« Bill Maher: Still the Most Despicable Human on Planet | Main | Police Called in to Impose Reverence for Freakazoids »

As Elaine of Seinfeld described the uncircumcised, "It has no face; no personality."

Which is exactly what the left wants in this world.

They may not care much about the Jews (whose Dem votes are granted, no matter how much the donks screw them and their mideast homeland), but circumcision is a big issue for the Muslims as well. Having to choose between intactivism and the alliance with their fellow America-haters (or more likely the riots instigated by the latter whenever they don't get their way), I know which'll have the upper hand.

What a bunch of meatheads.

In the words of David who said it best before he slayed Goliath. Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God? (1 Samuel 17:26)

Circumcision ... reduces the risk of acquiring HIV by 60%

Are you sure about that? It doesn't make much sense.

An interesting comparison: imagine if something comparable were done to girls. The rafters of heaven would shake with the uproar from feminists bleating about the "patriarchy."

An interesting comparison: imagine if something comparable were done to girls. The rafters of heaven would shake with the uproar from feminists bleating about the "patriarchy."

You mean like the way NOW protests Mulsims doing this?

Current "fashion" requires not only circumcision but shaving the man's pubes as well. Glad I married an old fashioned girl.

That paragraph "Intactivicts have blamed c'cision among other things for...." was spit-take funny! I'd love to see that convoluted logic but don't really feel like doing such a research project.

Another classic example of overstating the case.

Circumcision isn't really neccesary; there's nothing it prevents that can't also be prevented by proper hygiene. It's mutilation of an infant, who can't possibly agree to it. There are (thankfully rare) cases where a mistake is made and a child is left trans-gendered through no act of their own.

I would hope to see people not subjecting children to mutilation, any more then you want to see the pre-born being killed. I would like to see /sane/ awareness raised, and circumcisions at the least delayed until the person could intelligently consent to the procedure.

I had a friend who said she would abort her unborn baby if it had Down's Syndrome, then harassed me for having my son circumsized. It's okay to kill your unborn child who has Down's Syndrome, but not to circumcise your boy for either religious or health reasons. Logical!

I'm gladding we're finally getting to the bottom of all the world's ills. It's refreshing that what these activists are demanding won't wreck the economy.

Did you hear about the rabbi who did circumcisions? He only took tips.

I'm glad we're finally getting to the bottom of all the world's ills. It's refreshing that what these activists are demanding won't wreck the economy.

Did you hear about the rabbi who did circumcisions? He only took tips.

Anon,
Do you mean to tell me that a circumcision can ruin a male's life???!!!!
If it did then that person has alot more serious issues than just being circumcised.
It's not mutilition by the way because as annie pointed out religious and health resons are good things to consider. Plus I haven't met a women yet that likes the look of an uncircumcised man.

You mean like the way NOW protests Mulsims doing this?

Ah, but they're oppressed brown people, so it's cool. It's only when Americans do something that it becomes objectionable, pretty much regardless of what that something is. Got it?

Were just getting a glimps of what our dictator BARACK OBAMMA wants

FTA : "Circumcision is nearly painless and reportedly reduces the risk of acquiring HIV by 60%".

Ummm, since the vast majority of male AIDs was/is acquired vis either (A) blood transfusion, (B) IV drug use, or (C) having someone else's "mini-me" inserted up your poop-chute, that figure seems rather unlikely.

In fact, it sounds just like a repeat of old, already discredited claims about circumcision reducing transmission of several other venereal diseases, that were based on taking the factoid that Jewish wives statistically had fewer cases of same, and assuming (wrongly) that the explanation was fore-skin related, when it turned out to be BEHAVIOR related. Historically, there was less cheating among USA followers of Moses, hence less junk being brought back home to wifey.

Remember : Correlation > Causation.

Sorry, folks, a study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised.After following the men for a year, the researchers found that for every 10 uncircumcised men in the study who became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, only an estimated three circumcised men contracted the virus, the newspaper reported.
THere is now a huge campaign in Africa requiring it.
And if you want more, contact the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Mark Cloutier is strongly in favor of it. People with AIDS have that opinion.
Henry Ford said ask the man who owns one referring to his auto. I guess when an AIDS foundation says it, it has some merit at least.

