« Moving the household | Main | The barcode revolution »
October 15, 2009
Arguments in favour of circumcision
Tehre are indede arguments in favour of circumcision: you're less likely to catch HIV for example, indede, it seems to protect against, at least partially, many sexually transmitted diseases. It also protects against cancer of the penis. Whether this is worth it is of course another matter. However, this sounds like a clinching argument:
Paraphimosis: Uncircumcised? Forgot to roll your foreskin back after sex? Uh-oh.
Now you've woken up with a huge swelling at the end of your penis and you can't get the skin back.
That's a paraphimosis - your foreskin is throttling your penis. This is another one that needs a trip to casualty.
Yes, I think we'll go with the chop it off when they're a baby option shall we?
October 15, 2009 in Sex | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef0120a5e91109970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arguments in favour of circumcision:
Comments
That citation about paraphimosis is very ill-informed. All that a male or his caregiver needs to do in that situation is gently compress the glans for as long as it takes for the size to reduce until it's possible for the skin to roll forward.
Circumcised males do get penile cancer. And AIDS is three times more common in the US - where most of today's adults were circumcised - than it is in Europe where circumcision is rare.
Posted by: Ron Low | Oct 16, 2009 2:16:44 AM
Speaking of AIDS, the African researchers finally announced this summer that along with a slight risk reduction of female to male transmission, circumcision INCEASES the chance for an HIV+ male to transmit HIV to his female partner by 50 percent. See for example http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/inside.aspx?sectid=8036&cat=3
Posted by: Ron Low | Oct 16, 2009 2:22:13 AM
Torsion of the testicles is far more painful, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to get castrated.
Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
As already pointed out, the one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.
You might also want to check out the following:
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
Posted by: Mark Lyndon | Oct 16, 2009 10:56:07 AM
(a) I'm kinda (well actually very) attached to my Foreskin.
(b) If you finish sex and your foreskin is still not pulled back then I'd suggest you're not doing it properly! :)
Posted by: zorro | Oct 16, 2009 3:59:41 PM
