Circumcision

[blinkybaby]

This HIV argument frightens me to death!

Circumcision will not stop the spread of HIV. It shouldn't be mentioned in my opinion. However many bits of scientific research there are to back it up, it's still a case of luck or bad luck!! How do you know if you'll be one of the ones who manages not to get it or vice versa! Makes me shiver thinking of these children being told that they are safer from HIV infection...just a terrible accident waiting to happen if you ask me!!

Condoms will reduce the risk...abstinence will eliminate the risk. These are the only 2 things that will really help!!

It is scary that people are using this as a reason to circumcise

xxx

Very dangerous indeed - I think it was irresponsible to do such a study in the first place. x

Regardless of the circumcision debate here, you think its irresponsible to do scientific studies????? B/c what, they tell you something you don't agree with? What about the guardasil shot??? You think girls shouldnt get it b/c it only reduces the risk for 4 strains of HPV when they can still be exposed to the rest??? So, if a study/treatment doesn't eliminate a problem its irresponsible.

That is a totally opposite thing to what I saying And also, when did I mention whatever it is you just said?!?! I've never heard of it so how could I make a comment about it?!

It is totally irresponsible of scientists to be saying that that circumcision reduces HIV REGARDLESS if it does in however many % of people, because for the people it doesn't work with, it's a disease that will more than likely eventually develop into one that will kill you!!

Please don't twist my words and bring up some random thing that I haven't even mentioned, look at what I said and the context in which I was saying it.

I was the person who mentioned the study being irresponsible in the first place and I still stick to that opinion - not every scientific study roots out the absolute truth of a matter and in this case I feel it may lead some people (we are all very clued up about AIDS in the western hemisphere but elsewhere in the world people can still be very naive about it) into thinking there's less risk of catching AIDS if they get circumcised which is just not true! xx

 

[newmommy23]

if I ever had a son I wouldn't. Simply because it seems unneccesary. My OH is uncircumsized and i dunno just doesn't seem like something you should be cutting. I always thought of it as like....an eyelid. If there's something covering it, it probably has a reason to be there

 

[Bartness]

After reading through this thread last night, I talked to my OH more about cicumcision. He said he wants our son circumcised b/c, if he has questions OH can answer them/relate to him. I dont think its right or wrong, I just think its a personal choice. And for the record, I dont think circumcision stops the spread of aids, as nothing, but abstanance is going to do that.

 

[scicraft]

This HIV argument frightens me to death!

Circumcision will not stop the spread of HIV. It shouldn't be mentioned in my opinion. However many bits of scientific research there are to back it up, it's still a case of luck or bad luck!! How do you know if you'll be one of the ones who manages not to get it or vice versa! Makes me shiver thinking of these children being told that they are safer from HIV infection...just a terrible accident waiting to happen if you ask me!!

Condoms will reduce the risk...abstinence will eliminate the risk. These are the only 2 things that will really help!!

It is scary that people are using this as a reason to circumcise

xxx

Very dangerous indeed - I think it was irresponsible to do such a study in the first place. x

Regardless of the circumcision debate here, you think its irresponsible to do scientific studies????? B/c what, they tell you something you don't agree with? What about the guardasil shot??? You think girls shouldnt get it b/c it only reduces the risk for 4 strains of HPV when they can still be exposed to the rest??? So, if a study/treatment doesn't eliminate a problem its irresponsible.

er i think people have a problem with this study is that it is pretty misleading! lets cut off part of your body and you wont die of aids!

what else did they take into consideration when doing the study? that circumcised men sometimes have much less feeling and sexual pleasure than uncircumcised males, therefore may not be having as much sex to actually catch the sti in the first place OR even the uncircumcised guys might be getting so hot and into it that using protection slips there mind whereas as the circumcised person may not be feeling as much pleasure has more time/alertness to think about using contraception etc

in my mind that was a stupid study and the results were NOT conclusive

I could argue for hours (I am an attorney) --- my poor husband never wins a fight b/c I always manage to manipulate facts. So I will not try to change any ones minds. Even though I don't think the reason matters, if it reduces it, it reduces it - and no one should be afraid of scientific exploration b/c they think people will get the wrong idea (all those years the Church wouldn't let scientists reveal/explore the fact the earth revolved around the sun and not not vice versa b/c it showed we arent center of universe both figurativly and literally, its just scary to hear someone say it --- whether one thinks the benifits are worth the risks is a personal opinion.
In my opinion, I don't know if thats a reason, personally to circumsice, but doesn;t mean I think the study shouldnt be published to the public so people can make their own decisions (again, keeping info from people...bad thing)

why on earth would you want to manipulate facts? surely that dissolves the point of the debate? we can all sit around making things up.