I think the whole point is that these IDIOTS will protest ANYTHING!

Here's an idea: let's all (Conservatives) come out against WEDGIES. Then we just sit back and laugh while these morons start marching on DC with their signs and their boxers up around their necks!

Posted by: Farmer Ted at March 31, 2009 10:34 AM

No; read what I say instead of listening to the little voices in your head.

Circumcision is the unnecessary mutilation of an unconsenting infant with a (very small) risk of life-altering injury. I'm against it for the same reason I'm against female circumcision or foot-binding.

Health reasons are addressed by hygiene.

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks mutilating an infant for aesthetic reasons is subtly horrible. Would you allow people to clip the ears of children? Have them wear collars to distend their neck? Bind their feet so that they remain tiny-footed for their entire lives? There are cultures that do (or did) these things.

Religious reasons? Most people aren't Jewish. Most Christian churches don't require it (when's the last time your preacher asked you to drop trou?) and it isn't required by any Eastern religion that I'm aware of. I'm fairly sure you guys would be outraged by any religion that required cutting bits off infants for any other reason.

The fact that we've being doing something for a long time isn't enough of a reason to keep doing it. Since they're no compelling health reason, I would go against mutilation. Let people decide at, oh, around 14 or so if they want to go through with the procedure and stop mutilating the unconsenting.

Thanks, Jim, but I'd like to see the original study, for several reasons. First, is it conceivable the SF AIDS Foundation might possibly have some obscure agenda? I'm thinking yes.

And I'm sorry, but African nations' belief in the propriety of a policy doesn't cut much ice.

Last, and most to the point, the assertion doesn't make obvious sense. Why would circumcision affect the rate of contracting HIV? I'm not saying it's impossible, but rather that the mechanism is not apparent. Can you help with clearing this up? Thanks.

Why would circumcision affect the rate of contracting HIV? I'm not saying it's impossible, but rather that the mechanism is not apparent. Can you help with clearing this up? Thanks.

Two reasons I can think of...

1. Having a peice of your dick cut off interferes with sexual function or appetite.

2. The vast majority of the circumsized men selected were Muslim.

An interesting comparison: imagine if something comparable were done to girls. The rafters of heaven would shake with the uproar from feminists bleating about the "patriarchy."
You mean like the way NOW protests Mulsims doing this?

Posted by: steve at March 31, 2009 8:48 AM

He stole my thunder. Thanks steve

1. Having a peice of your dick cut off interferes with sexual function or appetite.

A botched circumcision could obviously have this effect, but it's difficult to imagine so many were botched as to have an effect.

