Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[blackbeltninja]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

^"Except that all those nations are lying!" Sorry - I'm just pre-empting the anti-mutilation camp's knee-jerk response.

-d-

 

[medic1]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

You are so right but it does seem to prevent penile cancer not testicular
but actual cancer of the penis.
There are a few theorys about but no conclusive cause as to why this is so
Just thought that it would make an interesting point as they both involve
our dicks.

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

You are so right but it does seem to prevent penile cancer not testicular but actual cancer of the penis.

Penile cancer can still occur in the circumcision scar. Luckily, penile cancer is incredibly rare.

 

[paatreides]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Not arguing for or against...it's a very personal choice and should stay that way.

That being said, it has been proven that circumcision can reduce the risk of contracting a wide variety of STD's. I don't believe any [reputable] medical study has ever claimed it prevents 100%.

 

[metta]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

I'm curious as to why the US has a higher HIV contraction rate at 0.6% compared to the UK 0.2% and China 0.1%. Surely if a circumcision was helpful, then the figures would be a reverse.

Are you guys just fucking too much for your own good?

ignoring the circumcision issue....there are many reasons why this is the case, including the UK has national health care, there are probably a much higher percentage of gay people with low self esteems in the US because of the higher level of intolerance due to religious extremists, etc.

 

[HunterM]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Well...masturbation prevents HIV for sure

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

I'm curious as to why the US has a higher HIV contraction rate at 0.6% compared to the UK 0.2% and China 0.1%. Surely if a circumcision was helpful, then the figures would be a reverse.

Are you guys just fucking too much for your own good?

Well, it's important to remember that the WHO studies conclude it reduces the female-to-male transmission of HIV in vaginal sex. The reason HIV is so common in gay men is because of bareback bottoming; the virus is absorbed into your system by the colon. That's why circumcised gay men are still at a disproportionally high risk of acquiring HIV.


Furthermore:

ignoring the circumcision issue....there are many reasons why this is the case, including the UK has national health care

That is an incredibly important factor. In the US, getting tested for STDs can cost hundreds of dollars, and the testing centers are usually quite a distance a way. That's why syphilis is now the most common STD in gay men; because few people can get tested for it often enough to ever know they have it. Many people get infected without even knowing.

 

[wanderer]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Not arguing for or against...it's a very personal choice and should stay that way.

That being said, it has been proven that circumcision can reduce the risk of contracting a wide variety of STD's. I don't believe any [reputable] medical study has ever claimed it prevents 100%.

just wanted to point out THAT is the entire argument, it is a very PERSONAL issue and should remain that way. however people forget what "personal" means, it means to that of the person. and last i checked, the dick belonged to the baby and not the parents that just pushed it out. The PERSONAL choice remains with the kid, and thus, since he cannot make the choice at the moment, must be at least 16 to 18 to do so. it could be argued and agreed upon that he is old enough at 14 i guess. i also think the same rules apply to those mother's getting their daughters earings at 1 year old, but wait, those can be removed. perhaps if mothers started placing tattoos on their babies people might cry out. but my argument is this, why not? it doesnt hurt the baby. but the kid may not agree with it cosmetically right? now we are back to the issue of circumcision.

tying in this argument of "being cut reduced HIV risk", well that is fine and all if you want to belive or not believe that. big deal, still does not even touch the heart of the issue - the kid's choice!!!. he will not be having sex anyway until he is at an age to comprehend the choice! so why not just let the penis be???

people have to make their own choices, and they do it everyday. many pick up smoking habbits knowing the dangers. (COPD is the #1 preventable cause of death in the US as of 2011). these youths also choose to smoke after hearing the warnings over and over. how is the choice to get cut/not get cut any different from choosing to smoke at that specific point in their lives? there is no difference, and that was allowing for HIV to actually be a risk of not being circumcised just for the sake of this argument.

any takers on this?

 

[medic1]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Penile cancer can still occur in the circumcision scar. Luckily, penile cancer is incredibly rare.

That is why i said it does seem to , and as you say penile cancer is very rare
the two cases that i have seen have both been uncut guy,s .

 

[Zabotugi]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

That is why i said it does seem to , and as you say penile cancer is very rare
the two cases that i have seen have both been uncut guy,s .

Was this in Scotland?

 

[medic1]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Just so all you guys know copd stands for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Great post Wanderer .

 

[medic1]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Was this in Scotland?