The AIDs study wasn't conclusive and it was misleading - fact

No, not fact. Have you read the primary peer-reviewed articles? I have. It's in no way misleading.

A good peer-reviewed review article on the subject sums it up this way:
"Decades of epidemiological studies and three carefully controlled randomized clinical trials have definitively shown that male circumcision (MC) reduces risks for HIV transmission from women to men by as much as 55%."
From: Neonatal circumcision for HIV prevention: Cost, culture, and behavioral considerations.
Kalichman SC.
PLoS Med. 2010 Jan 19;7(1):e1000219.

Furthermore, there is now evidence that cells in the inner foreskin known as Langerhans cells could be the reason that HIV is more permeable to an uncircumsized penis.

From the journal Nature, one the most most respected peer reviewed scientific journals in the world. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20410876

While I don't think that a decrease in STD infection is a reason to get your child circumsized, finding incorrect fault with the scientific studies that show the correlation is not productive. Also, you can't use Western rates of infection to make a judgment on what will be an effective way to decrease infections in Africa because the cultural mores and customs vary too greatly. The science is the science. How that research is implemented is a completely separate topic.

 

[SIEGAL]

This HIV argument frightens me to death!

Circumcision will not stop the spread of HIV. It shouldn't be mentioned in my opinion. However many bits of scientific research there are to back it up, it's still a case of luck or bad luck!! How do you know if you'll be one of the ones who manages not to get it or vice versa! Makes me shiver thinking of these children being told that they are safer from HIV infection...just a terrible accident waiting to happen if you ask me!!

Condoms will reduce the risk...abstinence will eliminate the risk. These are the only 2 things that will really help!!

It is scary that people are using this as a reason to circumcise

xxx

Very dangerous indeed - I think it was irresponsible to do such a study in the first place. x

Regardless of the circumcision debate here, you think its irresponsible to do scientific studies????? B/c what, they tell you something you don't agree with? What about the guardasil shot??? You think girls shouldnt get it b/c it only reduces the risk for 4 strains of HPV when they can still be exposed to the rest??? So, if a study/treatment doesn't eliminate a problem its irresponsible.

er i think people have a problem with this study is that it is pretty misleading! lets cut off part of your body and you wont die of aids!

what else did they take into consideration when doing the study? that circumcised men sometimes have much less feeling and sexual pleasure than uncircumcised males, therefore may not be having as much sex to actually catch the sti in the first place OR even the uncircumcised guys might be getting so hot and into it that using protection slips there mind whereas as the circumcised person may not be feeling as much pleasure has more time/alertness to think about using contraception etc

in my mind that was a stupid study and the results were NOT conclusive

I could argue for hours (I am an attorney) --- my poor husband never wins a fight b/c I always manage to manipulate facts. So I will not try to change any ones minds. Even though I don't think the reason matters, if it reduces it, it reduces it - and no one should be afraid of scientific exploration b/c they think people will get the wrong idea (all those years the Church wouldn't let scientists reveal/explore the fact the earth revolved around the sun and not not vice versa b/c it showed we arent center of universe both figurativly and literally, its just scary to hear someone say it --- whether one thinks the benifits are worth the risks is a personal opinion.
In my opinion, I don't know if thats a reason, personally to circumsice, but doesn;t mean I think the study shouldnt be published to the public so people can make their own decisions (again, keeping info from people...bad thing)

why on earth would you want to manipulate facts? surely that dissolves the point of the debate? we can all sit around making things up.

The AIDs study wasn't conclusive and it was misleading - fact

No, not fact. Have you read the primary peer-reviewed articles? I have. It's in no way misleading.

A good peer-reviewed review article on the subject sums it up this way:
"Decades of epidemiological studies and three carefully controlled randomized clinical trials have definitively shown that male circumcision (MC) reduces risks for HIV transmission from women to men by as much as 55%."
From: Neonatal circumcision for HIV prevention: Cost, culture, and behavioral considerations.
Kalichman SC.
PLoS Med. 2010 Jan 19;7(1):e1000219.

