Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never heard of anything negative uassociated with it. Likely because it is usually done when men are babies. Never heard any man I know complain about it. Is there some sort of complication that it causes or is there an impact on performance ... Etc. It is just a cosmetic difference? To my understanding from the documentaries and interviews I have seen FGM destroys the pleasure associated with sexual experiences for women. Unless circumcision does this for men I cannot see any comparison.
No there is no difference in sexual performance or pleasure as far as I know.
Most males are circumcised before they are old enough to remember much about it. So we don't hear much about the other side of the story. It is probably a false equivalency but there are variations of FMG, not that I am defending it. There does seem though to be a cultural bias.
At a time when most boys were circumcised, my brothers were not, against the doctor's advice. The doctor insisted that children that young do not feel pain and my mother wasn't buying it. A friend of mine had her son circumcised 25 years ago because her uncircumcised husband said he had been the object of jokes due to not being circumcised and he didn't want his son to go through that.
Another family had a tragic thing happen when their son's penis was accidently burned off. It was a famous case. An American doctor recommended he be raised as a girl as sex was in your head and it was believed that it was the environment that caused little boys to play with trucks and girls with dolls. The boy who was raised as a girl eventually tried to live his life as the boy he had always been but the psychological damage was so great he committed suicide. His twin brother committed suicide a few years after that. It damaged the whole family.
The only man I know who had to be circumcised as a grown person as the result of something medical had erectile dysfunctions thereafter.
Very true. Although the current decline of circumcision for boys in Quebec is a prime example of cultural change.
As far as I can tell, circumcision became popular in North America not because of any Jewish or Muslim influence as we might think, but because it used to be considered a cure for masturbation. I guess it didn't work. I do wonder if it was ever as popular in Quebec as, say, in the United States, where at some point it was such a routine operation on newborns that it was done almost without bothering to ask for the parents' consent.
As far as I can tell, circumcision became popular in North America not because of any Jewish or Muslim influence as we might think, but because it used to be considered a cure for masturbation. I guess it didn't work. I do wonder if it was ever as popular in Quebec as, say, in the United States, where at some point it was such a routine operation on newborns that it was done almost without bothering to ask for the parents' consent.
I'd say that the vast, vast majority of guys born before 1975 in Quebec are circumcised. Then there was a very sharp decrease of this practice: I don't know anyone below 40 who have been circumcised.
When people compare male and female circumcision, they tend to compare the most horrific types of female circumcision to run-of-the-mill male circumcision. (Hence the term "female genital mutilation" or FGM that's usually applied.) In actuality, most female circumcisions are not anywhere near as horrific as infibulation, which means removing the clitoris and labia majora and sewing up what's left. Some actually only involve removing the clitoral prepuce, which is very comparable to male circumcision. And let's not forget that male circumcision can also cause permanent damage
I'd love to see some links that support your claim. The removal of clitoral hood alone would only increase sensitivity which is the opposite outcome to the one this is being done because of in the first place.
I am seriously shocked at the "no big deal" attitude towards FGM in this thread. Its basically condoning of one of the worst things that can be done to a female, in the name of political correctness. Either that or pure ignorance.
There are films and countless memoirs written by the victims of this barbaric act for anyone who wants to know more.
I have never heard of anything negative uassociated with it. Likely because it is usually done when men are babies. Never heard any man I know complain about it. Is there some sort of complication that it causes or is there an impact on performance ... Etc. It is just a cosmetic difference? To my understanding from the documentaries and interviews I have seen FGM destroys the pleasure associated with sexual experiences for women. Unless circumcision does this for men I cannot see any comparison.
well, maybe they don't complain about it because they have nothing to compare to. You would need to ask men who had this done as an adult later on whether it made a difference.
Medical research has shown there is no health benefit arising from circumcision (if not side effects) as long as proper hygiene is ensured . And the parents shouldn't simply decide they can remove part of the baby's body when it is apparently no medical reason to do so.
