Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Scientist)   The next in a long line of Fark circumcision flamewars: World Health Organization hails circumcision as vital in HIV fight   (newscientist.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5615 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2007 at 2:24 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



852 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-28 05:43:10 PM  

It seems to me that there are plenty of reasons for both sides, but since the operation is one way, it seems smarter to leave your son uncircumcised unless he feels differently.


I am glad my parents made the decision for me, before I could remember the experience.
 
2007-03-28 05:43:35 PM  
Is this the "troll foreskin" thread I've been hearing about?
Is it green?
 
2007-03-28 05:44:25 PM  
nashBridges: but arguing that the foreskin serves no purpose is fallacious at best.

More like, fellatious!
 
2007-03-28 05:44:27 PM  
jst3p

Ah what the hell...I like feeding trolls today.

I've had an operation to remove a chunk of bowel. I have a large scar on my stomach. It was necessary for me to live. I feel mutilated. By definition, I have been mutilated. So yes...even surgeries can be considered mutilation I guess. And I say that knowing it goes against what I said before. But not really, since at one time I think I would have rather died then go through the surgery...
 
2007-03-28 05:45:17 PM  
SixOfDLoC

The really, really amusing thing in these threads is watching all the self-righteous weenie-choppers get all bent when someone equates FGM to circumcision. They're both genital mutilation, though. I see nothing that makes your culturally-accepted practice of MGM any less disgusting than FGM. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation, IMHO.

I cannot speak for women, but as a circumsized male, I can tell you I still plenty of sensation left in my penis. Would I have more sensation with foreskin? Maybe, but I'm happy as I am. But, circumcision is a hard topic, and debate has been raging too long.
I don't care about who has it or not. If your cut, fine, if your not, whatever. There are still plenty of dicks on either side that think they are better everyone else because they are cut/uncut and everyone else is/isn't. Both sides in general need to STFU and stop preaching, no matter what side they are on. It really jerks me the wrong way.
 
2007-03-28 05:47:04 PM  
illicit

But, circumcision is a hard topic, and debate has been raging too long.


Nice. Subtle.
 
2007-03-28 05:47:48 PM  
I_C_Weener writes:Is it easier to clean a bottle on the inside or outside?

That depends. Does the bottle's foreskin retract to make it easier?
 
2007-03-28 05:50:50 PM  
Cup_O_Jo writes: The foreskin has NO feeling in it.

This is why I hate women.
 
2007-03-28 05:54:18 PM  
bonehead,
"Those seem like voluntary things, so I'd say not mutilation."

The ones nightfire added were probably better than mine. Some were elective some were not (and circs are sometimes done later anyweay). Are you saying we're mutilating kids by removing webbing?

What about siamese twins that are held together by a thin strip of flesh. Is it mutilation to seperate them at birth?

If you use a retardedly strict interpretation of mutilation because you don't LIKE circs, then I guess you have to be against that list if only because of the principle of the matter.

ICW,
"Very snarky. I'm watching you."

*G*
 
2007-03-28 05:54:53 PM  
Gotta love a circ th4read wherte the anticircs are battling each other on minutae...


///goggles
 
2007-03-28 05:57:09 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2007-03-28 05:57:21 PM  
You can cut off the end of my dick when you pry it out of my cold, dead lotion-encrusted hand.

/not really
//already cut
///helmet > turtleneck
 
2007-03-28 05:58:10 PM  
Bonehead
If you want to consider yourself mutilated, be my guest. I frankly don't care. I was just answering your question...

Finally my enduring angst has been recognized! My mutilation of my umbilical cord makes me feel so...

hey wait a second. Cutting off my umbilical cord HAS increased my appearance since I no longer have a gut-wang. It's also cleaner since there is less surface area to wash. Hell that umblilcal cord could have gotten cancer too, then I'd have been farked!

I still function just fine in this crazy world without my umbilical cord. Maybe I was overreacting...
 
2007-03-28 06:01:37 PM  
So bonehead. Are you arguing that any surgery of any kind that is performed prior to you being able to have a say in the matter is mutilation?

