San Fran May Propose Banning Circumcision - Page 18

On November 30 2010 06:14 composition wrote:
outlaw the removal of wisdom teeth and appendix next.

On November 30 2010 06:12 BlackJack wrote:


That's like the 3rd time in this thread where someone responded to a pro-circumcision post with "So what are you saying, that ALL children should be circumcised?" What the heck...

I think it's obvious what I am saying --> male circumcision has medical benefits. According to the WHO, "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." 60% of a usually fatal disease is nothing to shake a stick at.

Or maybe my point was that male circumcision is just mutilation and pointless and disgusting and therefore should only be recommended for Africans.

Children are sexually active before 18 so this law won't be doing them a favor.

On November 30 2010 06:12 BlackJack wrote:
That's like the 3rd time in this thread where someone responded to a pro-circumcision post with "So what are you saying, that ALL children should be circumcised?" What the heck...

I think it's obvious what I am saying --> male circumcision has medical benefits. According to the WHO, "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." 60% of a usually fatal disease is nothing to shake a stick at.

Or maybe my point was that male circumcision is just mutilation and pointless and disgusting and therefore should only be recommended for Africans.

Children are sexually active before 18 so this law won't be doing them a favor.

On November 30 2010 06:25 Yamoth wrote:


This would be a very good argument if you're planning to have your baby have repeated sex with known HIV positive people.

On November 30 2010 06:27 HellRoxYa wrote:


The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk.[3][4] Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act.

Holy shit, a 60% reduction of 0.04%? Please, we must circumcise every child immediately!

To be fair, the same wikipedia article goes on to say that WHO recommends circumcision in Africa because AIDs and HIV is so prevailant there and protection is not. If every third woman you're going to sleep with has HIV then I agree circumcision does stand out like an excellent option. As that's not the case, you have no case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Sexual

On November 30 2010 06:51 TwilightStar wrote:
It's not harmful, It's not bad. If its going to be doing anything, its HELPING.

On November 30 2010 06:12 Mora wrote:


After a shower, they are for the most part the same (though a flacid cut penis is more pleasing to the eye than an ant eater).

However, assuming that you're not going to have a shower right before oral sex everytime you want to engage with said activity... well, you can do an experiment:

Go for a 30 minute walk (or an hour, for better results) with 1 hand palm open, and the other hand in a fist. Lick both palms at the end of your excursion.

Voila.

On November 30 2010 08:06 hoshi wrote:
Correct me if im wrong, but dont women prefer the look of a circumcised penis?

if so /thread

For example, my appendix is still in tack and my wisdom teeth was remove with "MY" consent because it was messing up my teeth.

On November 30 2010 06:27 HellRoxYa wrote:


The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations. Complacency about HIV plays a key role in HIV risk.[3][4] Sexual transmission can occur when infected sexual secretions of one partner come into contact with the genital, oral, or rectal mucous membranes of another. In high-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is 0.04% per act and male-to-female transmission is 0.08% per act.

Holy shit, a 60% reduction of 0.04%? Please, we must circumcise every child immediately!

To be fair, the same wikipedia article goes on to say that WHO recommends circumcision in Africa because AIDs and HIV is so prevailant there and protection is not. If every third woman you're going to sleep with has HIV then I agree circumcision does stand out like an excellent option. As that's not the case, you have no case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Sexual

On November 30 2010 07:57 Arkansassy wrote:
If this has already been covered, I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes. But I do think a little history on the topic should be brought to light.

It seems that the U.S. is the only industrialized country who practices circumcision routinely. I’ve read that in Europe, Jews and Muslims, for religious reasons, are circumcised, but few others. So why does the U.S. engage in this ritual?

Firstly, note that the foreskin has an abundance of highly sensitive receptors. It also has a ridged band of muscles that protect the urinary tract from contaminants. Circumcision takes minutes to perform and within these minutes, veins, arteries, capillaries, nerves and nerve endings are destroyed; as are all the muscles, glands, epithelial tissue, and sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin.

In ancient times (research shows that circumcision has been practiced since 3000 B.C.) the Egyptians performed it as a mark of slavery; Jews (at first just the tip of the foreskin was snipped) and Muslims as a religious rite. To the Romans and Greeks, it was so distasteful that it was outlawed. It wasn’t until the Victorian era that routine circumcision was practiced in the U.S. thanks to Dr. Lewis Sayre, who convinced society that circumcision would cure many of the ailments found in young boys, but what really hit home (now remember we’re in the Victorian era) was that it would END the desire for young boys to masturbate and hence cure insanity and retardation that comes from masturbation.

Other doctors obviously agreed. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (creator of “and they’re grrrrrrrrrrrrreat) cornflakes "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," he wrote.”The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

Due to the “vile habit of masturbation” circumcision was recommended by many practicing physicians in the late 1800s.

It wasn’t until the 70s that people began questioning the “need” for circumcision. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics revised their stance on circumcision. "The foreskin protects the glands throughout life."

Emotional feelings about the penis might be due to long-standing myths – hygiene being one of them and another aesthetics.

When asked about circumcision in an interview with Redbook in 1989, Dr. Benjamin Spock quite simply stated, "My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."

Whilst I deem the ritual barbaric and unnecessary, (plus there are guys that need that extra bit of meat j/k) I am adamantly opposed to giving the government more control in my private life.

On November 30 2010 09:31 LazyMacro wrote:


3. "Women prefer a the look of a circumcised penis." Good for them. How is that my problem?