One is in scotland the other was when i was in the RAF .

 

[Zabotugi]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

One is in scotland the other was when i was in the RAF .

I mean, in a majority intact country probability alone would say that most men that get it would be uncut.

 

[yummylongsword]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

just wanted to point out THAT is the entire argument, it is a very PERSONAL issue and should remain that way. however people forget what "personal" means, it means to that of the person. and last i checked, the dick belonged to the baby and not the parents that just pushed it out. The PERSONAL choice remains with the kid, and thus, since he cannot make the choice at the moment, must be at least 16 to 18 to do so. it could be argued and agreed upon that he is old enough at 14 i guess. i also think the same rules apply to those mother's getting their daughters earings at 1 year old, but wait, those can be removed. perhaps if mothers started placing tattoos on their babies people might cry out. but my argument is this, why not? it doesnt hurt the baby. but the kid may not agree with it cosmetically right? now we are back to the issue of circumcision.

tying in this argument of "being cut reduced HIV risk", well that is fine and all if you want to belive or not believe that. big deal, still does not even touch the heart of the issue - the kid's choice!!!. he will not be having sex anyway until he is at an age to comprehend the choice! so why not just let the penis be???

people have to make their own choices, and they do it everyday. many pick up smoking habbits knowing the dangers. (COPD is the #1 preventable cause of death in the US as of 2011). these youths also choose to smoke after hearing the warnings over and over. how is the choice to get cut/not get cut any different from choosing to smoke at that specific point in their lives? there is no difference, and that was allowing for HIV to actually be a risk of not being circumcised just for the sake of this argument.

any takers on this?

The problem is where we draw the line at what should be an individual's choice, and what is a parent's choice. Should we opt out of naming babies, letting them choose their own name when they're old enough? What is "old enough"? Should we let parents dictate what religion their children should be? What morals they should adhere to? What clothing they should wear? What immunizations they should or shouldn't get?

When you're a baby, it's really not as simple as "it should be the child's choice!" Personally, I'm glad my parents had me circumcised. I was too young to remember it, I fit in better with my circumcised American peers, it looks better in my opinion, it's much easier to keep clean, and it might even save me from an STD (although irrelevant because I always use protection).

The point is, it IS up to the parents to weigh the benefits and issues related to circumcision. There are far worse things that parents choose to do to their children than this, so why don't you campaign for getting rid of those?

 

[medic1]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

I mean, in a majority intact country probability alone would say that most men that get it would be uncut.

You are so right but even taken that into consideration cut guys do seem to
have a far greater chance of not getting penile cancer.
Though Nomenclature did make an excellent point concerning the circumcision scar.

 

[Zabotugi]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

You are so right but even taken that into consideration cut guys do seem to
have a far greater chance of not getting penile cancer.
Though Nomenclature did make an excellent point concerning the circumcision scar.

You may be right. But I'm not really worried about it. Giving the genetics in my family I'm probably more at risk for breast cancer (and that's not anti-circ stuff, I'M BEING SERIOUS). I'm the type of person that runs to the doctor everytime something ''weird'' happens to my body. This includes every burning feeling, bump, rash, pimple, etc. I know I get on the nerves of the doctors at the student health center. So if I do get it I'm sure they'll catch it before it gets really serious. I mean, I just don't think the small chance of getting penile cancer is a reason for the whole world to run out and get circ'd. Also, we are now getting hpv shots that MAY help to prevent cancer of the penis. So the risk will probably be much lower in the future if the shot does what it says it does.

 

[tonyboy]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

http://www.4eric.org/why-circumcision-does-not-slow-the-spread-of-hiv/

Of course not.. who ever thought it would?

 

[healingduck]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

I was unaware that people thought it did....

I knew this would turn into a circumcision vs uncircumcised fight...

When will people understand that people aren't gonna change their minds on the matter.

 

[Centipede]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

i don't understand the fascination with this topic or cut dick. what irks me though is those who use the hygiene defense lmao. ridiculous.

uncut4ever, but that's just my preference (and always will be).

 

[juicyjack]

Re: Circumcision DOES NOT Prevent HIV.

Well I don't wanta be a for or against it. I'm cut but I don't think it's made much of a difference in my life one way or another other than the fact that I look like everyone else in the shower. But I've read opposing things saying that it does help prevent HIV and they have done studies saying so. However I don't know how accurate that would be and it seems like it would be hard to prove. Either way just use a damn condom please!