And before you start running off calling people trolls, you might want to consider that just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong.

I have not seen many people here claiming the foreskin provides no sensation. I think we can agree it does. What most of us cut people CAN say is that is doesn't make our sex lives unenjoyable (with one exception far up the thread) or that you will have a great time in the sack just because you HAVE the foreskin intact. Sex is about more than a small patch of skil over yer cack head.

We don't agree that circumcision is OK. I guess I should call you a troll now?
 
2007-03-28 06:02:06 PM  
Father_Jack: i cant believe you're old enough to drink and you dont know the answer to this question.

If one has only seen one penis in a lifetime, it's not surprising that one doesn't know the difference. The question's not that dumb.
 
2007-03-28 06:02:07 PM  
NotSubby

The webbings thing...definately. It doesn't hurt them by leaving it, and in some cases gives them an advantage. The siamese twins...depends on your outlook. Surgery can be disfiguring and all that, but sometimes are necessary to give the person a better life. Removing a kids foreskin or webbing doesn't make their life better. The thing in Africa I understand though, since circumcision is easier then re-educating an entire culture. Not putting down Africans, but anyone who considers the cure to AIDS to be raping a virgin I'm going to have to say is a little backwards. Anyways...I'm not arguing against doing anything that a concerned parent would do, or a responsible adult. But I don't like causing pain and problems for no reason, which is what circumcision does in many cases. If you do it for religious reasons, I don't care. Have at it. To do it because it's "normal", without there being any real benefit to it, that's foolishiathink.
 
2007-03-28 06:02:42 PM  
nashBridges
We have done a TON of research on the issue. The part that has feeling is the frenum. The other part is the friction on the head (glans) of the penis. This is why most foreskins pull back all the way during sex. Some men have paraphimosis where the foreskin does not fully retract. Which is a medical problem that can be painful. That is what I in my personal life am dealing with.
In doing research for paraphimosis we have come along the WHO research on HIV and circumcision. We have also come along several medical journals that STATE the foreskin has no feeling. What has feeling is the frenum and the glans. Two things that are not a foreskin.
Having foreskin is a personal preference unless it becomes a painful medical issue.
Or a health issue where your life is at risk. In working with GMHC and other AIDs organizations in the 80's it was COMMON knowledge that foreskin can harbor more STD's and HIV. Now the WHO is finally backing it up after 20 years.
So for something that is not needed, has no feeling, and really is only personal preference...Circumcision is a safe way to go. It is an out patient procedure that takes less than 20 minutes and 6 weeks to heal.
 
2007-03-28 06:03:38 PM  
Oh...and NotSubby, I don't think you're a troll. The other guy is, but you aren't.
 
2007-03-28 06:04:24 PM  
We don't agree that circumcision is OK. I guess I should call you a troll now?

People who don't agree with me are communists.
 
2007-03-28 06:05:52 PM  
I feel like most of those so vehemently opposed to cicumcision are just guys who have always felt awkward about not being circumcised themselves, and this is sort of their outlet for revenge.

Because none of their actual arguments make sense.
 
2007-03-28 06:07:59 PM  
TheWizard
1. Uncircumcised is more sensitive.
2. Circumcised is less sensitive.

This doesn't mean it IS or IS NOT sensitive, but it is a variance around a general standard. However, uncut guys have much more control in 'using' that sensitivity.


Gonna have to disagree with you there. What does increased sensitivity have to do with control? I would have guessed that increased sensitivity would work against having better control, but since your description of control is very similar to the control I have with my wife (i.e. selectable timing) and i am cut, it seems like it comes down to the individual's skills (no pun intended).
 
2007-03-28 06:09:43 PM  
I Can't Find My Pants

Or maybe people who have never had sex ed? Or do not know which body parts are which?

Really in reading I am concerned that people have no idea how they get an erection, keep and erection, and climax. It's kinda scary.
 
2007-03-28 06:13:13 PM  
Cup_O_Jo: It's kinda scary.

That's what happens with 'abstinence-only' sex-ed, too.
 
