Male Circumcision and HIV

[animatic]

Most American's are circumcised ,

I have not heard from anyone that they think they lost 50% of sexual pleasure from that.

I certainly don't think that, this is the 1st time I EVER heard this bandied about.

I have heard several times that losing the foreskin does make for increased cleanliness in MOST cases.

And this prevents a hibernation or inccubationb space for viruses alike HIV to live LONGER

and then be assimilated into the body through the urethra. No doubt it is not a fun time for a few hours,

but I don't remember it happening and have no problem with it having happened now.

This Ausi Doc, seems on some sort of vendetta,

maybe his moyal was inexperienced!

[TAWP]

For the love of good, stop spreading false propaganda now.

And FYI, the HIV virus doesn't live long outside the bloodstream at all. The normal attack-vector is via minuscule wounds, not via the urethra. Hence why circumcised can, in some specific cases, be considered a few percent less likely to become infected (that is, a few percent down on a few percent the chance is to begin with) as they skin around over the tip of the penis is thicker and less sensitive for a circumcised man.

Edited May 7, 2009 by LivinginKata
Lewid remarks removed

[Ijustwannateach]

These posts are split from a news thread where they were tangential and off-topic. I'd like to remind posters that the Health forum has fairly specific rules about HIV myths, so you may wish to check those guidelines before further posting on this thread.

[ballbreaker]

And my opposition with circumcision is those cases it is forced upon a child. It's an abuse on their rights.

You guys are a real hoot.

You need to drop this argument because its done every day in the form of immunizations and surgical procedures. Who makes the call without talking to the child...the parents.

[JohnGotti]

"A normal hetrosexual circumsized man, the chances of getting HIV even when having sex (normal vaginal) with an infected female is close to zero."

Slow down, Dude. It is definitely not zero.

The truth is that there is really not enough info to make an of these types of guesses at rate of infection. The facts you state about how its contracted are true, but please realize that female to male is 100% possible. Its not zero. It might be 5000:1 but that is per time... If a male has unprotected sex 100 times with her it will be 100/5000 that is a 2% chance. Every day for a year is around a 7% chance.... there are other factors that could make it easier to get the disease, such as having other STDs or a bad immune system. if she is very active sexually she is more likely to excrete blood during sex.

be smart, use protection always.

[JohnGotti]

"Asia - Non circumsized population."

Is this true? In Thailand?

Edited May 15, 2009 by JohnGotti

[geriatrickid]

This thread refuses to die. So I might as well address some inaccuracies;

However, and sadly its not talked about much, a vast majority of men appear to be somewhat immune to HIV, well its not in fact immunity, its the fact that their body does not have the "receptor" on.

.......From studies its become apparent that circumsized men are far less likely to catch HIV from having sex (unprotected) with another man or woman. They have found that the male foreskin is the "HIV receptor" in men. A man with a foreskin is far more likely to catch HIV than one without, the odds are not clear but could be more than a thousand times more likely.

Circumcised men do not not have immunity. What circumcised males have is a reduced likelihood of contracting an STI. STIs such as HPV and Herpes are believed to be contributing factors to HIV infection. (The lesions/sores provide easier entry into the body.) It is also believed, based upon multiple studies that Epidermal Langerhans cells of genital mucosae are among the first targets of HIV infection following sexual contact, and can be involved both in the transmission of the infection to T cells and in T-cell priming to HIV antigens. In addition, epidermal LCs might acquire HIV infection from dermal T cells during transit from blood vessels through the dermis and may, in turn, represent a reservoir of the virus for continued T-cell infection. ( I cribbed from Giovanna Zambruno, Alberto Giannetti and Giampiero Girolomoni as cited in Immunology Today)

The relationship between HIV and the Langerhans cells has been established and is not contested. Langerhans most prone to HIV virion attachment are located in the inner foreskin and the vagina. Removal of the foreskin has been demonstrated to influence upon the likelihood of infection as per the multiple clinical long term studies reviewed and accepted and published in Lancet, NEJM, Immunology Today etc. Removal of the foreskin reduces the risk of infection but does not eliminate the possibility of infection.

