Are Boys Bullied for being Uncircumcised?

[Anonymous]

Who resurrects old threads like this, and for what purpose?

[Anonymous]

funny unintended side effect of this thread. It's really turning me off from penises altogether! I won't make the mistake of opening this thread again.

[Anonymous]

The comments in this thread indicating that circumcision is rare among gentiles is odd to me. My understanding is that circumcision has been standard practice for almost ALL boys in the U.S. for at least the last 2 - 3 generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's not worthless. But it's not necessary in developed countries such as the US.


Ironic we opt out of medical advances that we are giving people in Africa who can't afford it. What a strange way to operate through life.

Hopefully we can start female circumcision here...as they do in Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are we spending millions of tax dollars on Circumcision in Africa if it is worthless?

Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC): PEPFAR is leading the world in support for a rapid expansion of voluntary medical male circumcision. In the past few years, research has proven that this low-cost procedure reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission by more than 60 percent—and the benefit is life-long. Approximately one million male circumcisions for HIV prevention have been done in recent years, with the United States providing the support for three-quarters of them. Building on this, over the next two years, PEPFAR will support more than 4.7 million voluntary medical male circumcisions in Eastern and Southern Africa.

1. Because men there will not use condoms, which would be the ideal course of action. It reduces, does not eliminate.
2. It may reduce female to male transmission, but it does little or nothing (and may increase) transmission to women. So essentially, the course of action open is to reduce it in males, and screw the women. Yes--I recognize the fewer men who get it the fewer who will spread it, but they have to be getting it from somewhere--i.e., the women, who receive NO protection because circ does not protect them.

This is not a great public health policy. This is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to stop a widespread disease that really, only behavioral changes can stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we spending millions of tax dollars on Circumcision in Africa if it is worthless?

Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC): PEPFAR is leading the world in support for a rapid expansion of voluntary medical male circumcision. In the past few years, research has proven that this low-cost procedure reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission by more than 60 percent—and the benefit is life-long. Approximately one million male circumcisions for HIV prevention have been done in recent years, with the United States providing the support for three-quarters of them. Building on this, over the next two years, PEPFAR will support more than 4.7 million voluntary medical male circumcisions in Eastern and Southern Africa.

1. Because men there will not use condoms, which would be the ideal course of action. It reduces, does not eliminate.
2. It may reduce female to male transmission, but it does little or nothing (and may increase) transmission to women. So essentially, the course of action open is to reduce it in males, and screw the women. Yes--I recognize the fewer men who get it the fewer who will spread it, but they have to be getting it from somewhere--i.e., the women, who receive NO protection because circ does not protect them.

This is not a great public health policy. This is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to stop a widespread disease that really, only behavioral changes can stop.

I agree. In the U.S., prevention efforts focus on behavior change. (After all, circumcision did nothing to protect the hundreds of thousands of gay men who have been infected with HIV here.) In Africa, they're taking a different tack because of the myriad difficulties in implementing widespread, meaningful behavior change. Obviously one key in Africa is improving the standing of women, but that's largely left to NGOs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we spending millions of tax dollars on Circumcision in Africa if it is worthless?

Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC): PEPFAR is leading the world in support for a rapid expansion of voluntary medical male circumcision. In the past few years, research has proven that this low-cost procedure reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission by more than 60 percent—and the benefit is life-long. Approximately one million male circumcisions for HIV prevention have been done in recent years, with the United States providing the support for three-quarters of them. Building on this, over the next two years, PEPFAR will support more than 4.7 million voluntary medical male circumcisions in Eastern and Southern Africa.

1. Because men there will not use condoms, which would be the ideal course of action. It reduces, does not eliminate.
2. It may reduce female to male transmission, but it does little or nothing (and may increase) transmission to women. So essentially, the course of action open is to reduce it in males, and screw the women. Yes--I recognize the fewer men who get it the fewer who will spread it, but they have to be getting it from somewhere--i.e., the women, who receive NO protection because circ does not protect them.

This is not a great public health policy. This is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to stop a widespread disease that really, only behavioral changes can stop.

Wow so the science that circumcision prevents disease is true

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone disagrees that circumcision is one way to prevent the spread of disease. But it is not the only way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone disagrees that circumcision is one way to prevent the spread of disease. But it is not the only way.

Circumcision does NOT prevent the spread of disease. It may REDUCE transmission of disease from females to males.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The son of a friend of mine had to be circed at age 13 because he kept getting infections. I don't think he was ever bullied, but I think in retrospect the family wishes they had had it done when he was a baby.

A relative of mine had to have her left foot amputated late in life. Somehow I doubt she would have wished to have it done when she was a baby.

So you're seriously equating cutting off a flap of skin (an elective procedure for which there is a small, but documented medical benefit and little, if any, long term consequence) with losing a foot? You need some perspective.

No, you need to stop underestimating the PERMANENT removal of healthy skin just because it doesn't affect you personally (I'm guessing you are a woman).

Are you in favor of removing the labia of newborn girls? You know... to get rid of the skin that hides smegma and can harbor odors?

The analogous tissue to the labia is the scrotal sac. Keep searching for the correct comparison

[Anonymous]

Analogous tissue to the foreskin would be the hymen.

[Anonymous]

According to my 17 year old son, kids definitely get teased and mocked for being UNCIRCUMCISED in the locker room. In fact, one of his friends got surgery over the summer to get circumcised at 16. It's still considered gross by most people to have that nasty hood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to my 17 year old son, kids definitely get teased and mocked for being UNCIRCUMCISED in the locker room. In fact, one of his friends got surgery over the summer to get circumcised at 16. It's still considered gross by most people to have that nasty hood.

You are a liar. Probably the same poster who claims to be a 17 Year old boy.

[Anonymous]

I'm not pp but why is it every time someone says that the uncirc. penis is unattractive to them and/or others they know someone has to respond with doubt. It is true. I think the look of an uncircumcised penis is offputting. I'm not going to sit down and consider the whys and the biases of it all, to me, it just is. And evidently it is to others as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not pp but why is it every time someone says that the uncirc. penis is unattractive to them and/or others they know someone has to respond with doubt. It is true. I think the look of an uncircumcised penis is offputting. I'm not going to sit down and consider the whys and the biases of it all, to me, it just is. And evidently it is to others as well.

Oh no. I totally believe there are ignorant biased people who actually care what a stupid penis looks like. But i dont believe these "friends of friends" and "my brother's sister's uncles' cousin's gardener" stories.