2007-03-28 06:13:22 PM  
Who really cares... If your junk works and your lady friend or man friend likes it, so be it. Right? Thank you and have a good night talking about ba-cawk.
 
2007-03-28 06:15:19 PM  
Weren't all the men required by god to be circumcised just before they came into the promised land?

All the Israelite men, yes.

See, what I don't get is why there's all these people other than Jews and Muslims who believe in circumcision. It doesn't make sense, unless God tells you not to (not that that makes so much sense either...).

Some damnyankee doc thought it would reduce masturbation, I can't comment on that because I don't know.

Incidentally, circumcision disproves Lamarck's theory of evolution. Every generation is still born with a foreskin.
 
2007-03-28 06:15:45 PM  
klebs89: maybe you missed it, but the AIDS drugs are killing patients at a faster rate than AIDS does itself.

AZT is a very old cancer drug that was no longer being used because it was too toxic but then they started using it on AIDS patients since they were going to die anyway.

I don't see how it can lengthen any lifespan if it kills healthy people.

just watch the videos and see both sides of the equation for an informed opinion.

ONLY AN IDIOT would only look at one side of any issue.
not to mention that HIV+ people have lived DECADES perfectly healthy without meds.

ThurmanMerman: well infectious disease experts are the people that dispute the HIV causing AIDS issue. Nobel prize winners. those aren't home-made videos.

i posted videos because PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY to actually read and be informed and so that's just a shortcut to get to the gist of the arguement.

as for seeing the "HIV+ patients who develop AIDS"

HIV positive person + cancer = AIDS
HIV negative person + cancer = cancer.

i'd see the same thing if i were to witness both.

Why is it so hard to understand that the science is flawed?

Why did a court of law conclude that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS?


I'll tell you why, because the court made its conclusion on the facts and science presented in court and not on media press conferences.

HIV has never been isolated and never been proven to cause any syndrome.

There is no scientific basis for it and that isn't even going into the fact that many that died of AIDS never even had HIV.

So, where is the proof that HIV hurts the immune system when it doesn't even harm the T Cells?
 
2007-03-28 06:18:43 PM  
i got a solution, if you don't want aids, don't sleep with loose women
 
2007-03-28 06:21:26 PM  
muninsfire: you wanted a citation regarding the fact that millions of people have been declared HIV-positive with tests that can't find the actual virus

that's easy. because there is no test than can find the actual virus LOL
 
2007-03-28 06:25:42 PM  
Bonehead,

Sorry but I troll quite a bit. Always highlight any outrageous post that I drop in.

"The siamese twins...depends on your outlook"

But is it mutilation? You see, you are seemingly coming off as saying any time we chop something off (from someone who has no say, at least) then it must be mutilation. If that is the case, the cutting the twins is as well. I think what most pro-cut people are saying is that circumcision is hardly life altering in the vast majority of cases. If it prevents some diseases, then it might be a net plus. That's certainly debatable but making an equivocal comparison between a father who cuts off a daughter's clit to one who has his son circuimcized is wrong. Clearly the female circ is true mutilation and has much more effect on quality of life.
 
2007-03-28 06:26:21 PM  
Shaviv: Incidentally, circumcision disproves Lamarck's theory of evolution. Every generation is still born with a foreskin.

Well, Lamarckian evolutionary theory's been disproved for a hundred years or so for various other reasons....

zeppelinrox: that's easy. because there is no test than can find the actual virus LOL

If there's no test that can find the virus, then how'd I get hold of this picture of the virus?

news.bbc.co.uk

Seems to me that if the virus can be seen with a microscope, it's been detected, ne?

Not to mention that they have a rather characteristic set of protein structures on their viral cell walls--which are quite detectable.

Or are you trying to tell me that there's no such thing as HIV?

You've been had, lad. It's just another conspiracy theory, much like the Illuminati, the Masons, and the WTC bombing being predicted by the $20 bill.
 
2007-03-28 06:26:44 PM  
I normally try to be at least somewhat reasonable in my Fark flamewars. But if anyone is seriously suggesting that HIV does not cause AIDS then they are either a liar or very stupid.

HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS = Lies. Filthy Lies.