It's nice to know that you promote mutilation of infant boys as a way to protect them against HIV.

The above comment demonstrates why one cannot have an intelligent discussion in terms of costs & benefits of the simple procedure. Those opposed to the procedure label it as mutilation. It is not. It is the removal of a small piece of skin with a minor wound that heals quickly in an infant. If performed under local anaesthetic it is painless. All these stories about emotional trauma are nonsense. How many people circumcised in their infancy remember the procedure? If they do then they must be very special since humans do not retain memories of their infancies. If we did, we'd all be seriously damaged from the trauma of childbirth. As well, the skin on a newborn is still soft and heals at a faster rate than in an adult. A properly done circumcision in an infant doesn't require sutures, only a gauze dressing for a day or so until the scab sets. Calling the procedure barbaric is tantamount to calling nail and hair trimming barbaric as well, since they are part of the human body.

Another urban myth that is tossed out is that circumcision dulls the sensual pleasure. Odd since there isn't one published study in a peer reviewed medical journal that shows that to be true. Lots of bogus claims, but that's about it. On the contrary, there are published studies showing that sensory differences are either marginal or non existant. (Read the citations previously posted for a clue.)

In respect to circumcision, it might shock alot of people but jews do not perform full circumcisions to the extent one sees for cosmetic procedures. Yes, you read it right. The frenulum is left intact. A shield is placed over the tip of the glans so that only the excess skin is removed. This does not make for a tight circumcision but removes sufficient amounts of the langerhans bearing inner foreskin, which is what counts.

People really need to get over their bias and stigma and strange feelings towards circumcision and get it made popular in Thailand. Its medically proven that it assists in preventing the transfer of HIV from female to male in vaginal sex.......PROVEN........by 2007/08 CDC/WHO/UN reports.

This article refers to an African study, where personal hygiene is very low. But I hope that in the western world, it is certainly in Thailand, personal hygiene is of a much more higher level.

No no and no. The African penis is no more unhygenic than the typical European penis. The multiple long term studies in Africa showed that circumcision has a positive impact. If one wants to see historical evidence, look at the incidence of HIV in two of South Africa's groups; Zulus vs. Xhosa.

"Asia - Non circumsized population."

Is this true? In Thailand?

Yes. Presently, the practice is only accepted by some of the muslim community and the well educated. I was somewhat surprised that a large number of Thai muslims are not circumcised. Considerably different results than what was found in Malaysia and Indonesia. Fear of discrimination is believed to be a reason for that result. Most of the training programs are completed and an educational effort is being undertaken in several communities now. The project(s) are not publicized because of the cultural sensitivities, and more importantly the threat of foreign interference. It is more disturbing to know that there are seriously disturbed men fixated on circumcision making threats against the health care providers providing the service. You should see some of the hate mail.

If one doesn't wish to circumcise his or her child, that's one's choice. I certainly would not force it on anyone. However, the populations which are at risk, particularly those in Northern Thailand have a right to know about the costs and benefits of the procedure, to make an informed decision and to have access to the procedure performed by a competent phsyician or nurse practioner. Luckily, there are several charities funding the effort and to them I say thank you.

[JohnGotti]

anyone know what % of Thai males are being circumcised 2009?

i really thought this was a thing of the past since the scientific community is overwhelming in favor of it, and the only line against it is the silly "you are messing with nature" and "sex wont be as fun" and "i want my kid to look like me in the shower" arguments.

surprising.

[camerata]

Another urban myth that is tossed out is that circumcision dulls the sensual pleasure. Odd since there isn't one published study in a peer reviewed medical journal that shows that to be true. Lots of bogus claims, but that's about it. On the contrary, there are published studies showing that sensory differences are either marginal or non existant. (Read the citations previously posted for a clue.)

It's no urban myth, but may depend on the individual and exactly how it was done. See the comments from members in the previous discussion on this.