Furthermore, there is now evidence that cells in the inner foreskin known as Langerhans cells could be the reason that HIV is more permeable to an uncircumsized penis.

From the journal Nature, one the most most respected peer reviewed scientific journals in the world. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20410876

While I don't think that a decrease in STD infection is a reason to get your child circumsized, finding incorrect fault with the scientific studies that show the correlation is not productive. Also, you can't use Western rates of infection to make a judgment on what will be an effective way to decrease infections in Africa because the cultural mores and customs vary too greatly. The science is the science. How that research is implemented is a completely separate topic.

 

[blinkybaby]

I don't doubt that the study was scientific, I was just saying the results may lead people into a false sense of security, which is not desirable?

 

[debsbaby]

Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental ******ation, and insanity.

No procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.

Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the "reasons," later.

This was taken from an article written by Paul M. Fleiss MD published in The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45

 

[winegums]

This HIV argument frightens me to death!

Circumcision will not stop the spread of HIV. It shouldn't be mentioned in my opinion. However many bits of scientific research there are to back it up, it's still a case of luck or bad luck!! How do you know if you'll be one of the ones who manages not to get it or vice versa! Makes me shiver thinking of these children being told that they are safer from HIV infection...just a terrible accident waiting to happen if you ask me!!

Condoms will reduce the risk...abstinence will eliminate the risk. These are the only 2 things that will really help!!

It is scary that people are using this as a reason to circumcise

xxx

Very dangerous indeed - I think it was irresponsible to do such a study in the first place. x

Regardless of the circumcision debate here, you think its irresponsible to do scientific studies????? B/c what, they tell you something you don't agree with? What about the guardasil shot??? You think girls shouldnt get it b/c it only reduces the risk for 4 strains of HPV when they can still be exposed to the rest??? So, if a study/treatment doesn't eliminate a problem its irresponsible.

er i think people have a problem with this study is that it is pretty misleading! lets cut off part of your body and you wont die of aids!

what else did they take into consideration when doing the study? that circumcised men sometimes have much less feeling and sexual pleasure than uncircumcised males, therefore may not be having as much sex to actually catch the sti in the first place OR even the uncircumcised guys might be getting so hot and into it that using protection slips there mind whereas as the circumcised person may not be feeling as much pleasure has more time/alertness to think about using contraception etc

in my mind that was a stupid study and the results were NOT conclusive

I could argue for hours (I am an attorney) --- my poor husband never wins a fight b/c I always manage to manipulate facts. So I will not try to change any ones minds. Even though I don't think the reason matters, if it reduces it, it reduces it - and no one should be afraid of scientific exploration b/c they think people will get the wrong idea (all those years the Church wouldn't let scientists reveal/explore the fact the earth revolved around the sun and not not vice versa b/c it showed we arent center of universe both figurativly and literally, its just scary to hear someone say it --- whether one thinks the benifits are worth the risks is a personal opinion.
In my opinion, I don't know if thats a reason, personally to circumsice, but doesn;t mean I think the study shouldnt be published to the public so people can make their own decisions (again, keeping info from people...bad thing)

why on earth would you want to manipulate facts? surely that dissolves the point of the debate? we can all sit around making things up.

The AIDs study wasn't conclusive and it was misleading - fact

No, not fact. Have you read the primary peer-reviewed articles? I have. It's in no way misleading.

A good peer-reviewed review article on the subject sums it up this way:
"Decades of epidemiological studies and three carefully controlled randomized clinical trials have definitively shown that male circumcision (MC) reduces risks for HIV transmission from women to men by as much as 55%."
From: Neonatal circumcision for HIV prevention: Cost, culture, and behavioral considerations.
Kalichman SC.
PLoS Med. 2010 Jan 19;7(1):e1000219.

Furthermore, there is now evidence that cells in the inner foreskin known as Langerhans cells could be the reason that HIV is more permeable to an uncircumsized penis.