To the people spreading this myth. You are wrong. You are lying and your lies can kill people.
 
2007-03-28 06:27:05 PM  
So great to reads tons of posts by people who get their education from news articles instead of going to college.
 
2007-03-28 06:29:16 PM  
zeppelinrox: HIV has never been isolated and never been proven to cause any syndrome.

But I have a picture of HIV right there--so obviously, it's been isolated enough to take a picture, ne?

Find me a scientifically peer-reviewed study that supports your conclusions, not some whacko conspiracy theory website.
 
2007-03-28 06:30:12 PM  
MollyHell: So great to reads tons of posts by people who get their education from news articles instead of going to college.

*shrug* Not everybody can afford college.
 
2007-03-28 06:33:34 PM  
zeppelinrox To suggest that the AIDS drugs are worse than the disease itself is foolish. Yes AIDS drugs do have side effects some of which are quite severe. But the side effect of having AIDS is lingering death.
 
2007-03-28 06:33:35 PM  
mollyhell,
"So great to reads tons of posts by people who get their education from news articles instead of going to college"

Proudly bearing that elitist flag? Just because you went to college does not mean you are either smart or educated. I'm not saying you aren't, either. There are plenty of self educated people as there are plenty of college grads who prove to be complete dumbfarks.

The jury is still out on whether you'll prove that college provided high value to you.
 
2007-03-28 06:36:12 PM  
muninsfire: *shrug* Not everybody can afford college.

That's what grants, scholarships and loans are made for.
Certainly people who go to/have been to college say some pretty stupid things, but I don't ever recall anyone, no matter how stupid, saying stuff like "they can't find the HIV virus" after having had a little education.
 
2007-03-28 06:37:26 PM  

Why did a court of law conclude that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS?


Thats where I look for medical advice, court.
 
2007-03-28 06:37:33 PM  
I'm a virologist. My son is not circumsized.
He should expect to get AIDS or something else he doesn't want if he has sex with any woman with whom he isn't monogamous.
Circumcision is a conspiracy by Jewish doctors.

/has nothing against Jews
//but cut your own, not ours
 
2007-03-28 06:38:55 PM  
MollyHell,

I bet if you looked real hard you would be able to find one. There are professors who (whoops, threadjack) proclaimed 9/11 to be a GW Bush conspiracy and that there weren't terrorists. Hell, a third of europeans believe this and among those are many "educated" people.
 
2007-03-28 06:40:07 PM  
Jesus Christ ...
I mean unprotected sex, of course.
I fully expect him to go out and fark everything he can get his hands on. I teach my kids to USE A FARKING CONDOM
If you do that, there is noooooooo problem.
/Stop cutting off our kids' foreskins you damned Jews
 
2007-03-28 06:41:34 PM  
"Circumcision is a conspiracy by Jewish doctors."

LOL. Assuming psuedotype isn't being sarcastic (there's always a chance he's serious), then he just proved my point.
 
2007-03-28 06:41:34 PM  
Lol. almost every male in South Korea are circumsized. And HIV is growing very strong among South Korean males.

/lived there.
//very funny to see this article for promoting circumcision.
///nasty westerners.
////no offense intended.
 
2007-03-28 06:43:19 PM  
Pseudotype
I'm a virologist. My son is not circumsized.
He should expect to get AIDS or something else he doesn't want if he has sex with any woman with whom he isn't monogamous.
Circumcision is a conspiracy by Jewish doctors.

/has nothing against Jews
//but cut your own, not ours


You have nothing against Jews, yet you claim they are producing a conspiracy regarding penises? Huh?

I have nothing against virologists.
Refusal to accept the facts that circumcision is healthier is a conspiracy by virologists.
 
2007-03-28 06:43:24 PM  
If you do that, there is noooooooo problem.

Thats about 99% correct...
 
2007-03-28 06:45:44 PM  
NotSubby, I did not say in my post that people who didn't go to college are stupid. Whatever college may or may not do for you, it gives you access to facts, and the ability to not say stupid things like "they have not isolated HIV".
 
2007-03-28 06:46:39 PM  
MollyHell: That's what grants, scholarships and loans are made for.