And the comments from Sheryl:

"As for the effect on sex...it doesn't cause discomfort during sex to be circumcised (unless the job was seriously botched somehow!). The usual complaint is that it decreases sensation. The foreskin provides protection from stimuli other than during sex, allowing the skin inside to remain hyper-sensitive. Naturally if the foreskin is removed, there will be frequent contact with clothes, bedsheets etc and as a compensatory mechanism the skin will become less sensitive to light touch. Nonetheless there are millions of circumcised men who seem to have no problem enjoying sex! Of course if circumcision is done after sexual maturity, when the man has gotten used to having a foreskin, then he's going to feel the difference."

For some interesting reading, see What caused many cultures to ritually remove the foreskin.

[geriatrickid]

It's no urban myth, but may depend on the individual and exactly how it was done.

You are dwelling in the land of small percentages and confusing human error with the procedure itself. The circumcision does not cause the complication. Rather it is the physician error. My oral surgeon botched the removal of 2 of my wisdom teeth. The removal of the teeth is not what caused the problem. It was the oral surgeon. What's the complication rate? The most vocal of anti circumcision critics use rates of between 2% and 10%. Unfortunately for them, the records show differently. Try less than .05% When it comes to weighing what is best for a population, one has to look at the entire population and make a decision on that basis. It's the same paradigm that is used throughout the medical system when making health delivery decisions. If I am dismissive of the inflated numbers of injured men out there, it is because they seem to number more than the actual data would suggest. For example,

Multi Year Review of Circumcision Complications in WA Hospital System, Journal of Pediatrics (AAP) Jan 2007, Dimitri Cristakis, Connell, Frank; Zerr, Danielle; Wright, Jeffrey; Christian Freudtner

Hospital records were reviewed for 1987 to 1996. Of 354,297 boys, 130,475 had circumcisions in the hospital. The study found that 287 of them had complications related to the procedure. The most common were intraoperative bleeding (230 cases) and damage to the penis that required treatment (52 cases).

52 out of 130,000. Not too shabby. The trade-off analysis determined that for every case of a boy who has a complication from circumcision, six boys can be expected to have avoided urinary tract infections. For every two cases of circumcision complications, one case of penile cancer was prevented.

In terms of cost benefits, those numbers are dam_n good, i.e. the benefits to the population far outweigh the costs.

My original comments were in respect to the infant procedure. However, let's address the urban myth in the adult then. I find it odd that despite all of these claims of destruction, that when the the population is tested, the same results are not demonstrated. I suggest to you, that with the exception of serious surgical error, that most of the allegations of lost sexual sensitivity and sexual disruption, are the result of psychological dysfunction and nothing physical. The people claiming the injuries have convinced themselves that there is a problem when in fact there is not. My personal view is that these adults most likely manifest other psychological issues as well.

One of the problems that the subject has is that in the 1990's the pendulum swung into the anti circumcision camp in large part because of several flawed positions, based in part on psychological studies that did not properly measure sensory results and that were biased towards non circumcision. Most of these studies have since been disproven or rejected and shown to be flawed because they did not account for pre-existing patient bias in the self reporting portions of the studies or in researcher bias. In the Fink study of 2002, the bias has been argued to be a result of the subject pool having patients circumcised with pre existing advanced medical conditions (necessitating the procedure), so there was going to be a predisposition to reported problems.

That being said, let's deal with the most recent of studies, since they have been held to a higher level of review and come from the medical community and research universities. I will cite only the 3 most recent studies.

Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4, 667-674. Payne, K., Thaler, L., Kukkonen, T., Carrier, S., & Binik, Y.M. (2007).

In this study of two groups of circumcised and uncircumcised subjects, the results showed no difference between the two groups in sensitivity to touch or pain. What's interesting about the study is that has repeated earlier studies that showed that both circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall during sexual arousal.

This where the confusion arises. Before you scoff, think about it. If the exposed glans was super sensitive, men would be ejaculating before they penetrated the female and the biological function of delivering the semen would be defeated.

