Abacus

You mean you didn't save yours?

Samhain

Dammit, I knew they gave me that bag with the doggie on it for something, crap!

Opera Nut

There are websites where they talk about stretching the skin over the glans and putting a weight on it....sounds painful. I have no idea if it works or not.

BTW, I have a sweet, smart, nice stud muffin already, in a stable relationship, thank you. We met at a U-U church of course. I wish he hadn't been trimmed but there is nothing I can do about it.

Mecha_Dude

Circumsized, don't know what ti would be like with a hood so I don't comment on it.

Dr Rick

I'm not so sure about the "etc." part, but circumcision has been shown through numerous studies to confer some protection against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and certain urinary tract infections. The debate, when stripped of the emotional rhetoric it often inspires, centers upon whether or not the slight protection confered by circumcision justifies the procedure and the small risks it entails. Right now there are ongoing clinical trials in regions with high endemic rates of HIV that have been designed to address this very issue.

<strong> Personal preferences aside, there are no good clinical studies that suggest sex for or with an uncircumcised male is any more or less satisfying than sex for or with a circumcised man.

Rick

Demosthenes

But even so, circumcision only but give the slightest advantage in regards to the risks, it can be shown as well that the risks decrease and show no difference whatsoever from the circumcised males as the child grows past the first few years. Most likely the difference is due to the act of wearing diapers not circumcision.

Lastly, I don't understand why it is so important to establish whether uncircumcision males are at a higher risk of HIV infection. The issue is completely moot, the HIV pandemic will not be assuaged by circumcizing every single male in Africa. The cause of HIV transmission is sexual behavior, not foreskins. Personally I think the funds would be better spent on condoms instead of prodding forekins.

Dr Rick

Well, you certainly got me stumped; how does wearing diapers in childhood protect against STDs later in life?

<strong> No single measure currently available including condoms or circumcision alone will eliminate HIV; for the time being a combined approach is necessary.

Funding condom distribution and intensive education efforts in many third world countries have barely dented the HIV transmission rates. International health agencies recognize this failure and are looking at other ways to slow the spread of this infection. That is why studies of circumcision are now being conducted

If circumcision can decrease the risk of HIV transmission, how is it more "moot" than condom use?

Rick

Demosthenes

Sorry, I was referring to urinary infections.

The studies so far indicates that risk of getting STDs from being uncircumsized is so slight that it makes little difference whatever one is circumsized or not. STDs have other much easier ways of gaining access to the body. I just don't see how being uncircumcised is any risker than being circumcised. If anything, the mucous tissues of the vagina is shown to be at a similiar risk, yet nobody's advocating that females be circumcised.

I just find it irritating that people are using that as yet another ammunition to toss back and forth in the controversy. It's only a foreskin! Who cares whether it's there or not?

Kevin Dorner

Hey... this thread is turning into a real conversation... quick, a topical joke, before the Mods move it!

---
A baby boy was born without eyelids. The mother was distraught, but a surgeon consoled her.

"You are planning on having the child circumcized, yes?"

"Yes, doctor, I am."

"Then he will be fine. Rather than wasting the foreskin, I graft it in place to make new eyelids for him."

"But, doctor, won't he be cockeyed?"

"Yes, but think of the foresight he will have."
---

Dr Rick

Okay, but I'm still confused by your assertion; circumcision clearly decreases the risk of urinary tract infections in young boys, so how do diapers affect this statistic?

<strong> I don't thinks so; after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, sexual behaviour and other sexually transmitted infections, the protective effect of male circumcision has been shown in some studies to reduce the risk of infection by more than 50% in areas of high HIV prevalence.

<strong> So?

<strong> Facts and statistics have a funny way of getting in the way of our preconceptions. Circumcision provides a profound protective effect against HIV transmission in areas where there is a high endemic rate of HIV, even if it is hard for you to understand why.

<strong> First of all, many people advocate female genital mutilation, mostly denizons of third world countries such as Chad and Kenya and for reasons that have nothing to do with infectious disease transmission.

More importantly and in contrast to circumcision, there is absolutely no good evidence that female genital mutilation confers any protective effect against HIV transmission, no reputable infectious disease experts or health organizations are advocating its use, and so it really is not relevant here.

<strong> Objective evidence is usually the best "ammunition" to use in any controversy.

Rick

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>