Male circumcision lowers HIV risk for women

[Covalent]

Jeez guys, every thread that involves penises blows up like a whack inflatable arm flailing tubeman.

It's just a dick, and a flab of skin. Some want it, some don't. Some of us had no choice in the matter, and it's too late.

But in all honesty, I think circumcision is the wrong way to go. If I have a boy for a kid later on in life, I'm leaving that shit in tact. I don't want the same problems I have with sensitivity, that he'll have.

Lets just draw the line;

There are benefits too both, just like there are benefits to eating ice cream, and downsides too it.

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579203]If society or whatever forces them to get the operation, it is much better to get it over with when you are a couple of months old (or whatever) when you won't even remember anything.[/QUOTE]
This is an incredibly flawed and dangerous way of thinking.

[Curls]

Just to note, lobbing foreskin off of your kids is a douche thing to do and you're terrible if you do it.

please don't cut part of your kids wee wee off

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=J!NX;45579225]Just to note, lobbing foreskin off of your kids is a douche thing to do and you're terrible if you do it.

please don't cut part of your kids wee wee off[/QUOTE]

I'd also like to clarify and say I wasn't trying to argue that you didn't believe this, just that I think circumcision without valid cause in general is just a piss poor idea

[Fetret]

[QUOTE=Furioso;45579218]This is an incredibly flawed and dangerous way of thinking.[/QUOTE]

Why? I'm just saying there are parts of the world where the majority of men are circumcised and it is somewhat expected. There will be an expectation of getting circumcised to fit in with the society. If you can live with being an odd man out then with all honesty more power to you, but most people cannot. So forcing them to make an almost foregone decision when they are older and will have to endure much more pain and humiliation is simply not logical.

[Curls]

[QUOTE=Furioso;45579236]I'd also like to clarify and say I wasn't trying to argue that you didn't believe this, just that I think circumcision without valid cause in general is just a piss poor idea[/QUOTE]

well I mean if you have a stinky dick because you somehow forget to wash properly and if dickcheese really is a thing / you want to feel safer with a condom as well hey that's your thing

of course then you'll never understand the feeling of docking another man!

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579238]Why? I'm just saying there are parts of the world where the majority of men are circumcised and it is somewhat expected. There will be an expectation of getting circumcised to fit in with the society. If you can live with being an odd man out then with all honesty more power to you, but most people cannot. So forcing them to make an almost foregone decision when they are older and will have to endure much more pain and humiliation is simply not logical.[/QUOTE]

are you really so sure that it's that traumatic at an older age?

because it sure as fuck will be for a baby

[Noss]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579238]Why? I'm just saying there are parts of the world where the majority of men are circumcised and it is somewhat expected. There will be an expectation of getting circumcised to fit in with the society. If you can live with being an odd man out then with all honesty more power to you, but most people cannot. So forcing them to make an almost foregone decision when they are older and will have to endure much more pain and humiliation is simply not logical.[/QUOTE]

Let's cut up people's bodies so they can fit in to society?

That is the most dangerous, fucking retarded idea I have ever heard arguing for circumcision, and you should look in to practices such as foot bounding if you think it's fine to alter the bodies of children to fit in to society you fucking jesus christ

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579238]Why? I'm just saying there are parts of the world where the majority of men are circumcised and it is somewhat expected. There will be an expectation of getting circumcised to fit in with the society. If you can live with being an odd man out then with all honesty more power to you, but most people cannot. So forcing them to make an almost foregone decision when they are older and will have to endure much more pain and humiliation is simply not logical.[/QUOTE]
Doing what society demands of you just because it's the accepted "norm" is awful. Humans learned to do away with things like slavery, infanticide, segregation and instituted racism (mostly) because people went [I]against[/I] the societal norms.

[Coffee]

[QUOTE=Noss;45579164]Let's remove the toenails of newborn children, they don't have a use and only serve to give us fungal nail infections and ingrown toenails anyway.[/QUOTE]

Let's remove the appendixes of newborns because there's a chance that it could become problematic for them later in life.

[Fetret]

[QUOTE=Yahnich;45579232]fyi its just as traumatic for babies but we don't care because they don't remember or whatever the fuck[/QUOTE]

I am not talking about the possible losses in sensitivity or other medical aspects of circumcision here though. How the hell is it traumatic if you don't even have the capacity to recognize faces or people compared to a time when you can remember the pain you go through when the circumcision heals or the terrifying moment when someone is putting a scalpel to your dick.

People seem to assume I'm defending circumcision. I am not. I am just saying that it is a fact of life around certain (quite large) areas of the world and since it is a fact that will keep on happening I'd much rather have it done as a baby.

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=J!NX;45579251]of course then you'll never understand the feeling of docking another man![/QUOTE]
You also won't understand how a woman's tongue feels under your foreskin. It's fucking amazing.

[Noss]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579261]I am not talking about the possible losses in sensitivity or other medical aspects of circumcision here though. How the hell is it traumatic if you don't even have the capacity to recognize faces or people compared to a time when you can remember the pain you go through when the circumcision heals or the terrifying moment when someone is putting a scalpel to your dick.