The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda British Journal of Urology, Jan. 2007, Watya S, Polis CB, Buwembo D, Kiggundu V, Wawer MJ, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, Kiwanuka N, Bacon MC, Ssempijja V, Makumbi F, Gray RH. (January 2007). "

The study examined 4,456 subjects and is by far the largest study ever undertaken and produced the following results;

- 98.6 per cent of the circumcised men reported no problems in penetration, compared with 99.4 per cent of the control group.

- 99.4 per cent of the circumcised men reported no pain on intercourse, compared with 98.8 per cent of the control group.

- Sexual satisfaction was more or less constant in the circumcision group - 98.5 per cent on enrolment and 98.4 per cent after two years - but rose slightly from 98 per cent to 99.9 per cent in the control group.

Conclusion: The study clearly shows that being circumcised did not have an adverse effect on the men who underwent the procedure when compared with the men who had not yet received surgery.

That says it all to me.

Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function:Urology, Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages 155-158

T. Şenkul, C. İşerİ, B. şen, K. Karademİr, F. Saraçoğlu, D. Erden

Adults were selected that had elected the surgery. Ages ranged from 19 to 28. Before circumcision, their sexual performance was evaluated using the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) and ejaculatory latency time. The BMSFI evaluation and ejaculatory latency time measurements were repeated after a postoperative interval of at least 12 weeks. The differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections. However, the mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision Conclusions: Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication.

I don't care about religious or social reasons for the procedure. What I care about is that it is a cost effective means of reducing the incidence of disease. This in turn reduces societal costs in the long term. Prevention is the cheapest and most cost effective medicine available. because of a vociferous small number of people, entire populations of at risk subjects are denied access to the procedure. I am sure there are people that have indeed suffered from a botched circumcision and they are hurt, but in the grand scheme of things, sometimes a few people suffer so that thousands will not.

Edited May 17, 2009 by geriatrickid

[camerata]

I suggest to you, that with the exception of serious surgical error, that most of the allegations of lost sexual sensitivity and sexual disruption, are the result of psychological dysfunction and nothing physical.

I'd suggest there is a big difference between experiencing circumcision yourself and making assumptions about it based on statistics alone. The frenulum and inside of the foreskin are extremely sensitive and those are the bits you lose in a full circumcision. My urologist told me that within a short time the skin that had been protected by the foreskin oxidizes and becomes more "horny" (that's a urologist's joke), so obviously some sensitivity is lost. It's got nothing to do with a botched job. Taking longer to reach orgasm might seem like an advantage when one is young, but it certainly isn't when you get older, if you catch my drift. And you don't have to be a genius to figure out that masturbation will have some limitations after circumcision.

Having said that, most guys who have a circumcision as an adult do so because of some problem like tight foreskin, split frenulum or regular fungal infections, so they are generally happier after the op regardless of the reduction in sensitivity. The op certainly should be voluntary.

[geriatrickid]

Camerata,

I knew that when I put in my personal opinion, it would serve as a distraction from from the subject, and I shouldn't have done it. That being said, I acknowledge your point in respect to the specific procedure you reference and it is valid. However, there are a couple points I wish to bring to your attention;

Please understand that there are different types of circumcision. One of the reasons why I mentioned the Jewish form of circumcision is that the frenulum is left in place along with the use of a protective shield over the glans that makes for a loose skin procedure. Some of the Turkish doctors used this method in Bosnia and reported good success despite hygiene conditions that were primitive at best after the war. This was the method that was popular in the American, South Korean, Philippine and Australian systems. Whether by intent or design, it is the method that had the lowest complications and quickest healing. No sutures required in the infant. In fact if sutures are required, than the procedure hasn't been done right. Somewhere over the years, people thought more was better and went nuts with the scalpel and scissors. I just don't know. No one has really reviewed the methodologies in that respect. I only did the cost benefit reviews way back when, so I can only talk about that aspect.

A full circumcision in an adult is done for cosmetic reasons or when there is an underlying medical problem. I would suggest to you that in the adults that have it performed as a medical procedure, the loss of sensation may actually be due to those medical conditons, particularly in diabetics. Would I recommend the full procedure? Nope, since the more conservative approach provides the benefits without the greater risks asociated. So see, we sort of agree on something. And therein lies the problem. People do not understand that there are different methods of circumcision. My understanding is that the method being taught in Thailand under the western charity funding is to leave the frenulum in place and to target only the inner foreskin material. (This results in much less skin being removed and follows the traditonal American/Australian approach.)

