Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Is circumcision for non-religious reasons ghetto, trashy or low class?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
How do you feel about breastfeeding, abortion and working moms? |
Anonymous
Ghetto, trashy, and low class, respectively. |
Anonymous
Here's some robust reasoning for you. Just came out last week. I guess you missed the latest study since you're such an expert? Male Circumcision Improves Sex for Women Survey Results Are Part of Study That Showed Circumcision Reduces a Man's HIV Risk By Charlene Laino WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD July 21, 2009 (Cape Town, South Africa) -- Women whose male sexual partners were circumcised report an improvement in their sex life, a survey shows. Researchers studied 455 partners of men in Uganda who were recently circumcised. Nearly 40% said sex was more satisfying afterward. About 57% reported no change in sexual satisfaction, and only 3% said sex was less satisfying after their partner was circumcised. Also, some women said their partner had less or no difficulty maintaining or getting an erection. Among the 3% of women who reported reduced sexual satisfaction, the top two reasons were lower levels of desire on the part of either partner. Top reasons cited by women for their better sex life: improved hygiene, longer time for their partner to achieve orgasm, and their partner wanting more frequent sex, says Godfrey Kigozi, MD, of the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Kalisizo, Uganda. Kigozi tells WebMD he undertook the survey because some activists have objected to male circumcision as a means of combating HIV because of a lack of data on female sexual satisfactions. The findings were presented at the Fifth International AIDS Society Conference on Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention of HIV. The women in the study all participated in the landmark Rakai circumcision trial, one of three studies that showed that the procedure reduces a heterosexual man's risk of acquiring HIV by more than 50%. "We included only women who said they were sexually satisfied before [their partner was circumcised]," Kigozi says. "Then we asked them to compare their sexual satisfaction before and afterward." Men feel much the same way, he adds. In a previous survey, 97% of men said their level of sexual satisfaction was either unchanged or better after they were circumcised. Naomi Block, MD, of the CDC's HIV Prevention Branch, who chaired the session at which the study was presented, says that other surveys have shown that women don't expect their sex lives to change if their partners are circumcised. But those were "what if?" surveys, she tells WebMD, while the new study involves women whose partners were actually circumcised. The findings are "good news" as they show that the use of circumcision to fight HIV is acceptable to women, Block says. |
Anonymous
In case you aren't aware, there is currently a MASSIVE media campaign occurring in Africa to try to convince hundreds of thousands of men to chop off their foreskins. This based on the small and unproven studies which have come out relating circumcision to a potential decrease of the spread of HIV for men. It doesn't surprise me at all to see something like this come out in the news given the current situation in Africa. Too bad they are not also telling these women that having unprotected sex with a circumcised partner actually INCREASES the woman's chance of contracting HIV. Come on people. Cutting off the male foreskin DOES NOT PREVENT HIV any more than cutting off the female foreskin would prevent HIV. Only a culture (such as our own) that has a deep-seated belief that there is something beneficial to male circumcision in the first place could ever truly believe something as ridiculous as this. If it is such a great HIV prevention measure, why on earth aren't we telling our sons that they don't need to worry about HIV? Throw out the condoms son, you are all set! Yeah, right. The US is the ONLY industrialized country in the world that practices routine circumcision and promotes these ridiculous and un-founded ideas. Also interesting to note that the US has the highest rate of HIV of any industrialized nation - how come generations of circumcising hasn't protected our men? I think this link helps explain the extraordinary bias that we tend to have here in the US. http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/ For those of you who circumcise for the supposed health benefits, you should ask yourself if you would be willing to circumcise your daughter if you were told that she could realize these same health benefits if she were circumcised. I guarantee that NO ONE would be willing to cut even one millimeter of their daughter's genitals, no matter what the potential benefits would be. |
Anonymous
Um, yes, if there were strong health benefits that resulted from snipping off something that could heal quickly and result in no adverse longterm impact, then of course people would consider it. Just like people often get their appendix removed when other surgery is performed -- we're all born with an appendix, but current medical opinion is that the appendix has no measurable positive impact on our bodies and is a vestige from thousands of years ago, but can obviously result in serious and damaging consequences. Will the next retarded post on DCUM be "SAVE THE APPENDIX FROM MUTILATION!" ? Or "appendix removal is ghetto, trashy, and low class"? You anti-circ people brush aside all the scientific studies (like the one another PP suggested to you) that don't support your conclusions. This is reminiscent of the Obama birth certificate controversy, where an actual birth certificate doesn't prove that he was born in Hawaii because some people just SAY it's so. This entire thread is hilarious to those of us that aren't obsessive zealots on the warpath against what appears to be, at worst, a harmless and historical practice, and at best, a medically beneficial one. |
Anonymous
|
Oh gawd, people, get a grip. There is no medical reason. If you are not Jewish, it's really a cleanliness issue (which I suppose could cause medical issues if you don't clean well). It is easier to clean a circumcised penis than a non-circumcised penis.
Also, I'm Jewish -- so there really was no question, but by OB stressed that there was no medical reason for circumcision, and that uncircumcised men have more sexual pleasure than those who are circumsized. |
Anonymous
By the way, you lose all credibility when you talk about "extraordinary bias" and then cite a link to an organization called the International Coalition for Genital Integrity. Are you kidding? Why don't we just ask Keith Olbermann for an unbiased review of the Bush years? |
zumbamama
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Breastfeeding is ghetto? I thought it was just a natural human function. |
Anonymous
Hey, there, now. I'm a liberal and I agree with you 100%. Actually, I consider myself a progressive, meaning I believe in progress. Part of that is putting my faith in science and medicine instead of in know-it-all, hysterical mothers who no doubt react disproportionately to all kinds of other nonsense. We probably have more in common that you think, poster! 
|
Anonymous
I don't meant to pry into your personal life, did you experience sex as both an uncircumcised man and as a circumcised man before your gender transition to female? If not, how on Earth would you know? I'm guessing that sex is better for men whose wives don't think that they missed out by marrying them. |
Anonymous
It was a joke. Humor is a natural human function as well. |
Anonymous
| are all you rich moms upset that you mutilated yourself when you had lipo? |
Anonymous
Your analogy is faulty. Comparing circumcision to appendectomy would only work if it became routine to open healthy people up in order to prevent a possible, eventual inflammation and infection. As others have pointed out, there are lots of parts of our body that could cause trouble at some point. Are we removing all of those? No, just the foreskin, because the Charlotte Yorks of the world think they're icky. I find it appalling that here in 21st century America, surgical alteration of infant boys is the norm, and that the best reasons anyone can offer are: 1. It could cause problems someday (though not life-threatening). 2. Everyone else is doing it. 3. Girls will like my boy's penis better. Oh, and I'm a new poster to this thread, so none of that tired "same people posting over and over" nonsense. |
zumbamama
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I'm glad it was a joke. Hard to tell sometimes on here. : ) |
Anonymous
I read, researched and spoke to other parents before deciding not to circumcise, yet I'm hysterical? There have been few studies, which upon further research are problematic at best, supporting circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't endorse routine circumcision. If anything, I'd say circumcising based on what little research is out there supporting more closely resembles "reacting disproportionately." If depicting people who disagree with you as "know-it-all" and "hysterical" makes you feel more secure in your decision, go to it. |