Here you go, Jay - happy reading.
Articles for and against. Basically, arguments are based on stats so .....
However, the mechanism seems to be that the virus can lie under the foreskin.
As to an obscure agenda by the AIDS foundation. For the life of me I can't think of one, even a crazy one.
Fink AJ. A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS [letter]. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1167.
Carael M, Van de Perre PH, Lepage PH, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission among heterosexual couples in Central Africa. AIDS 1988 2:201-205.
Hrdy DB. Cultural practices contributing to the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in Africa. Rev Infect Dis 1987;9(6):1109-19.
Surick I, McLaughlin M, Chaisson M. HIV infection and circumcision status. [New York City Department of Health, NY, NY, USA.] Int Conf AIDS, Montreal, June 4-9 1989, 5:113 [abstract TAP89].
Poland RL. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Eng J Med 1990; 322:1312-1315.
Guimaraes M, Castilho E, Ramos-Filho C, et al. Heterosexual transmission of HIV-1: a multicenter study in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. VII International Conference on AIDS. Florence, June 1991 [abstract MC3098].
Hooykaas C, van der Velde FW, van der Linden MM. et al. The importance of ethnicity as a risk factor for STDs and sexual behaviour among heterosexuals. Genitourin Med 1991; 67(5): 378-83.
Runganga A, Pitts M, McMaster J. The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience. Soc Sci Med 1992;35(8):1037-42.
Pépin J, Quigley M, Todd J, et al. Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer diseases among male sexually transmitted disease patients in The Gambia. AIDS 1992;6:489-493.
Barongo LR, Borgdorff MW, Mosha, FF, Nicoll A., Grosskurth H, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in urban areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6:1521-1528.
O'Farrell N, Hoosen AA, Coetzee KD, van den Ende J. Sexual behaviour in Zulu men and women with genital ulcer disease. Genitourin Med 1992;68(4):245-8.
Brown JE, Ayowa OB, Brown RC. Dry and tight: sexual practices and potential AIDS risk in Zaire. Soc Sci Med 1993;37(8):989-94.
Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al. Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23:371-380.
Malamba SS, Wagner HU, Maude G, et al. Risk factors for HIV-1 infection in adults in a rural Ugandan community: a case-control study. AIDS 1994;8:253-257.
Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JE, Ndinya-Achola JO, Nagelkerke NJ, and Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sex Transm Dis 1994;21:201-210.
de Vincenzi I, Mertens T. Male circumcision: A role in HIV prevention? AIDS 1994;8:153-160.
de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of ]human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. N Engl J Med 1994;331(6):341-6.
Kault DA. Modelling AIDS reduction strategies. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:188-97.
Runganga AO, Kasule J. The vaginal use of herbs/substances: an HIV transmission facilitory factor? AIDS Care 1995;7(5):639-45.
Dallabetta GA, Miotti PG, Chiphangwi JD, et al. Traditional vaginal agents: use and association with HIV infection in Malawian women.AIDS 1995;9(3):293-7.
Grosskurth H., Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9(8):927-934.
Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. Impact of improved treatment of sexually transmitted diseases on HIV infection in rural Tanzania: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1995;346(8974):530-6.
Guimaraes MD, Munoz A, Boschi-Pinto C, Castilho EA. HIV infection among female partners of seropositive men in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro Heterosexual Study Group. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142(5):538-47.
Sandala L, Lurie P, Sunkutu MR, et al. 'Dry sex' and HIV infection among women attending a sexually transmitted diseases clinic in Lusaka, Zambia. AIDS 1995; 9 Suppl 1:S61-8.
Civic D, Wilson D. Dry sex in Zimbabwe and implications for condom use. Soc Sci Med 1996;42(1):91-8.
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1996;154(6):769-80.
Storms MR. AAFP fact sheet on neonatal circumcision: Need for updating. Am Fam Physician 1996;54;1216,1218.
Marck J. Aspects of male circumcision in sub-equatorial African cultural history. Health Transition Review 1997; 7:357-59.
Gresenguet G, Kreiss JK, Chapko MK, et al. HIV infection and vaginal douching in central Africa. AIDS 1997;11(1):101-6.
Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997;277:1052-7.
Nicoll A. Routine male neonatal circumcision and risk of infection with HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted diseases. Arch Dis Child 1997;77:194-5.
Kaul R, Kimani J, Nagelkerke NJ, et al. Risk factors for genital ulcerations in Kenyan sex workers. The role of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Sex Transm Dis 1997;24(7):387-92.
Ntozi JPM. Using circumcision to prevent HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: the view of an African. In: Health Transition Review (Australia) 1997;7 Supplement:97-100.
Dezzutti CS et al. Mechanisms of HIV Transmission through Epithelial Cell Barriers. 12th World AIDS Conference. Geneva, June/July 1998 [abstract 278/32124].
Kun KE. Vaginal Drying Agents and HIV Transmission. Fam Plann Perspect 1998;24(2):93-4.
Fleiss PM, Hodges FM, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human prepuce. Sex Transm Inf 1998;74:364-7.
Tanne JH. US has epidemic of sexually transmitted disease. BMJ 1998;317:1616. (Link to www.bmj.com)
Foxman B, Aral SO, Holmes KK. Interrelationships among douching practices, risky sexual practices, and history of self-reported sexually transmitted diseases in an urban population. Sex Transm Dis 1998;25(2):90-9.
Baleta A. Concern voiced over "dry sex" practices in South Africa. The Lancet 1998;352:1292.
Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU International 1999;83 Suppl. 1:93-103.
Lee-Huang S, Huang PL, Sun Y, et al. Lysozyme and RNases as anti-HIV components in beta-core preparations of human chorionic gonadotropin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 (Mar 16);96(6):2678-2681.
La Ruche G, Messou N, Ali-Napo L. Vaginal douching: association with lower genital tract infections in African pregnant women. Sex Transm Dis 1999;26(4):191-6.
Van Howe RS. Circumcision and HIV-infection: meta-analysis and review of the medical literature. Int J STD AIDS 1999; 10: 8-16.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics 1999;103(3):686-693.
Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect 1999;75(1):3-17.
Van Howe RS. Neonatal Circumcision and HIV Infection. In: Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. George C Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges, Marilyn Fayre Milos (eds). New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999. (ISBN 0-306-46131-5)
Beksinska ME, Rees HV, Kleinschmidt I, McIntyre J. The practice and prevalence of dry sex among men and women in South Africa: a risk factor for sexually transmitted infections? Sex Transm Infect 1999;75(3):178-80.