Ok so back to your concerns. In respect to the time to reach orgasm, in the published studies the time differences were minimal and deemed to be insignificant. However, let's say you still disagree, your concern opens up a can of worms which leaves you open to all sorts of comments such as you being a selfish lover and not taking a woman's needs into account. Women take a longer amount of time to orgasm. Men that blow their load faster, usually haven't satisfied the female. The longer you can keep Mr. Willie in pleasure mode, the more likely you are to satisfy the female, and that's what it's all about right? To say otherwise would mean that you were a selfish lover and no man would ever stand accused of that, Just ask the ladies.

In respect to the masterbation aspect, I would suggest that a modification of technique be considered. A few differences in hand formats, and the introduction of some lube, and off to the races one can go.

As an aside, I note that the same concerns expressed by westerners on the procedures are not as evident in South Korea, the Phillipines and the South Pacific islands where it was a native practice. Samoans were doing it long before westerners and so far no one is really complaining. Would I recommend the method done on Vanuatu? Nope, but the ceremony associated with the practice seems to relieve alot of the resultant emotional issues that one sees in the west.

In respect to the voluntary decision, I would not force the procedure on anyone, but I do not think a parent can be blamed or should have second thoughts about undertaking the procedure on an infant. The benefits far outweigh the costs. It is a procedure that is best done on infants and not on adults since the healing times are faster, benefits accrue faster and the memories are not retained.

Edited May 17, 2009 by geriatrickid

[camerata]

A full circumcision in an adult is done for cosmetic reasons or when there is an underlying medical problem. I would suggest to you that in the adults that have it performed as a medical procedure, the loss of sensation may actually be due to those medical conditons, particularly in diabetics.

In my experience (i.e. people I know) the operation was to cure a medical problem (i.e. tight foreskin, balanitis, etc) and therefore loss of sensation could not be attributed to the problem that had just been fixed. Loss of some sensation may not be universal but it is certainly common among people I know.

So my message to any adult thinking of getting a circumcision for a non-medical reason - it looks cool or Cosmo says women prefer cut men - is you're a fool. Whatever the statistics, you may be among the X% who experience some loss of sensation. This is no urban myth.

Ok so back to your concerns. In respect to the time to reach orgasm,

These aren't simply my "concerns," it's my personal experience that I'm passing on. You evidently didn't catch my drift on this. While taking longer to orgasm is fine for all when you are young, it's hardly an advantage when you're old and more likely to lose the erection before climax.

In respect to the voluntary decision, I would not force the procedure on anyone, but I do not think a parent can be blamed or should have second thoughts about undertaking the procedure on an infant. The benefits far outweigh the costs. It is a procedure that is best done on infants and not on adults since the healing times are faster, benefits accrue faster and the memories are not retained.

If my parents had done this to me I would have resented it my whole life. I still resent the fact that I had a tonsillectomy as a kid. If I'm going to lose my foreskin I want to make the decision myself. If my parents do their job of parenting properly, I will not be exposing myself to HIV anyway.

[jumnien]

anyone know what % of Thai males are being circumcised 2009?

i really thought this was a thing of the past since the scientific community is overwhelming in favor of it, and the only line against it is the silly "you are messing with nature" and "sex wont be as fun" and "i want my kid to look like me in the shower" arguments.

surprising.

Very few Thai Buddhist males are currently being circumsized at birth. Many of the Muslim men are. My wife and I decided not to circumsize our son and I'm very happy with that decision. However, I was circumsized at birth, as was the trend of late 1950's America, yet I harbor no ill feeling towards my parents for their decision. I have met many men who are happy being circumsized and many happy being not - it takes all kinds. The trend in the US has reversed with most males not being circumsized at birth anymore. Obama has not spoken out on his personal status or his ideological preferences in the matter.