And some folks aren't eligable for them--or don't have the time to go to college, or have other priorities in their life.

College isn't the only place to get an education, you know.

Certainly people who go to/have been to college say some pretty stupid things, but I don't ever recall anyone, no matter how stupid, saying stuff like "they can't find the HIV virus" after having had a little education.

That, respectfully, is something that someone with a high-school education should be able to isolate as bogus. However, it's a conspiracy theory--and those are inherently slightly irrational.

The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is that some powerful agency (the Illuminati, the US Government, Big Oil, the Pharmaceutical Companies) under the cloak of secrecy, or pretending to be benevolent, are acting to harm people for some secret cause.

The conspiracy theorist will take some event (9/11, contrails, vaccinations, AIDS) and, acting under the base asssumption that "there's more than meets the eye", determine that it's part of the conspiracy by the chosen agency to harm people.

The reasoning goes that the apparent benevolent or harmless actions--the government's pursual of the War on Terror, that contrails are just clouds of water vapor, that vaccinations are intended to prevent disease, that AIDS prevention programs are meant to protect you--are actually a cloak for the harmful actions: that the government is covering up its actions to kill thousands of people and start a war for oil, that planes are spreading mind-altering chemicals, that vaccines don't work and actually harm your immune system, that AIDS is meant as an excuse for testing harmful drugs.

This particular conspiracy theory--that AIDS is invalid--is actually very close to the Vaccination Conspiracy theory, from what I've seen. The rhetoric is very similar--that it's intended to give money to Big Pharma for whatever reason, and to keep people bound to them for expensive, useless treatments. It's a rather fascinating meme, and I almost hope it spreads out a little so I can watch it mutate.

/I watch these things; their evolution is downright beautiful to watch, sometimes.
 
2007-03-28 06:47:36 PM  

If circ. is a Jewish conspiracy what is planned outcome. I mean what beneficial end result are the "Jews" getting from cutting their own and gentiles foreskins off.


As I mentioned before, wallets that turn into briefcases when you rub them.
 
2007-03-28 06:47:37 PM  
NotSubby

Sorry but I troll quite a bit. Always highlight any outrageous post that I drop in.


So do I sometimes. Just not today.


That's certainly debatable but making an equivocal comparison between a father who cuts off a daughter's clit to one who has his son circuimcized is wrong. Clearly the female circ is true mutilation and has much more effect on quality of life.


Hate to break it to you, but I never said anything about female circumcision. And I am completely staying out of THAT debate. I said that someone who has had their foreskin removed without their consent might consider themselves mutilated. And I am personally against circumcision, especially if the only reason it's done is because everyone is doing it. If you want to do it, go ahead. If you want to mutilate your son, go for it. Yes, I think it's mutilation. Not to the same degree as chopping off a clit, but you're still removing something. Yes, I do think Siamese twins are mutilated when they are separated. You're cutting into skin and causing damage. Is the net result beneficial? Most likely. Though some siamese twins can't be separated, and others go through lengthy life-threatening procedures to be separated. They would consider it worth it. I consider my surgery worth it, even though I was scared as hell and I ended up with a large scar on my stomach. And yeah, I think I'm mutilated. Now then...the benefits and down-sides are debatable, yes. I don't think the benefits outweigh the down-sides. I would never put any kid through it. I think the benefits to having a foreskin greatly outweigh any reason for removing it. I think the risks of circumcision are too great for the benefits it provides. I can understand how someone who has been circumcised as a baby would consider themselves mutilated. Other then that though...I don't care what anyone does as long as no one gets hurt against their will...
 
2007-03-28 06:48:42 PM  
Wasn't the reason why circumcision became popular in the US was because Dr. Kellogg thought it would keep boys from fapping?

There is only one reason why I see circumcision being useful. My girlfriend works in a nursing home, and there are a few uncut residents who have a tendancy to swell up and get infected. Looks like I might have my peener snipped when I get older for that reason. Of course, I expect to be dead by the time my body progresses that far.

/Uncut
//I can fap better than you.
 
Displayed 50 of 852 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report