Brady M. Female genital mutilation: complications and risk of HIV transmission. Aids Patient Care STDS 1999;13(12):709-16.
Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo NK, et al. Relative risks and population attributable fraction of incident HIV associated with symptoms of sexually transmitted diseases and treatable symptomatic sexually transmitted diseases in Rakai District, Uganda. Rakai Project Team. AIDS 1999;13(15):2113-23.
Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, et al, for the Rakai Project Study Group. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodefficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 921-29.
Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC, et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda. Rakai Project Team. AIDS 2000;14(15):2371-81.
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000.
Auvert B, Ballard R, Campbell C, et al. HIV infection among youth in a South African mining town is associated with herpes simplex virus-2 seropositivity and sexual behaviour. AIDS 2001;15(7):885-98.
Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Brookmeyer R, et al. Probability of HIV-1 transmission per coital act in monogamous, heterosexual, HIV-1-discordant couples in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet 2001; 357: 1149-53.
Hill G. Misuse of the AIDS epidemic to promote male circumcision. BMJ 2001 Rapid Responses. (20 May).
Grulich, AE, Hendry O, Clark E, et al. Circumcision and male-to-male sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS 2001;15(9):1188-1189.
Bonner K. Male circumcision as an HIV control strategy: not a 'natural condom'. Reprod Health Matters 2001;9(18):143-55.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Egger M, Low N, Weiss H, Walker S, Deeks J, Williamson P. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Protocol for a Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003.
Position Statement on the Use of Male Circumcision to Limit HIV Infection. San Anselmo, California: NOCIRC, 2001.
Sauve N, Dzokoto A, Opare B, et al. The price of development: HIV infection in a semiurban community of Ghana. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002;29(4):402-408.
Changedia SM, Gilada IS. Role of male circumcision in HIV transmission insignificant in conjugal relationship (abstract no. ThPeC7420). Presented at the Fourteenth International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-12, 2002.
Gisselquist D, Rothenberg R, Potterat J, Drucker E. Non-sexual transmission of HIV has been overlooked in developing countries. BMJ 2002;324:235.
Brewer DD, Brody S, Drucker E, et al. Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm. Int J STD AIDS 2003;14:144-7.
Gisselquist D, Potterat JJ, Brody S. Let it be sexual: how health care transmission of HIV was ignored. Int J STD AIDS 2003;14:148-61. [PDF file]
Gisselquist D, Potterat JJ. Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa: an empiric estimate. Int J STD AIDS 2003;14:162-73.
Brody S, Gisselquist D, Potterat JJ, Drucker E. Evidence of iatrogenic HIV transmission in children in South Africa. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;110:450-2.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J, Egger M, Low N, Weiss H, Walker S, Williamson P. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003. Oxford: Update Software.
Brody S, Potterat JJ. Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa. Int J STD AIDS 2003;14(7):431-6.
Position Statement on the Use of Male Circumcision to Limit HIV Infection. San Anselmo, California: NOCIRC, 2003.
Boyle GJ. Issues associated with the introduction of circumcision into a non-circumcising society. Sex Trans Inf 2003;79:427-8.
Hill G, Denniston GC. HIV and circumcision: new factors to consider. Sex Trans Inf 2003;79:495-6.
Dave SS, Johnson AM, Fenton KA, et al. Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. Sex Trans Infect 2003;79:499-500.
Moore DM, Hogg RS. Trends in antenatal human immunodeficiency virus prevalence in Western Kenya and Eastern Uganda: evidence of differences in health policies? Int J Epidemiol 2004;33(3):542-8.
Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA. Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population. Abstract no. TuPeC4861. Presented at the XV International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004.
Baeten JM, Richardson BA, Lavreys L, Rakwar JP, Mandaliya K, Bwayo JJ, Kreiss JK. Female-to-male infectivity of HIV-1 among circumcised and uncircumcised Kenyan men. J Infect Dis 2005;191:546-553.
Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, et al. (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2:e298. [Full Text]
Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Hodges FM. HIV Infection and circumcision: cutting through the hyperbole. J R Soc Health 2005;125(6):259-65.
Richters J, Smith AMA, de Visser RO, et al. Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS 2006;17:547–54.
Garenne M. Male circumcision and HIV control in Africa. PLoS Med 2006;3(1):e78.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC HIV/AIDS Science Facts: Male Circumcision and Risk of HIV Infection: Implications for the United States. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 23, 2006. (PDF)
Mills J, Siegfried N. Cautious optimism for new HIV/AIDS prevention strategies. Lancet 2006;368:1236.
The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcion, 2007.
Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, Roberts Jr JM. Male and female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:217–26.
Deuchert E, Brody SA. Lack of autodisable syringe use and health care indicators are associated with high HIV prevalence: an international ecologic analysis. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17(3):199-207.
Deuchert E. Brody S. Plausible and implausible parameters for mathematical modeling of nominal heterosexual HIV transmission. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17(3):237-44.
de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007 (Published on line ahead of print March 4).
Talbott JR. Size matters: the number of prostitutes and the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. PLoS ONE 2007;2(6): e543. [Full Text]
Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007;15(29):33-44.
Millet GA, Ding H, Lauby J, et al. Circumcision status and HIV infection among black and latino men who have sex with men in 3 US cities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007;46(5):643-50.
Green LW, McAllister RG, Peterson KW, Travis JW. Male circumcision is not the HIV ‘vaccine’ we have been waiting for! Future HIV Therapy 2008;2(3):193-9. doi:10.2217/17469600.2.3.193 [Full Text]
Sidler D, Smith J, Rode H. Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates. S Afr Med J 2008;98(10):762-6.
Myers A, Myers J. Rolling out male circumcision as a mass HIV/AIDS intervention seems neither justified nor practicable. South Afr Med J 2008;98(10):781-2.
Connolly C, Simbayi LC, Shanmugam R, Nqeketo A. Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: Results of a national survey in 2002. S Afr Med J 2008;98(10):789-94.

