I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Views: 3603

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

... on injuries... HIV transmission simply does not occur without broken skin, mind you it can be a very small break... but HIV relies on blood transmission, not skin to skin contact, like most STDs. Which is the reason lesbian «sex» is practically zero risk, no semen to blood contact. In order to transmit HIV, it's not sufficient to have simply been in contact with it... one must have actually developed a certain viral load, which for some people who are HIV+, never even occurs. So between having no injuries, and not developing any viral load, the risks of HIV contraction/transmission are not as high as the fear mongering that goes on.

So when I heard yesterday on CBC radio about there being a fight brewing in Canada to decriminalise HIV+ sex, I fully agreed with it.  In my own experience, I assume that because I am a very demanding person, if I'm not prepped and juicy, the copulation is not going to happen, simple as that. As a youth, I didn't know that this behaviour would save me from diseases, but in hindsight of over 30 years of nearly carefree copulations with different nationalities, and not one STD, I'd say it goes a little beyond luck, it speaks about my mate/behaviour choices to a degree, and maybe my immune system. Now of course, I use condoms for penis/anal, because IMO, it's impossible to go anal without micro-injuries.

Our society is so filled with mandatory objects to supposedly save us... which in fact don't do much at all but limit our enjoyment of life. Ah but that's another conversation :)

If all this is true then circumscision will increase the transmission rates from male to female due to injuries even if it lowers the rate of male infection.  Would it be enough to offset the transmission from male to female. 

If you are HIV+ then you owe it to your partners to let them know.  This goes for any STD. 

I have to say I think you are really really lucky.  Im glad for that but I wouldn't advise the same risk.

Indeed... on all...

The situation in Africa with the WHO now officially sanctioning circumcision enrages me to no end. All the medical communities know other methods are more efficient and none of these medical associations condone circumcision in their own countries, yet, when it comes to Africa... These studies are so depressing.

One rule and set of expectations for the first world and another for the third.  Can't help but wonder if we are about to get hit in the head by a BRICK.  (Brazil, India, China, Korea.) 

Im un=subbing to this chat.  All has been said.  Love to chat with you elsewhere TNT. 

@Eric R.  "Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so."

Female genital mutilation is far more barbaric.  I've heard it compared to cutting off the end of the penis, rather than just the foreskin.

^^ Female genital mutilation is far more barbaric ^^

 

WHEN IT IS.  But NOT when it's NOT. 

 

MOST FGM affects the hood only (most of the victims alive today are in Indonesia and Malaysia) and in places like Egypt it is done mostly in a very clinical setting. 

 

Both MGM and FGM are done by force or coercion, are enthuisiastically supported by victims, and send hundreds to the grave annually. 

 

The MAIN difference is that 94% of the world's females are covered by laws that have no religious exemption.  No males are protected.  No males have legal recourse.  In California, they recently passed a law with 100% of both houses agreeing ANYONE with no training must have the right to hack at boy parts.  Males are LOSING ground.  California's courts ruled foreskins are exactly as unworthy of protection as puppy tails and kitten claws. 

We don't need to obsess about male or female cutting being worse.  What's true is that far more boys are cut, infant cutting is very haphazard, and all children need protection. 

By having circumcision completely banned, it makes our foundations much stronger when speaking to the rest of the world about banning their genital mutilations. We can lead by example, which is always the best way to lead.

There is a Facebook page on this objective:

End Routine Infant Circumcision

I now view Facebook solely as a free advertising tool, helping us to cover all angles in this crazy profit driven world.

I am thoroughly convinced that humans are less than apes...have you ever, EVER, seen or heard of circumcision, smoking, hanging, electrocution, shooting, bombing, burning, or other such crap among other primates?

Don't get me started!!! I think our supposed intelligence has served practically no good on this planet, other than to self multiply to ludicrous amounts of humans. I would like to see our brains put to a very different use!

True intelligence is enjoying and appreciating the gifts of the earth without an insane desire to steal, plunder, rape, and kill.  The most insane title I have ever heard is "Alexander the Great".  Great?  He was a professional killer, looter, thief, rapist, and finally died from his stupidity at a young age.  Who in their right mind could call him greaT?

not to mention when the drug deals go sour the faux good-will preachers turn to gang related teen prostitution.. what?

New research answers question about benefits to risks of circumcision.

Call for circumcision gets a boost from experts

In an important new study, authors have shown that the benefits of infant male circumcision to health exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime half of uncircumcised males will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin, the researchers suggest.

In infancy the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidney in half of babies who get a UTI. Morris and co-investigator Tom Wiswell, MD, Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, showed last year that over the lifetime UTIs affect 1 in 3 uncircumcised males.

In a landmark systematic review, Morris, with John Krieger, MD, Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure. This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.

Professor Morris stated, "The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy. ... [emphasis mine]

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service