[thetitan99]

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

It's nice to know that you promote mutilation of infant boys as a way to protect them against HIV.

Ofcourse you would be aware of the fact that the initial reason for this mutilation was to reduce the boys ability to masturbate. To control their sexuality. Why not cut it off completely? This ough to reduce their chance of recieving it via sexual interactions to much lower levels...

So excuse me for not cheering in your joy of a few backwards religions actively performing physical abuse against their kids.

Using condoms and common sense is so much less painful.

Take it from me it doesn't work!! Edited May 18, 2009 by thetitan99

[maccaroni man]

A full circumcision in an adult is done for cosmetic reasons or when there is an underlying medical problem. I would suggest to you that in the adults that have it performed as a medical procedure, the loss of sensation may actually be due to those medical conditons, particularly in diabetics.

In my experience (i.e. people I know) the operation was to cure a medical problem (i.e. tight foreskin, balanitis, etc) and therefore loss of sensation could not be attributed to the problem that had just been fixed. Loss of some sensation may not be universal but it is certainly common among people I know.

So my message to any adult thinking of getting a circumcision for a non-medical reason - it looks cool or Cosmo says women prefer cut men - is you're a fool. Whatever the statistics, you may be among the X% who experience some loss of sensation. This is no urban myth.

Ok so back to your concerns. In respect to the time to reach orgasm,

These aren't simply my "concerns," it's my personal experience that I'm passing on. You evidently didn't catch my drift on this. While taking longer to orgasm is fine for all when you are young, it's hardly an advantage when you're old and more likely to lose the erection before climax.

In respect to the voluntary decision, I would not force the procedure on anyone, but I do not think a parent can be blamed or should have second thoughts about undertaking the procedure on an infant. The benefits far outweigh the costs. It is a procedure that is best done on infants and not on adults since the healing times are faster, benefits accrue faster and the memories are not retained.

If my parents had done this to me I would have resented it my whole life. I still resent the fact that I had a tonsillectomy as a kid. If I'm going to lose my foreskin I want to make the decision myself. If my parents do their job of parenting properly, I will not be exposing myself to HIV anyway.

sorry but as a mod IMHO you may want to post from a more centered position as this post begs to be flamed I mean seriously seperation dismay from tonsils? youth is wasted on the young.

[camerata]

sorry but as a mod IMHO you may want to post from a more centered position as this post begs to be flamed I mean seriously seperation dismay from tonsils? youth is wasted on the young.

Let them flame! I'm not posting as a mod, but as a regular guy deeply concerned about... um... guys' foreskins.

As for the tonsillectomy, although they may not have known it at the time, they took away part of my immune system. If tonsils and foreskins were a liability, we would have evolved without them.

[thetitan99]

People really need to get over their bias and stigma and strange feelings towards circumcision and get it made popular in Thailand. Its medically proven that it assists in preventing the transfer of HIV from female to male in vaginal sex.......PROVEN........by 2007/08 CDC/WHO/UN reports.

This article refers to an African study, where personal hygiene is very low. But I hope that in the western world, it is certainly in Thailand, personal hygiene is of a much more higher level.

So therefore the study of 2000 don't lost his value at all. Lack of personal hygiene is the same as using used condoms from your neighbour. And in one issue, the article mentioned is very firm, circumcision is mutilation of an innocent child who will affect the rest of his life and can be life threatening due to infections also stated in that article. And therefore a criminal offence.

I'm not circumcised and I thank my parents every day for it.

They must be getting sick to death of hearing that!!

[Sheryl]

To get back to the circumcision/HIV issue, my 2 cents;

- circumcision in infancy: in countries where there is extremely high HIV prevalence, there is a strong case to be case to be made for promoting this on public health grounds. Attention has been focused on African countries where prevalence runs as high as 30% or more of the general adult male population. I am not aware of any discussion or thought to promoting it on these grounds in Thailand where, although there is certainly an HIV problem, it is nowhere near on that scale. I think Thailand remains one of those countries where individual parents need to make the circumcision decision based on a whole array of considerations (social, religious, hygenic etc). Psychological aspects (e.g. effect of growing up looking "different" from the other boys) should not be minimized.

circumcision in adult males:

1) If you are an already circumcisized man thinking (or hoping) this means your risk of HIV is nil, think again. All other factors being identical, your risk is lower due to being circumsized, but it is not zero. If you are foolish enough and unlucky enough, you could get it. (As well as hepatitis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, NSU, etc etc...)

