Circumcision

[Mey]

Did Science give a clear answer about male circumcision ?

What about the women ? I have come to establish that it is wrong in females due to many things I read. But on males, articles could not give an answer, read many things on many sites, some in favor, others are not.

Which religions perform Female Circumcision ? I know Male Circumcision is performed in Islam and Judaism, but is Female Circumcision a religious requirement too ?

[freak]

Originally Posted by Mahyar

Did Science give a clear answer about male circumcision ?

What about the women ? I have come to establish that it is wrong in females due to many things I read. But on males, articles could not give an answer, read many things on many sites, some in favor, others are not.

Which religions perform Female Circumcision ? I know Male Circumcision is performed in Islam and Judaism, but is Female Circumcision a religious requirement too ?

I do not think female circumcision is a requirement in any religion.. And also female circumcision is said to have more harms than benefits if any

[Stella]

Female circumcision is a horrible crime, by it they simply humiliate women and reduce if not completely cease their capability to enjoy a sexual intercourse.

As for men, it seems there is no clear agreement on its hygienic effects.

If its more healthier, then circumcision shall be promoted.

[LebanesePride]

I think HIV infection shouldnt really be used as a validation of circumcision. I mean really, HIV awareness isnt that hard, if you need to cut the surface to reduce your risks, then youre a moron who should be getting a brain instead of cutting yourself. What about testing, condoms,....

Next thing youll know is theyll cut all of his ***** so he never catches aids.....



Unfortunately many of us werent given the decision, and i think most wouldnt have done it.

It just seems unnatural to cut a piece of yourself. If its there its there for a reason. Might seem a bit non-scientific, but thats how i view it.

besides the whole practice is inherited from ancient cultures with little relevance to today.

Might have been hygenic back then taking into account the practices of that time, but i cant see the usefulness of subjecting a child to such a brutal act now.

[freak]

Originally Posted by LebanesePride

What about testing, condoms,....

Condoms are 99% effective..

It just seems unnatural to cut a piece of yourself. If its there its there for a reason. Might seem a bit non-scientific, but thats how i view it.

All humans have an appendix, whats the reason for it?

[LebanesePride]

Originally Posted by freak

Condoms are 99% effective..

And circumcision is what, 50% according to the most optimist study done?

So itd remove what, 50% of teh 1%?

Making it 99.5%?

Youre removing a piece of protective skin, to give a 0.5% at best more chance for your son (keeping in mind that unless injury is present, transmission of aids from a vagina to a ***** isnt very likely) to not catch aids in case he slept with an HIV positive woman?

Keeping in mind that during the act of cutting itself many things could go wrong and lead to bad results as well.

All humans have an appendix, whats the reason for it?

Actually most biologists would say it does have a function. Just because you survive without it, and just because you only notice it when it goes abd doesnt mean it doesnt do anything the rest of the time.

Toxins from the intestin are drained there as well as other places, and lymphocytes are very active there which helps in the immune system identifying and preparing for several infections.

The thing is that process happens in a lot more places as well, therefore the appendix doesnt have YET a known distinctive function, and it may well not have. (which is why scientists say it has no known function, to keep doors open for any new discovery).


Foreskin is a protective skin layer, it protects much like the eyelids protect the eyes. the reason why id imagien circumcision used to be practiced is because with the hygiene methods that were available in the past, it was harder to keep an uncircumcised ***** clean. which made it subject to infection.
But now to keep your protective skin layer and have good hygiene, which anyone who has discovered the presence of soap can do, theres no use for circumcision that i see.

Besides vegetative useless organs tend to shrink away (and are harmless) and theres no sign of the foreskin doing that. The little toe, however, is. Maybe we should start cutting it off too :D

Btw removing the foreskin makes you lose a lot of sensitivity there. When its removed you have direct contact with your clothes and whatnot so with a little bit of time the sensitvity there is vastly reduced.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by LebanesePride

And circumcision is what, 50% according to the most optimist study done?

So itd remove what, 50% of teh 1%?

Making it 99.5%?

Youre removing a piece of protective skin, to give a 0.5% at best more chance for your son (keeping in mind that unless injury is present, transmission of aids from a vagina to a ***** isnt very likely) to not catch aids in case he slept with an HIV positive woman?

Keeping in mind that during the act of cutting itself many things could go wrong and lead to bad results as well.



Actually most biologists would say it does have a function. Just because you survive without it, and just because you only notice it when it goes abd doesnt mean it doesnt do anything the rest of the time.

Toxins from the intestin are drained there as well as other places, and lymphocytes are very active there which helps in the immune system identifying and preparing for several infections.

The thing is that process happens in a lot more places as well, therefore the appendix doesnt have YET a known distinctive function, and it may well not have. (which is why scientists say it has no known function, to keep doors open for any new discovery).


Foreskin is a protective skin layer, it protects much like the eyelids protect the eyes. the reason why id imagien circumcision used to be practiced is because with the hygiene methods that were available in the past, it was harder to keep an uncircumcised ***** clean. which made it subject to infection.
But now to keep your protective skin layer and have good hygiene, which anyone who has discovered the presence of soap can do, theres no use for circumcision that i see.

