doubt most have. But we don't know, as to my knowlage there are no countries that have anti-circumcision laws like the one I'm describing.

How is my evidence hypothetical? It's hard information.

You'd be surprised quite how easy it is to just give in. As for Matzah being horrible, oh god IT IS. But we deal with it because it's our religion.

You'd be surprised. I imagine it would be hard to preform surgery on yourself, but for Jews it is the most holy thing to do. It is practically the only requirement for being jewish. Other things are needed to be a good jew, but you can't call yourself jewish if you aren't circumcised.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

How is my evidence hypothetical? It's hard information.

I meant for adult-only circumcision.

You'd be surprised quite how easy it is to just give in.

Perhaps I'm just weird then. I don't think not eating for a day is hard because I tend to do so semi-reguarly without thinking about it, which probably isn't normal.

You'd be surprised. I imagine it would be hard to preform surgery on yourself, but for Jews it is the most holy thing to do.

Alright, first, I didn't mean preforming surgery on yourself. I meant having a doctor (or a rabbi, perhaps) do it. I still call hypothetical on the whole thing however, being that children tend to get circumcised before that would become a choice.

[SalmonGod]

There are actually medical benefits.  It reduces risks from insufficient hygiene considerably, which is a major concern for children.  This is the main one.  I've never even heard of any relation to STDs.  As for the analogy to date rape, I'm circumcised.  I'm pretty sure I don't feel anything like someone who's been raped.

Like I said.  It only freaks out people who've never had it done, or those who had it done past infancy.  I may be stepping over the TMI line here, but how many of you are circumcised?  I doubt any of you who are speaking against it actually are.  I've never heard a single complaint from anybody who actually was.  Ya, it was probably painful for me when it happened, but I really couldn't care less now.

I had my kids circumcised, and I'm glad I did.  I've never had to deal with being non-circumcised, so if they ever had any associated problems, I would be at a disadvantage in caring for them.  I'm also thankful I didn't have to go through a ton of ritual fondling every time I changed a diaper just to keep them clean and free of infections.  It's also long over with now, and I sincerely doubt either of them will ever give it anymore thought than I have.

Getting it done as an adult is not very comparable to getting it done as an infant, either.  Kids go through so much in infancy.  Both my kids were circumcised the day they were born, and I'm sure cutting of the umbilical cord and opening their eyes to the air for the first time were far more shocking than the circumcision.  Such things heal much much faster in infants than in adults, kids are more physically and emotionally resilient in general, and yes I do think it matters that they're not going to remember it.  The procedure is probably completely forgotten within a couple hours of it happening.  There's probably associated pain when cleaning it for a few days, after which there's about a week longer before it's completely healed and there's no chance that they'll ever think about it again at least until they're teenagers and might ask a couple questions out of curiousity alone.  As an adult it doesn't heal as fast, you're a much more emotionally complex and fragile being, the experience isn't likely overshadowed by massive changes in your reality happening at the same time, and you will remember it for the rest of your life.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's not that benefittial hygiene-wise either.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It only freaks out people who've never had it done, or those who had it done past infancy.  I may be stepping over the TMI line here, but how many of you are circumcised?  I doubt any of you who are speaking against it actually are.  I've never heard a single complaint from anybody who actually was.

Well, you have now. And as I said before, it's these days little more than an excuse for doctors to get an extra dollar out of you (well, your parents).

[breadbocks]

It only freaks out people who've never had it done, or those who had it done past infancy.  I may be stepping over the TMI line here, but how many of you are circumcised?  I doubt any of you who are speaking against it actually are.  I've never heard a single complaint from anybody who actually was.

Well, you have now. And as I said before, it's these days little more than an excuse for doctors to get an extra dollar out of you (well, your parents).

Of course. The religious reasons I've mentioned don't count at all.

SG pretty much hit the nail on the head. I agree with everything he said.

[SalmonGod]

Forgot to mention.  I'm non-religious, so that has nothing to do with my decisions.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Of course. The religious reasons I've mentioned don't count at all.

That's an exception that I assumed would be assumed. My point is that vast numbers of non-jewish children in the US have their parents convinced to circumcise them only so the doctors can make money.