From the journal Nature, one the most most respected peer reviewed scientific journals in the world. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20410876

While I don't think that a decrease in STD infection is a reason to get your child circumsized, finding incorrect fault with the scientific studies that show the correlation is not productive. Also, you can't use Western rates of infection to make a judgment on what will be an effective way to decrease infections in Africa because the cultural mores and customs vary too greatly. The science is the science. How that research is implemented is a completely separate topic.

actually it is misleading as people will think that if they get their child circumcised they will have less chance of getting AIDS which just isnt true. Also there were far too many factors that were not taken into consideration

 

[blinkybaby]

Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental ******ation, and insanity.

No procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation.

Today the reasons given for circumcision have been updated to play on contemporary fears and anxieties; but one day they, too, will be considered irrational. Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the "reasons," later.

This was taken from an article written by Paul M. Fleiss MD published in The Magazine of Natural Family Living, Winter 1997, pp. 36--45

Thanks for this - something new I learned today and something I had not considered. x

 

[pixydust]

i would never even consider circumcising my son unless absolutely necessary.

 

[LuvMyBoys]

All I have to say about the most recent posts is that you can't always believe something because it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. These items are subject to just as much bias as any other field and are of course, not perfect.

The AIDS article should definitely be read and understood with a critical eye (need I also mention that the reference that was cited here was a review article, which in itself is a compilation of articles interpreted by the author, hence subjective bias) and the statement about the reasons for circumcision by P. Weiss is also a statement made by him personally, not a statement of scientific fact.

Not saying either is correct - but one of the main premises of science is critical investigation, not immediate superficial belief.

 

[SIEGAL]

All I have to say about the most recent posts is that you can't always believe something because it's published in a peer-reviewed journal. These items are subject to just as much bias as any other field and are of course, not perfect.

The AIDS article should definitely be read and understood with a critical eye (need I also mention that the reference that was cited here was a review article, which in itself is a compilation of articles interpreted by the author, hence subjective bias) and the statement about the reasons for circumcision by P. Weiss is also a statement made by him personally, not a statement of scientific fact.

Not saying either is correct - but one of the main premises of science is critical investigation, not immediate superficial belief.

I think you are 100% correct. Everyone has a right to believe what they want and not all studies are correct. I just had issue when someone said it was "irresponsible to publish." It may not be correct but I know its a legitimate study and thus has the right to be published so people can choose to believe it or not believe it. Its just scary when someone says new scientific studies, if they tell you something scary or unconventional, shouldn't be published.

 

[lushious09]

i think the whole ur less likely to catch hiv if your circumcised is utter rubbish... and i think it was an extremly stupid study to do... so now there is proberly young men running around sleeping about without condoms going "hey no problem u wont get hiv neither will i because im circd"... how ridiculous

 

[blinkybaby]

Why is it bad to say it was irresponsible to be published? I have my own opinion on that - a few people on this forum seem to feel the same way! Just because a study is conducted does not mean it is a responsible study - I wasn't questioning its right to be published, or its legitimacy, I was merely stating that the results could be misinterpreted, which is likely in some countries such as Africa, where some people unfortunately still think you can avoid catching AIDS by showering after sex or that you can't pass on AIDS if you are being treated for it!

 

[debsbaby]

the statement about the reasons for circumcision by P. Weiss is also a statement made by him personally, not a statement of scientific fact.

Not saying either is correct - but one of the main premises of science is critical investigation, not immediate superficial belief.

You are incorrect. Here is a link to the article itself published on a website, and you can see (and further read) at the bottom the 67 sources he cited in the article, many of which are pediatric, medical and scientific journals.

https://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

 

[surprisepreg]

This HIV argument frightens me to death!

Circumcision will not stop the spread of HIV. It shouldn't be mentioned in my opinion. However many bits of scientific research there are to back it up, it's still a case of luck or bad luck!! How do you know if you'll be one of the ones who manages not to get it or vice versa! Makes me shiver thinking of these children being told that they are safer from HIV infection...just a terrible accident waiting to happen if you ask me!!

Condoms will reduce the risk...abstinence will eliminate the risk. These are the only 2 things that will really help!!

It is scary that people are using this as a reason to circumcise

xxx

Very dangerous indeed - I think it was irresponsible to do such a study in the first place. x

I personally find the study quite interesting. I also dont believe that most mother's would circumcise a child with the hopes of that (and only that preventing HIV). However I do think that it is worth it for scientists to continue to look into.

