Have you actually read what I've written properly or followed the thread?

1) I have never said that there are no medical benefits to be gained from circumcision
2) I have said that in extreme cirumstances and with consent circumcision could probably be justified, e.g. the PSI project in Zimbabwe
3) The reason I started talking about HIV was that Angela 74 posted an abstract which was solely about that
4) HIV discussion belongs in a circumcision discussion because this is the most pressing public health issue to do with the procedure

You criticise me for talking about HIV, but here you are in your last post, still stating your opinion that it's good to have a 'backup'. So don't bang on at me for continuing the conversation when you are doing the very same.

In many cases there is a grave concern (not simply voiced by me, but also many public health officials) that simply saying that HIV can be prevented by circumcision is a dangerous message that may in fact increase infections rates as people are dissuaded from using condoms. That will of course, depend on the culture of prevention in the population in question and the background prevalence rate.

It's a shame you're unwilling to try to understand a relatively nuanced view and also misrepresent what I've been saying. In addition, the pro-circumcision voices here haven't really got much further than saying, 'oh yes, there are some health benefits' . . . that bare fact is only one part of the argument.

In my opinion anyone thinking of circumcising a child without any actual medical reason is sick in the head, why don't you just get the childs penis removed then there is no chance of any diseases in his future.
Let the child decide himself when he grows up, you won't find 1 that wants it done.....

Ok, so lets forget all about HIV and your initial data on this area, and put it down to 'hyper sensitizing the subject area with dubious data'. The point I am trying to force home (albeit unsuccessfully) is that treatment for treatments sake is not good medical procedure, as I mentioned in my very first post tonsil and appendix excision was common place until the idea of 'leaving well enough alone' (unless there is cause for concern) was medically established.
and secondly, all of the medical conditions you have cited may well be treated by circumcision very well, but if there is a non invasive medical treatment it is paramount that that avenue is explored first, leaving surgery as the last option. One child in 100 dieing needlessly due to a surgical accident is one too many, and it should not be for an arbitrary procedure for a condition the child does not even suffer from.
'Playing safe' and being 'on the safe side' is scare mongering, if the condition such as penile cancer or HIV infection is the concern of parents. Statistical odds equate having your child circumcised to prevent these rare diseases with, say, wearing a condom while you go swimming in the river - both precautions will decrease your chances of getting anything, but your chances where negligible to begin with!

Thirdly, is consent, I'm sure you all would be annoyed if i slipped some 'roofies' into your drink and took you home for some exploratory surgery (god knows I need the practice though), but there is the chance I could find a tumor and save your life...

In conclusion an unbiased view of the medical facts should form your opinions, not cultural or social reasons.

I hope you don't call HIV a rare disease. Because I would seriously be very concerned about the prevention and education you've got on the subject...

It depends which country you're talking about. In some countrys its rare enough that possible prevention of HIV is a weak justification for circumcision.

HIV, green monkey disease, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, are all pretty rare diseases, in the heterosexual western community, you are far more likely to get hep B and that is pretty unlikely, you'd have to be putting it around quite a bit to be affected. Statistically speaking that is the case anyway. Unless, of course, you have a penchant for monkey bush meat from the Congo and dangerous sex activities, washed down with a fifth of vodka, that is a hell of a party!

To add to what I said, how can parents confirm that a child will be sexually promiscuous or homosexual in later life?

Any female?? You obviously haven't done your homework ...

Oh my God!

Now I am pissing myself laughing! Angela, please, bring some common sense into that guy!

To clarify the 'monkey bush meat' comment, this is dried or preserved Gorilla and monkey meat that was eaten during the Congolese civil war and times of unrest with the Dutch, in which time people where forced to search for food in the jungle. It is the probable root cause of green monkey disease 'jumping' the species barrier to HIV, which is a benign condition in most great apes, apart from us. Apparently though some western individuals have genes (possibly evolving from the Middle Ages 'black death' pandemic) that offer them resistance to HIV infection. It's highly probable that if HIV was highly prevalent, and given enough time we would evolve resistance.