People seem to assume I'm defending circumcision. I am not. I am just saying that it is a fact of life around certain (quite large) areas of the world and since it is a fact that will keep on happening I'd much rather have it done as a baby.[/QUOTE]

I don't see what you're arguing for seeing as a good majority of circumcisions are done when a person is a baby.

[Fetret]

[QUOTE=Furioso;45579256]Doing what society demands of you just because it's the accepted "norm" is awful. Humans learned to do away with things like slavery, infanticide, segregation and instituted racism (mostly) because people went [I]against[/I] the societal norms.[/QUOTE]

Yes and I'm with you a hundred percent. If and when 500 years from now when circumcision is considered barbaric this entire discussion will seem ridiculous, however since it is a fact of life now it is better to have it done when it's less of a burden.

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579261] How the hell is it traumatic if you don't even have the capacity to recognize faces or people compared to a time when you can remember the pain you go through when the circumcision heals or the terrifying moment when someone is putting a scalpel to your dick.[/QUOTE]
Modern understanding of human psychology would disagree with you. Our experiences as infants have a lot more to do with a person's psyche than you'd think.

[Noss]

alright i'm gonna get out of here but this is my closing statement (not particularly aimed at Fetret)

if you're in favor of cutting off babies and childrens' body parts for cosmetic reasons (unless its like a baby hand growing out of their ear) you're a dick

[Fetret]

[QUOTE=Noss;45579264]I don't see what you're arguing for seeing as a good majority of circumcisions are done when a person is a baby.[/QUOTE]

Probably in Europe and/or America, but in other parts of the world it is more of a ritual and a sign of taking your first step into manhood or some other ritualistic bullshit like that. I simply don't agree with circumcision being done after a certain point in life.

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579271]however since it is a fact of life now it is better to have it done when it's less of a burden.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to educating people about it?

[Cabbage]

[QUOTE=Fetret;45579271]Yes and I'm with you a hundred percent. If and when 500 years from now when circumcision is considered barbaric this entire discussion will seem ridiculous, however since it is a fact of life now it is better to have it done when it's less of a burden.[/QUOTE]

So just perpetuate it and hope it stops anyway

ok

[Fetret]

[QUOTE=Yahnich;45579278]i am talking about the procedure itself, the baby is fully capable of feeling pain, not remembering it later on in life does not make it any less traumatic?

unless you have a different definition of traumatic than i do[/QUOTE]

I defined trauma as in remembering the pain throughout your life and/or having the memory of the procedure. However you are completely right in that regard. The baby would obviously experience the pain and it would be traumatic.

[editline]3rd August 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Furioso;45579287]As opposed to educating people about it?[/QUOTE]

Where have I said don't educate people about it or perpetuate it? It is an established ritual around most of the world and it is not going to go away any time soon. Not accepting this is simply delusional. I'm being realistic and saying that since it is a fact of life at the moment we at least have the option of making it much less difficult on the person.

All the while you can educate people around the world on how it is not a necessary procedure and how it can actually cause harm.

[Govna]

[QUOTE=Furioso;45579168]It makes a teeny difference for men, and somehow that justifies cutting off a functional organ? Yeah, okay, perfect logic.[/quote]

Makes a pretty massive difference actually, not a "teeny" one. 44% reduction in HIV transmission, as Mac pointed out; [url=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/]71% lowered risk reduction for STDs overall according to the CDC[/url]. Which is not surprising, since the membranes of the foreskin actually serve as a great entry point; when they're no longer a factor, of course there's going to be a lower risk.

[quote]The head and shaft of the penis comes into contact with a woman's vagina. There's all kinds of precum involved. If someone is carrying an STD and you're having unprotected sex with them, chances are good for infection whether or not you're cut or uncut.[/quote]

But the head and shaft of the penis are not good entry points for STDs, save for the urethral opening, especially after circumcision which causes the skin and glans to slightly harden and thereby substantially reduce the risk of small cuts/microtears; the membrane of the foreskin is.

[quote]Clearly, you're in the know[/QUOTE]

Clearly.

[Cabbage]

[QUOTE=Govna;45579315]Makes a pretty massive difference actually, not a "teeny" one. 44% reduction in HIV transmission, as Mac pointed out; [url=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/]71% lowered risk reduction for STDs overall[/url]. Which is not surprising, since the membranes of the foreskin actually serve as a great entry point; when they're no longer a factor, of course there's going to be a lower risk.

But the head and shaft of the penis are not good entry points for STDs, save for the urethral opening, especially after circumcision which causes the skin and glans to slightly harden and thereby substantially reduce the risk of small cuts/microtears; the membrane of the foreskin is.