Okay, let's get this in perspective. Starting from first principles, faced with a newborn child, is your first thought to cut part of his penis off? Well, no, it isn't is it? Why on earth would anyone look at a sweet newborn child and immediately want to operate on them?

The argument then comes that it is "nearly painless"; whether true or not (and it's untrue, for the record), the same would be said of amputating toes in a newborn, and that doesn't actually hold up as a pro-toecumcision argument. You're still stuck with the question, "But why cut little Billy's toes off?"

Now it's disappointing to see Moonbattery fall for moonbat statistics. Circumcision was introduced in America as a "hygeine" measure by progressive moonbats like doctor Kellog, moonbat extraordinaire. It was supposed to stop boys masturbating. There was a myth that it would prevent syphillis- the AIDS of its day. It was part of the progressive obsession with everything hygeine- colonic hygeine (still practised by moonbats today via irrigation), racial hygeine (need I say more?), the sanitation movement, etc- an absurd progressive hysteria about cleanliness in places cleanliness don't reach.

So today, that transmogrifies into Kellog's spiritual descendents in the medical profession cooking up statistics that claim that it prevents HIV. Really. Think about that. Are you circumcised? Would you feel comfortable having unprotected sex with an AIDS-raddled whore?

Of course you wouldn't. Even if it changes the statistical odds (and the studies, being moonbat studies, are profoundly unreliable), that doesn't alter the fact that you stop transmission by physically blocking it, or, better still, not having sex with people with AIDS- and ultimately you need a cure for the damned disease. Chopping off part of some African guy's dick then telling him he won't get AIDS is grotesque in the extreme. Would you tell your circumcised sons that theyre safe from AIDS? Of course you wouldn't.