Circumcision is also a 'class act'. Generally the upper classes were circumcised- stiff upper lip and all that. Personally I think that the calling for circumcision to curb AIDS is a cheap measure which detracts from the real causes of the spread of the disease.
Anyone who watches the recent British school sex education videos will see that when an uncircumcised penis is erect, the glans is exposed, so I'm not really sure what the difference is with a BJ. However mine is the voice of inexperience in this department.
I don't really see how they can justify circumcision yet criticize virginity reconstruction on the National Health. I've heard the argument for reduction in disease with uncircumcised penis before- with HPV? However I have yet to see any studies with real proof. You would have to take into consideration that women married to Muslims generally have fewer partners. Any research would have to be based on women who have multiple circumcised partners and those who have multiple uncircumcised partners; kind of difficult I think!

Anyway, I think that you should leave little baby boys alone; when the case for circumcision is unproven and there is a tiny chance that it could go wrong. Genital mutilation is barbaric and outdated. If I were a man I would prefer to leave mine un-circum-sized.

Not to blow my own trumpet at all, but I have some recieving end experience here, and no-one had ever complained to me before. In fact, quite the opposite.

Maybe someone should set up a vote for all the girls and boys with first hand experience of giving in this department.

OK; I'll do a bit more homework.

Perhaps you and amaraya, menace, PaperMoon2 can explain how giving a BJ to an uncircumcised can be better than a circumcised.

But you might be right on what you say:
http://forums.govteen.com/showthread...056&viewfull=1

I belive the greater chance getting a bj is negligible if you see circumcision as an advantage. Waxing will gift you al lot more with bj`s than circ.

I found a bit of a trend that more shallower women like the cut rather than the uncut.

Similarly, shallower men like bigger brests rather than smaller ones.

Would I circumsize my son for this reason?

Would I let my daughter get implants for this reason?

I guess this or was the one you should have used.....

It might be an alternative for religious groups that kids will be treated that there is no more growing cubic hair in the future instead of circ.

Far more usefull than circumcision
Boys will be happy getting more bj`s
Girls don`t need to shave for a livetime
Hygiene is much better without those useles cub
Kids will be thankfull for this when they are adult etc.

I whish that would have been a common custom 40 years ago.

Again that is debatable.

I used to cycle quite competatively when young.
I used to shave my legs for speed (total crap) and pubes for weight (total crap) and sweat reasons.
For some reason I continued to shave my pubes (perhaps it makes your man hood look bigger) because it is pubes that keep that bacteria thrive on. It is quite surprising how some females find it really cool and other think what!!!.

It was a question, trying to address your concerns over HIV and circumcision: What is so bad about having a backup? A backup, by default or definition, is not the primary means of prevention. The question remains.

I would share that concern. But my point still stands that promotion of condom use isn't preventing HIV transmission overall. There are still people who won't use one (for whatever reason).

I am sorry if you feel I don't or am unwilling to understand the nuances. I think I do, but from the other side, just as you see me only saying there are medical benefits, I only see you saying "wear a condom and be done with it".

__________________
Never let right or wrong get in the way of a good opinion

Read back over what I've posted.

I've said that in some environments where the risk of HIV is high and there is probable overall benefit from circumcision, it can be justified for consenting adults. I linked to a project in Zimbabwe.

I think that in other environments though, the message that circumcision be a preventative backup is likely to detrimental and decrease the use of condoms. Many health professionals think this too.

I don't think, for example, that promoting circumcision as an HIV preventative in the US is a good idea. It especially can't be used as a justification for infant circumcision.

For an individual wearing a condom, there is indeed no benefit to being circumcised. For a circumcised individual not wearing a condim there is still a significant risk and an even greater risk for partners.

Circumcision preventig HIV infection?!?! Are au realy serius about?

Sorry, it does not make sense to me why circ reduces HIV infections.