• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Study finds: circumcision cuts risk

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Platypus said:
Put on a condom,
Click to expand...

A lot of christian religions do not approve of condoms,,, or any form of birth control for that matter. So they have to resort to stuff like Male Genital Mutilation to try and control diseases. Only recently has the pope approved of condoms to control HIV infection.

For some reason I feel like I'am living the in the middle ages. Use leaches to suck the bad blood out, Male Genital Mutilation to prevent the spread of STDs,,,,.
 
moshquerade said:
There's more:

"Controlled trials have shown circumcision decreases the risk of HIV, HPV and herpes. In women it reduces the risk of bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis and now HPV."
Click to expand...

How about you use a $.50 condom, works much better than their "slightly reduced risk"
 
Inferno0032 said:
Damn, no kidding, I guess I haven't been in on these so much before, but alot of defensive dudes here, lol.
Click to expand...

Anything done to harm a child before they can consent should be illegal. Same reason I havent had my daughters ears pierced, ill let her ask if and when she wants to.
 
RadiclDreamer said:
Anything done to harm a child before they can consent should be illegal. Same reason I havent had my daughters ears pierced, ill let her ask if and when she wants to.
Click to expand...

I was circumcised at birth. It doesn't really bother me, probably since I've been this way practically my entire life. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Even if I did, I can't blame my parents; they only did what they though was best for me given the information at the time. Basically, I don't see anything wrong with circumcision.

But arguments like the one above have convinced me that if I have a son, I will not have him circumcised. If he wants to have it done later in life, then that's his decision, the important part is his decision.

I'd probably change my mind if studies showed clear, conclusive evidence of meaningful benefits from circumcision, but for now the benefits are too small and speculative.
 
Terzo said:
I was circumcised at birth. It doesn't really bother me, probably since I've been this way practically my entire life. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Even if I did, I can't blame my parents; they only did what they though was best for me given the information at the time. Basically, I don't see anything wrong with circumcision.

But arguments like the one above have convinced me that if I have a son, I will not have him circumcised. If he wants to have it done later in life, then that's his decision, the important part is his decision.

I'd probably change my mind if studies showed clear, conclusive evidence of meaningful benefits from circumcision, but for now the benefits are too small and speculative.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts, I dont look down on anyone who chooses it or anyone that had it done before they could make the decision, but it should be just that, THEIR DECISION
 
maybe the skin gets harder if you're cut, but it's still not worth it.
If you have unprotected sex with people you don't know you may get it anyway, I wouldn't play with probability.
Even if you have, let's say, 30% less chance of getting it, you still may get it that one time you ignore the safety advice.
This means that it doesn't change much for clean people and those who aren't gay gigolòs.
It makes sense in africa though, since it may actually mean something statistically if they rape the whole village.
 
Male genital multilation? lol, seriously? That's what people call circumcision?

I am happy it was done to me when I was a baby. I think it has probably increased the amount of BJs I've gotten 10 fold over someone who hasn't had to go through the forced tragedy of male genital mutilation.
 
kstu said:
see bobdole's post just after mine. amddude is correct that there are varying degrees, but generally speaking, female circumcision means removal of the clitoris.
Click to expand...

Which corresponds to a bundle of nerves in the male foreskin which are removed in circumcision...

So yeah totally dissimilar.

(Granted FGM can be even more extreme than that.)
 
So all the people against this, are you all uncircumcised?
Click to expand...

I wish I were. It happened right after I was born and I had no choice. I would have left it as the FSM intended and not been cut, had I been given a choice... A victim of the USA unexplainable insistence of it.
 
frostedflakes said:
Yeah I've always thought it strange how female circumcision is considered mutilation and almost universally condemned, yet male circumcision is still A-OK among many cultures.
Click to expand...

They're not even the same thing.

Gouging the clitoris out and cutting of the foreskin are not even in the same fucking ballpark.
 
drebo said:
They're not even the same thing.

Gouging the clitoris out and cutting of the foreskin are not even in the same fucking ballpark.
Click to expand...

Actually, since the foreskin contains around 50% of all nerve endings in the penis it would be about equal to removing the inner labia completely on a woman, i'm fairly sure that it's quite comparable when it comes to risk of contracting some diseases too.

But when it comes to sensitivity, that's not enough, you'll have to make the clitoris bare too so it is MUCH less sensitive to make things equal so the hood has got to go and probably some of the outer labia in some cases too to make it equal.

See, a man who isn't circumsised can't walk around with his foreskin pulled back, the glans is so sensitive that it physically hurts to do that.

Anyway, both of the procedures, female circumsision (which isn't a medical procedure and doesn't always include removing the clitoris, in some Kurdish tribes it's the exact procedure i described above) and male circumsision are both genital mutilation, there really is no debate to be had whether it is or isn't, per definition it is.
 
TechAZ said:
Male genital multilation? lol, seriously? That's what people call circumcision?

I am happy it was done to me when I was a baby. I think it has probably increased the amount of BJs I've gotten 10 fold over someone who hasn't had to go through the forced tragedy of male genital mutilation.
Click to expand...
You sure it wasn't from hanging out at Rest Stop Bathrooms?
 
frostedflakes said:
What about removing the clitoral hood? Would you consider that to be as routine a procedure as removing the foreskin?
Click to expand...

That's not female circumcision, though. Completely different procedure.

If you want to compare circumcision to circumcision, you can't invent new procedures and claim parity from a medical or moral standpoint.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
Actually, since the foreskin contains around 50% of all nerve endings in the penis it would be about equal to removing the inner labia completely on a woman, i'm fairly sure that it's quite comparable when it comes to risk of contracting some diseases too.

But when it comes to sensitivity, that's not enough, you'll have to make the clitoris bare too so it is MUCH less sensitive to make things equal so the hood has got to go and probably some of the outer labia in some cases too to make it equal.

See, a man who isn't circumsised can't walk around with his foreskin pulled back, the glans is so sensitive that it physically hurts to do that.

Anyway, both of the procedures, female circumsision (which isn't a medical procedure and doesn't always include removing the clitoris, in some Kurdish tribes it's the exact procedure i described above) and male circumsision are both genital mutilation, there really is no debate to be had whether it is or isn't, per definition it is.
Click to expand...

By your definition, pierced ears are ear mutilation and should be outlawed. Many parents get their kids' ears pierced before they're old enough to make the decision themselves. Should they be thrown in prison, too?

If a person has the "right" to kill an unborn baby, they surely have the right to make that baby conform to their own cultural beliefs. At least, anyway, until that baby reaches the age which they can decide for themselves what they want.

That said, your definition on female circumcision is narrow and neglects the vast majority of female circumcisions that are performed (which includes removing the clitoris). The common female circumcision is a major health risk to the woman, and is typically forced on an adult or teenaged woman. Male circumcision carries no such health risk.

Please note that I am not circumcised and have no intention to circumcise my children, so my defense of circumcision is from a purely ideological standpoint and has nothing to do with my personal experiences.
 
Last edited:
TechAZ said:
Male genital multilation? lol, seriously? That's what people call circumcision?
Click to expand...

Genital multilation is the cutting of the genitals of anyone under the age of consent.

And since we are talking about males, yes, its called male genital mutilation.

Would you rather call it genital mutilation of males? Or maybe genital mutilation of male children?

Circumcision is just a nice way of saying genital mutilation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top