So what are you left with? An ancient tribal ritual, revived and secularised by insane nineteenth century progressive moonbats, and conservatives standing up supporting it. This makes no sense. Circumcision is the moonbattery here. Conservatives ought to be opposing it!

These are your childrens' genitals. For heaven's sake, leave them alone!

Also Van, I'd check who you're using as an expert-

Brian Morris

"As well, Brian Morris is interested in the application of medical research findings to lifestyle and dietary modifications for prevention of disease. This includes optimal 'healthy' diet, exercise, avoidance of drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc), and the promotion of male circumcision (www.circinfo.net). He instigated several very successful national symposia on life extension in 2002 and 2003 and this theme has been extended by others leading to the International Conference on Healthy Ageing and Longevity (ICHAL) in 2004, 2005, 2006, and beyond, involving the top names in the field internationally. He is closely associated with the organization and promotion of these conferences."

The man's got moonbat right through him like a stick of Blackpool rock.

Wouldn't passing a law forbidding surgery of the willie also outlaw transgenderizations?

Well, transgenderism is a different issue. Depends whether it's a physical malady or a psychological delusion, I guess. And whether surgery is the best "curative".

But I think the point about circumcision is it's done as a matter of routine (and as pointed out in the article linked, the only western nation where it's done routinely is the USA, none of the rest of us do). It's basically a lifestyle choice, and as such inappropriate to impose on an infant. Nobody has their babies transgendered as a parental choice, and no doctor, even a moonbat one, would do such surgery at the parents' request.

A botched circumcision could obviously have this effect, but it's difficult to imagine so many were botched as to have an effect.

I was thinking more along the lines of a fresh, adult circumsizion.

"...it isn't required by any Eastern religion that I'm aware of..."

Anonymous at March 31, 2009 2:38 PM

Ummm, Muslims? You know, those friendly folks? Yep. They're cut.

Besides, why should anyone care about this? We don't have more serious and pressing matters to attend to? Really? This is why they spent money to go to DC? To protest CIRCUMCISION?

I could suggest a surgery for some of these people that would eliminate them from my gene-pool...

From Jim : "Sorry, folks, a study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised. After following the men for a year, the researchers found that for every 10 uncircumcised men in the study who became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, only an estimated three circumcised men contracted the virus, the newspaper reported. "

Um, are you saying that of 3,000 adult non-circumcised men, ALL 1,500 of them who (say) drew the odd numbers responded to "now we're gonna take a little off the top down there." with "OK."? If the grammatical reading of that is the intended reading, I don't believe it. In real life, a significant number of those men would decline to make the cut. Making the population a selected one, invalidating the study.

If, INSTEAD, they (say) picked them PRE-Circumcised - as seems somewhat more likely - the population is also a selected one, invalidating the study.

You would have to control for OTHER possible criteria which could affect the results - which a strict foreskin present/not present only comparison fails to do.

Hell, as an example (at least in the US), you would have to control for the factoid that lower family income levels corresponds with greater chance of being uncircumcised. At the least that increases the likely-hood of less medical access, and also makes it significantly more likely that condoms are a financial burden rather than an insignificant cost. So you'd get correlation, sure. But causation? Nope.

There may always be something new coming out of Africa re : AIDs, but it ain't always something useful or true. Can anyone remember the name of that African head-of-state who advocated having sex with female virgins as a CURE for AIDs?

Well, it was widely believed in Victorian times that having sex with a virgin was a cure for syphillis, which partly explains the demand for child prostitutes. This kind of voodoo just doesn't seem to go away.

It's almmost funny. You have taken the words of Morris - just about the nuttiest pro-circumcision fettishist on the planet - as a sign that the protesters were kooks, and the words of the 2 newest intactivists - the hippie hunger strikers - as a representation of a worldwide movement of compassionate doctors and parents and human rights activists.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. No national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. HIS body HIS decision.

Anon leave those voices in my head alone. I was raised Catholic and was circ'd as an infant and have not suffered any ill effects. So much for your Jewish analogy.
It's the parents right to have their newborn circumsized if they wish.They probably do it for health reasons if not religious as well. Since when do parents not have the right to do what they think is best for their child?
This procedure is done with the boy's best interests in mind. As far as girls that is a mute point considering that in Western countries it is well known that the clitoris is not circumsized so your argument is lame. As well with other parts of a child's body. It boils down to the rights of the parents doing what they think is best for the baby and circumsision is hardly a life altering event.