It is one of the only reasons I would really consider circumcision...which may sound silly to you...but in my opinion the more protection you have against STI's (and I believe some other studies have shown potential protection w/ other STI's as well) the better.

I also am a firm believer in safe sex/ abstinence. And I would prefer my son to wait until he is older and in a safe, loving relationship. However...kids/teenagers do stupid things sometimes...and even with the best parenting sometimes a person will do things unsafe that can lead to concequences that they never thought would happen.

We cant always protect our children... so I can totally understand why some mothers would choose to circumcise with the hopes of it providing extra protection. Im not saying it is the correct choice or not the correct choice...but I totally understand it.

 

[winegums]

if an uncircumsised baby gets nappy rash the foreskin is not there to pretect his penis and it can get badly infected and even scar at the end so that the hole needs to be reopened.

maybe that should be another reason to wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

 

[surprisepreg]

i think the whole ur less likely to catch hiv if your circumcised is utter rubbish... and i think it was an extremly stupid study to do... so now there is proberly young men running around sleeping about without condoms going "hey no problem u wont get hiv neither will i because im circd"... how ridiculous

I dont really want to keep getting involved with these debates as I dont love arguments and havent made a real decision on circumcision...lol

However I find myself feeling compelled to put forth my opinion (I hope no one minds.)

I am from the U.S. and I have known many teenage boys as well as adult men who never think twice about having unprotected sex...(especially if the women claims to be clean and on bc pills) And this was BEFORE the study on HIV came out. People do stupid things....things that could hasve bad consequences...it is unfortunately part of life.

The study on AIDS was done in Africa where unprotected sex is VERY common and AIDS has become a MASSIVE epidemic. If circumcision will help to REDUCE (not stop...no one claimed it would stop) the spread of AIDS then I think it is worth a try.

I dont think any mothers are circumcising there children and saying "there sweetie...no you can have unprotected sex and you dont have to worry." And the studies done dont claim that to any degree.

I also would like to say that on a personal note, my brother (who is a very well raised 28 year old man) chose to have unprotected sex with a good friend of mine (I had no idea...if I had known I would have told him to use a condom.) Although no issues came from this, what he didnt realize was that my friend has had many drug issues and has had sex with probably around 55-60 different guys...making her in my opinion less the reliable when it comes to potential STI's. If my mature, INTELLIGENT, VERY well brought up brother could make a choice that could be so dangerous...then I think its safe to assume that anyone, in the heat of the moment may make that choice...and if circumcision truly does provide even a small amount of extra protection we shouldnt discount it.

Just my opinion. Hope everyone is having a nice day!!

 

[surprisepreg]

if an uncircumsised baby gets nappy rash the foreskin is not there to pretect his penis and it can get badly infected and even scar at the end so that the hole needs to be reopened.

maybe that should be another reason to wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

I have never known anyone who had the specific issue you are mentioning...and most men around her are circumcised as infants. I think thats there are potential problems with anything...a child could have problems with and circumcised penis or an uncircumcised penis. I have read about issues in both...
-with a circumcised penis, if it is not rolled down and cared for properly (not everyone realizes the proper care for a circumcised penis) the penis can develop adhesions. Also if a circumcised penis is cut to short it can cause painful erection.s
-with an uncircumcised penis, the foreskin can occasionally grow over the tip making peeing painful and requiring circumcision at that point. I have also heard of cases with uncircumcised penis's where the foreskin becomes too tight and constricts the penis (especially during erections) is quite painful and requires surgery.

So as you can see both have pros and cons...neither of which appear often or in most cases. Most uncircumcised penises (I assume...as most ppl I know are circumcised) have little or no issues and most circumcised penises have little or no issues.

 

[LuvMyBoys]

the statement about the reasons for circumcision by P. Weiss is also a statement made by him personally, not a statement of scientific fact.

Not saying either is correct - but one of the main premises of science is critical investigation, not immediate superficial belief.

You are incorrect. Here is a link to the article itself published on a website, and you can see (and further read) at the bottom the 67 sources he cited in the article, many of which are pediatric, medical and scientific journals.

https://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

Actually, you are incorrect. I didn't say that the author didn't review articles before making his statement. What I did say, was that the statement that you quoted was not a direct citation from other studies. The statement that you quoted was something that he, himself said, making it his subjective interpretation of the literature.