As the fear to be "laughed at". That's simply pathetic. It is like those North American men who refuse to wear any swim wear that doesn't hit the knees. The pressure to constantly conform, even in terms of our body, is ridiculous. Maybe a 2 meter man should cut himself short so that he is more like everyone else? Parents sometimes do stupid things in order to "protect" when it is absolutely unnecessary.
Medical research has shown there is no health benefit arising from circumcision (if not side effects) as long as proper hygiene is ensured . And the parents shouldn't simply decide they can remove part of the baby's body when it is apparently no medical reason to do so.
.
Wrong. Medical research has shown circumcision decreases risks of STD infection including HIV.
The American Academy ofPediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents — and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.
Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men
Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision. Compelling evidence for recommendations
In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS issued recommendations on medical male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy based on strong and consistent scientific evidence. Three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda, and Orange Farm, South Africa have shown that medical male circumcision reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from women to men by approximately 60%.
The most recent data from Uganda show that in the five years since the Uganda trial was completed, high effectiveness has been maintained among the men who were circumcised, with a 73% protective effect against HIV infection. Maximizing public health benefit
WHO and UNAIDS recommended the intervention be added in countries with high HIV prevalence, generalized heterosexual HIV epidemics, and low levels of male circumcision where the intervention is likely to have the greatest public health impact. Fourteen priority countries with this profile are striving to scale up voluntary medical male circumcision: Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Medical male circumcision for HIV prevention offers excellent value for money. Recent modelling studies found that reaching 80% coverage among men 15 - 49 years old in the priority countries – by performing approximately 20 million circumcisions - would cost US$1.5 billion and would result in net savings of US$16.5 billion by 2025 due to averted treatment and care costs. Achieving, and maintaining, 80% coverage through 2025 would avert 3.4 million new HIV infections.
Haha. As to HIV/STD, the best way to avoid it is not to engaged in reckless sex (or drugs). Simple as that. The limited reduction of risk from circumcision can't even compare with the risk of infection these people voluntarily expose themselves to.
There is much literature which explains of harm of circumcision too. It really depends on what you intend to find.
Most Americans are circumcised, then why the HIV ratio are the highest, comparable to sub-Sahara nations?? Guess circumcision worked like magic.
There is much literature which explains of harm of circumcision too. It really depends on what you intend to find.
Most Americans are circumcised, then why the HIV ratio are the highest, comparable to sub-Sahara nations?? Guess circumcision worked like magic.
No it isn't. That map doesn't show ratios. The US has 300 million and you are comparing it to countries with 20 million. Here is a map of ratios from the same page.
I don't have an opinion on circumcision. I don't see why anyone cares what someone's penis looks like. I think girls like it better though.
The American Academy ofPediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents — and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.
Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men
Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision. Compelling evidence for recommendations
In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS issued recommendations on medical male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy based on strong and consistent scientific evidence. Three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda, and Orange Farm, South Africa have shown that medical male circumcision reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from women to men by approximately 60%.
The most recent data from Uganda show that in the five years since the Uganda trial was completed, high effectiveness has been maintained among the men who were circumcised, with a 73% protective effect against HIV infection. Maximizing public health benefit
WHO and UNAIDS recommended the intervention be added in countries with high HIV prevalence, generalized heterosexual HIV epidemics, and low levels of male circumcision where the intervention is likely to have the greatest public health impact. Fourteen priority countries with this profile are striving to scale up voluntary medical male circumcision: Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Medical male circumcision for HIV prevention offers excellent value for money. Recent modelling studies found that reaching 80% coverage among men 15 - 49 years old in the priority countries – by performing approximately 20 million circumcisions - would cost US$1.5 billion and would result in net savings of US$16.5 billion by 2025 due to averted treatment and care costs. Achieving, and maintaining, 80% coverage through 2025 would avert 3.4 million new HIV infections.
That is all new information for me. Thank you for sharing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do wonder if it was ever as popular in Quebec as, say, in the United States, where at some point it was such a routine operation on newborns that it was done almost without bothering to ask for the parents' consent.