Besides vegetative useless organs tend to shrink away (and are harmless) and theres no sign of the foreskin doing that. The little toe, however, is. Maybe we should start cutting it off too :D

Btw removing the foreskin makes you lose a lot of sensitivity there. When its removed you have direct contact with your clothes and whatnot so with a little bit of time the sensitvity there is vastly reduced.

Your arguments are very convincing, however its still not proven.

Can we hear maybe a first hand experience from those who done circumcision at an adult age, thus know what is like before and after circumcision, considering all the mentioned aspects?

[LebanesePride]

Originally Posted by Stella

Your arguments are very convincing, however its still not proven.

Can we hear maybe a first hand experience from those who done circumcision at an adult age, thus know what is like before and after circumcision, considering all the mentioned aspects?

testimonies wont bring you medical facts about the protective functions of the foreskin.

However, about sensitivity.

Most testimonies report a significant decrease in sensitivity.

However, what you may find misleading in the results, is when theyre asked for a subjective evaluation of getting cirumcised.

While many reported a decrease in sensitivity, MOST WILL RATE THE SEX AS BETTER.

that can be caused by several factors.

If they were suffering from premature ejaculation then that decrease of sensitivity may help them in that area.


Secondly because of social factors, a circumcised ***** is advertised as more appealing. Therefore getting it circumcised would lead to more confidence. When circumcision used to be recommended in the states by pediatrics board (it isnt anymore, its left to parents choice), uncircumcised males were teased in school and whatnot, which led to them having poor self esteem regarding their *****.


So all in all, a man who will make his own choice to get circumcised, will probably be mroe likely to view it as positive because hed have had reasons that pushed him to get circumsized.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by LebanesePride

testimonies wont bring you medical facts about the protective functions of the foreskin.

However, about sensitivity.

Most testimonies report a significant decrease in sensitivity.

However, what you may find misleading in the results, is when theyre asked for a subjective evaluation of getting cirumcised.

While many reported a decrease in sensitivity, MOST WILL RATE THE SEX AS BETTER.

that can be caused by several factors.

If they were suffering from premature ejaculation then that decrease of sensitivity may help them in that area.


Secondly because of social factors, a circumcised ***** is advertised as more appealing. Therefore getting it circumcised would lead to more confidence. When circumcision used to be recommended in the states by pediatrics board (it isnt anymore, its left to parents choice), uncircumcised males were teased in school and whatnot, which led to them having poor self esteem regarding their *****.


So all in all, a man who will make his own choice to get circumcised, will probably be mroe likely to view it as positive because hed have had reasons that pushed him to get circumsized.

Hey LP, this is pretty convincing!:)

I do think theres an environmental pressure playing a big role in the decision.

[freak]

WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan

Infected cell
Foreskin cells are thought to be more vulnerable to HIV infection
International experts have backed the use of male circumcision in the prevention of HIV.

The World Health Organization and UNAIDS said circumcision should be added to current interventions to reduce the spread of HIV.

Three African trials have shown that circumcision halved the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men.

The recommendations largely apply to countries where rates of heterosexual transmission is high.

Experts warned that greater use of circumcision would not replace the need for other prevention methods, such as condoms.

But modelling studies have shown that if male circumcision was more widely available, millions of lives, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa would be saved.

WHO and UNAIDS said access to the procedure should be urgently scaled up in areas with high rates of heterosexual infection and low rates of male circumcision.

But warned that it was an additional intervention and would not replace programmes providing HIV testing, or prevention or treatment for sexually infected infections.

Men and their partners must also be given counselling to prevent them developing a false sense of security, they said.

Training and monitoring must be done to check circumcision is being done by appropriate health professionals in a sanitary environment with proper equipment.

And they stressed there was no evidence yet as to whether circumcision has any impact on the risk of infection for the woman or on the risk among men who have sex with other men.

Significant step

Kevin De ****, director of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization said: "The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention."

"Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men."

However, he said it would be years before the impact on the epidemic would be apparent.

Catherine Hankins, UNAIDS, said: "Being able to recommend an additional HIV prevention method is a significant step towards getting ahead of this epidemic.

"However, we must be clear: male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV.

"Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners."

All three African trials were stopped early because the results were so dramatic - with reduced rates of new HIV infections of 48-60%.

There are several reasons why circumcision may protect against HIV infection.

Specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection and also the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed reducing risk of infection following circumcision.

When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers noted that men who were circumcised seemed to be less at risk of infection but it was unclear whether this was due to differences in sexual behaviour.

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, said: "These recommendations address many of the benefits of including male circumcision in a comprehensive HIV prevention package.

She added: "Additional research to determine the health impact for women and men who have sex with men is vital, as is ensuring that adequate resources are provided to fund existing prevention methods, as well as continue research into new technologies such as microbicides and vaccines."

BBC