2) If you are an uncircumsized man having sex outside of a mutually monogamous relationship -- and especially if having sex with commercial or quasi-commercial partners -- the only truly reliable protection is to always use condoms, full stop. If you fall into this category and do not/will not use condoms, the surgery I would recommend would be a great deal more more extensive than circumsizion...... :D

[endure]

People really need to get over their bias and stigma and strange feelings towards circumcision and get it made popular in Thailand. Its medically proven that it assists in preventing the transfer of HIV from female to male in vaginal sex.......PROVEN........by 2007/08 CDC/WHO/UN reports.

This article refers to an African study, where personal hygiene is very low. But I hope that in the western world, it is certainly in Thailand, personal hygiene is of a much more higher level.

So therefore the study of 2000 don't lost his value at all. Lack of personal hygiene is the same as using used condoms from your neighbour. And in one issue, the article mentioned is very firm, circumcision is mutilation of an innocent child who will affect the rest of his life and can be life threatening due to infections also stated in that article. And therefore a criminal offence.

I'm not circumcised and I thank my parents every day for it.

They must be getting sick to death of hearing that!!

[hansnl]

To answer my own post somewhat, I could add, the reason they do not tell people is :

1/ Judaism is the oldest of todays religions, obviously. Christianity is the second oldest being around 1808 years old (it start about 200 years after the death of whoever "Jesus of Nazareth" was.) and of course Muhammed's Islam comes in much younger than both of them.

So if you consider most people forget the ancient Egyptians, the first of 'todays religions" that uses 100% circumcision is Judaism.

Oh my God............they all say. If we even incline that the Jews were right and people should be circumcised the political/religious fallout would be too great, so don't tell anyone.

And there you have it............quite simply the Jews and the Muslims, all being circumcised, have the "we were right" and all you beleivers of other incorrect faiths were wrong and are all going to die...............

So thats maybe the real reason why they are not trumpeting from the rooftops this vital information............................cause Christianity made an error in not copying this from the older religions (even though Jesus would have been circumcised as he was a Jew, as were his discliples).

And.....it has other benefits women like!

[hansnl]

sorry but as a mod IMHO you may want to post from a more centered position as this post begs to be flamed I mean seriously seperation dismay from tonsils? youth is wasted on the young.

Let them flame! I'm not posting as a mod, but as a regular guy deeply concerned about... um... guys' foreskins.

As for the tonsillectomy, although they may not have known it at the time, they took away part of my immune system. If tonsils and foreskins were a liability, we would have evolved without them.

Medical knowledge changes all the time.

Blaming your parents for the tonsillectomy is a little stupid, pardon me.

The decision to do it was made in and with the knowledge of the time it was done.

The Hebrews and later the Muslims circumsised because they had gathered a knowledge about the por and cons of the snip.

Later the deed was ritualised to make it universally accepted within the population.

I chose the "Jewish method" in a later age, and I am still grateful I did.

Besides that, many dietairy laws and rituals in the Jewish faith are very much valid, even now.

I also include in this validity many of the dietary laws from the Muslims, of which many are identical.

I do believe that having the snip, even in a later age, can be beneficial.

Healthwise, that is.

And am I not in denial of the loss of my foreskin.

Or having a tonsillectomy.

Or loosing some other parts of me in my life.

Including my innocence.

[camerata]

Medical knowledge changes all the time.

Blaming your parents for the tonsillectomy is a little stupid, pardon me.

The decision to do it was made in and with the knowledge of the time it was done.

I guess it depends on whether it was chronic or not. I don't remember having it but I remember in vivid detail the operation and waking up with my pillow covered in dried blood.

I tend to be conservative. I've had appendicitis three times and still have my appendix.