Since when do parents not have the right to do what they think is best for their child?

Er, when they start chopping bits off them at random?

There are reasonable limits on what parents may do to children. Conservatives and even most libertarians (including myself) agree on this. A parent may not for instance have sex with their children, nor murder them. Those are extremes. But grievous bodily harm of your child is against the law too; and if your next door neighbour were savagely beating and torturing their infant I suspect you'd intervene just as much as I would. There are limits.

To argue that whatever a parent thinks best is okay has to have some limits. Muslim parents think clitoridectomy is the Right Thing To Do to their daughters as well, but we in the west rightly are horrified by this practice. Circumcision is an unnecessary operation, which is at least potentially harmful (occasional boys are damaged beyond repair) and, being irreversible, is certainly a life altering event. Why not leave your son to decide for himself? Why the rush to get it done before he can?

The USA is the only modern western nation that does this operation routinely. The rest of the western world gets along fine with intact foreskins. Doesn't it at least strike you as strange that America alone has this fascination with foreskin amputation? Don't you wonder why God, or evolution, whichever you prefer, put it there in the first place?

As I said above, the mania was started by progressive "health" lunatics; the same people pushing abortion and eugenics and all the other nastiness of the early Left Wing. They made it "the norm" but conservatives of all people should be asking whether they want to be following this procedure imposed by such an awful bunch of crazies. Conservatives are proud to fight to protect infants from the abortionist. It's entirely consistent to want to protect the bodies of newborns in the same way.

So Ian you're saying my parents were evil for having me circumsized?
If that's the case then stuff it in your ass. My parents have always done what they thought was best for myself and my sisters. We are all grown and have lives of our own but still love our parents for all the sacrifices they made for us when we were growing up. You're entitled to your own opinion and I understand that circies are not the norm in Europe but in case you haven't noticed this was a protest in the US.
As well,there was a case in Raliegh Nc where a mother wanted to get her 13 year old son circumsized because he was always getting infections and being taunted at school. According to his mother he is a clean kid but with the extra foreskin was still getting infections. So much for an unnecessary procedure,right?

Ian I almost forgot this little tidbit. Muslim girls are circumsized because the muslim faith believes that women should not enjoy sex,they are to bear children only. I seriously doubt that a muslim mother wants to have her daughter go through the procedure but since women are treated like cattle she has no say in the matter.

Regardless of your feelings about circumcision, it's always a blast to see leftists, decidely pro-abortion, bleating about a baby's right to choose, as if parents don't regularly make decisions regarding their children's health without consulting them first.

Read this, get informed, make your own decision.

A while back, I read an article about female "circumsion" (ie. genital mutilation) in Africa. The comments thread quickly turned to a bunch of these nitwits complaining about their lost manhood from having themselves been circumcised.

Any "man" comparing his "loss" to what those unfortunate women have gone through is among the most pathetic of creatures on this earth.

Thanks for the core dump, but here's the part I was interested in:

However, the mechanism seems to be that the virus can lie under the foreskin.

To be clear, we're talking about the incidence of HIV in men who are uncircumsized, not their partners, right? If so, then those men are apparently contracting HIV/AIDS through unbroken skin. Doesn't that run counter to current thinking re the transmissibility of the virus?

"Circumcision is the unnecessary mutilation of an unconsenting infant with a (very small) risk of life-altering injury. I'm against it for the same reason I'm against female circumcision or foot-binding."

So I guess no teeth braces or immunizations for your kids until they reach age of consent at 18, right?

Farmer Ted said: "I was raised Catholic and was circ'd as an infant"
- - - - -

That's odd because the Church's policy since 1442 has been that circumcision "cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

-Cantate Domino, affirmed by popes through the centuries.

MO said:
"I guess no teeth braces or immunizations for your kids until they reach age of consent at 18, right?"

- - - - -

Kinda silly, since those are medically recommended, and are not permanant pleasure-reducing amputations. Good luck on the analogies section of the SATs.

No national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision.

Ron,
I guess it's too late to reverse the process huh? Plus my dad being a devote Catholic probably would have been told by the priest this is a no-no,right? Also being born in America may have something to do with it.