Clearly.[/QUOTE]

think you know a liiiiittle too much about dicks buddy

[Govna]

[QUOTE=Cabbage;45579318]think you know a liiiiittle too much about [B]human anatomy[/B] buddy[/QUOTE]

FTFY

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=Govna;45579315]Makes a pretty massive difference actually, not a "teeny" one. 44% reduction in HIV transmission, as Mac pointed out; [url=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/]71% lowered risk reduction for STDs overall[/url]. Which is not surprising, since the membranes of the foreskin actually serve as a great entry point; when they're no longer a factor, of course there's going to be a lower risk.[/QUOTE]
Google circumcision and STD risk. You'll find dozens of conflicting studies on this; one study that observed a trend doesn't prove all that much. Anyway, the point is moot if you consider the protection afforded by things like condoms, dams, etc.

[Curls]

71% risk reduction?

I wouldn't have expected that to be that high

I don't know, that sounds off to me, but maybe I'm just being biased, but I'm not sure if I trust that totally. Not that I'm educated in any medical fields.

[QwertyTSecond]

[QUOTE=Kabstrac;45577904]Source, Webmd:
[quote]
You cannot catch HIV by:

Breathing the same air as someone who is HIV-positive
Touching a toilet seat or doorknob handle after an HIV-positive person
Drinking from a water fountain
Hugging, kissing, or shaking hands with someone who is HIV-positive
Sharing eating utensils with an HIV-positive person
Using exercise equipment at a gym
[/quote]

However:
[quote]
You can get it from infected blood, semen, vaginal fluid, or mother's milk.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

I could've sworn a few months back there was an article regarding research that mother's milk actually works against HIV. Getting HIV from breast feeding was caused by dry nipples cracking and allowing transmission of blood I think. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about?

[Intenso]

[QUOTE=J!NX;45579349]71% risk reduction?

I wouldn't have expected that to be that high

I don't know, that sounds off to me, but maybe I'm just being biased.[/QUOTE]
The reason that dozens, if not hundreds of studies are performed on the same research question or topic is because it requires a whole bundle of adequate research to make an accurate theory. The methodology, sample size, variables tested and even human bias will naturally vary [I]quite[/I] widely. It's why when you look up studies like these, wild variances in figures can be observed. Some studies are done correctly and others are flawed, which makes drawing a conclusion difficult without further research and study.

[editline]oops[/editline]
That wasn't worded very well, I'm really tired

[Kardia]

Chances of contracting HIV (based on studies):

Taking an infected dick up the ass: 1/71 (Uncircumcised [[URL="http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html?getPage=2#footnote1_w4ucoec"]source_footnote_1[/URL]])

Sticking the dick into an infected ass [[URL="http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html?getPage=2#footnote3_my3e6p6"]source_footnote_3[/URL]]: (Circumcised) 1/909, (Uncircumcised) 1/161

Taking an infected dick in the vagina: 1/1250 ([[URL="http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html?getPage=2#footnote4_q2fzq76"]source_footnote_4[/URL]])

Sticking the dick into an infected vagina: 1/2500 [[URL="http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html?getPage=2#footnote3_my3e6p6"]source_footnote_3[/URL]]

Now this new study says it benefits males who give cock by 50%, meaning what was a previously 1/2500 chance of getting AIDS, via vaginal sex with an infected ([URL="http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html?getPage=2#footnote3_my3e6p6"]source_footnote_3[/URL]), becomes ~1/3750.

Also women are 15% less likely to get infected, when they exclusively have sex with the circumcised. 1/1250 ([URL="http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html?getPage=2#footnote4_q2fzq76"]source_footnote_4[/URL]) becomes ~1/1437.

Now I'm going to say this straight up. [B]Your better off having a circumcised cock in your life, when it comes to AIDS.[/B]

But... if you get a circumcision, or if you only have sex with the circumcised, [B]you're still rolling the dice when you have sex.[/B] If a circumcised man is fucking the infected 50% more frequently as a result of his circumcision, then the protection of his circumcision is negated. If a woman is fucking infected guys 15% more often because they are circumcised, the protection of circumcision is negated.

An analogy: A seat-belt increase your chances of surviving a car crash, it is a [B]good[/B] thing to ware. But that doesn't mean you should drive dangerously just because you're wearing a seat-belt.

[mac338]

Those of you who are against [I]voluntary[/I] circumcision of adult males in the fight against HIV should watch this;
[video=youtube;NwX5zfC0hgc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwX5zfC0hgc[/video]

Here are the pros and cons of voluntary male circumcision;
Source: [URL]http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm[/URL]
Source credibility: [URL]http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12510[/URL]

[B]Pros[/B]:

- Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

- Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.

- Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission. ([B]This is incredibly important in sub-Saharan Africa[/B], see video above)

- Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.

- Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.

[B]Cons[/B]:

- Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).

- Circumcision decreased sensitivity, which may lead to slightly less sexual pleasure.

[Kardia]

[QUOTE=mac338;45579544]Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)[/QUOTE]

I can't believe they called it meatitis. Seriously. Meat is food.

[mac338]

[QUOTE=Kardia;45579609]I can't believe they called it meatitis. Seriously. Meat is food.[/QUOTE]

Well, meatitis is inflammation of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_meatus"]urinary meatus[/URL]. (It's a Wikipedia article on the urinary meatus, needless to say the pictures are NSFW)