And, for the record, circumsizion has dropped dramatically in the US since the 80s.

So Ian you're saying my parents were evil for having me circumsized?

No, they no doubt did what they thought was right, under advice from doctors and that circumcision was the "norm". But that doesn't actually make it right.

As well,there was a case in Raliegh Nc where a mother wanted to get her 13 year old son circumsized because he was always getting infections and being taunted at school.

"Getting taunted at school"? For what, the infections, or being uncircumcised? Kids will usually taunt others for what they percieve as different. Again, doesn't make it right. I'm not a doctor and can't comment on why he'd be getting infections. But a foreskin isn't "extra". It's the normal organ he was born with. Was the foreskin actually causing infections, or was it some other medical problem? I don't know, and neither do you. But living in a non-mutilating country, such a problem would appear to be rare since our hospitals aren't full of kids with diseased penises.

I seriously doubt that a muslim mother wants to have her daughter go through the procedure but since women are treated like cattle she has no say in the matter.

In fact, in female-mutilating areas, the operation is approved of by women who think it is normal and good for them. That's how these cultural practices sustain themselves. People can think the weirdest things are normal if they've been done for long enough.

Point is, we're all very sensitive about our genitalia. The penis is a source of pride for a guy, and none of us would like the idea that there is something wrong with our own. So if you've been circumcised, you're obviously going to say "Hey, nothing wrong with ME" and then you're going to pass the ancient pain ritual down another generation onto your own sons.

But just stand back and think about it. Why on earth is the damned thing there if it needs surgical removal? Does that make any sense? Would such a source of disease, if it were so, ever have evolved? Doesn't the fact that it acts as a retractable covering for sensitive tissue give a clue as to why it's there?

As I've said above, this convention was introduced by a bunch of nutty moonbats something over a century ago, primarily to try to counter the imagined scourge of masturbation. And we know why religious people do it; it's a cultural practice that developed in ancient Arabia as a pain ritual (test of manhood). It has no medical benefit. Whether it is actually harmful arouses fierce arguments on both sides. But the default position is to leave your child's body intact, the way God intended he be. Turning every healthy baby boy into a surgical patient at the start of his life just makes no sense.

That South African study doesn't sound correct to me.
Black cultures in South Africa require that boys be circumcised, long before they get to 18 yrs of age, it is a ritual that they perform as a sign of going into adulthood.
Does this mean that they used white men only for their 'study'?
That would have been the only one's that would have been uncircumcised at that age.
Strange study, seeing that HIV/AIDS is a lot more prevalent amongst black SA men than white SA men.

By the way, I find it hilarious that a lady (above here in the comments) compared circumcision to the painful ritual of binding little girls feet or cutting of a baby's toes.
Even stranger, than the SA study.

Actually it was me (a guy) that suggested cutting off babies' toes. While footbinding is a severe and painful thing, if you amputated a baby's little toe, there'd be no lasting pain or disability. Nonetheless, most people would be appalled by the idea of doing that for no reason.

Footbinding does present an illustration, though, of the bizarre practises that can become normalised in a society. Loving parents subjected their daughters to that terrible ritual, and chinese men found the mutilated feet highly attractive. One of the arguments circumcisers use is surveys showing that American women find circumcised penises more attractive. It's hardly surprising if that is what they are used to seeing and consider it normal, as with footbinding.

Ultimately, the operation should be an elective choice like any other "body mod". If a man above the age of majority would prefer it, nobody would prevent them any more than other modifications which are quite popular among some parts of society at the moment. But it should be a choice of the body's owner. It's rather like tattoos. An adult of course can choose one. If my child wanted one, I'd be inclined to tell them to wait until they're 16 and making their own choices in life. But I certainly wouldn't tattoo a baby.

^^ I guess it's too late to reverse the process huh? ^^

Of course not. 200,000 men are undoing much of the damage with non-surgical foreskin restoration.

^^ my dad being a devote Catholic probably would have been told by the priest this is a no-no, right? ^^

Unless the priest was ignorant - like most Americans - of the official policy of the Holy Roman Church. The Philippines is the only other country where Catholics circumcise, but they do it mostly after puberty.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.