Circumcision
 

Cuts HIV transmission rates in half, apparently. So says WHO spokesman Kevin de Cock.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1971526,00.html

Fantastic :p

just read the same article on orf.at! great!

Good that they've discovered a way to reduce the risk, but surely if the same sort of study was done in a more developed country the results might be different because of different safe sex practises.
If a man chooses to get circumcised it is his own decision, but hopefully people won't see the results of this and start circumcising all infants again (something which is in decline, even in the US I believe) because health factors or no it should be their own decision, when they are old enough to understand and make it.

good name for someone who is a circumcision propagandist....de COCK :))

You would notice this :p

I sent this along to my 2 sons. Even in this country this is not a standard practice anymore, though there are plenty of parents that still request to have it done. The most frequent argument that I've heard is that they don't want their boy to look different than his Dad. :roll:

Kathleen

It was the sole reason i started the thread!

not sure what you mean by that

that's a good argument :D

circumcision is actually supposed to reduce the risk of most sexual diseases. but then again, it's not the middle ages anymore. in the mid-time, most states are are secular, most such diseases can be cured with a handful of antibiotics and condoms have been invented. why are parents even allowed to decide in this matter? i think it's residuals of a long gone barbaric world. if at all, then the boy/young man should decide something like this when he is old enough. I am just thinking of the poor little girls in some African countries who are havong their clitoris removed so they don't get to cheat on their husbands one day. in what sense is circumcision better? oh...it's done in a hospital. and that's it already.

so le me get this right

in the US its like almost certain males get circumcised

i think it would hurt and too much hassel

That is quite possibly the worst excuse because it is bringing our cultures obsession with looks to the level of performing cosmetic surgery on a baby. One of the other reasons that I heard of it being so popular in the USA was as a way to stop teenage boys from masturbating, and that was strongly advocated by John Harvey Kellogg.

Surely though if a study of this sort was done on men who kept themselves clean, didn't have multiple partners and used condoms then the results would be vastly different. Seems the results of this study were only published as a way to further promote this mutilation of infants as a good thing.

On that note at least I did see this recently

http://www.yoursdaily.com/world_news...tal_mutilation

I was just teasing you about noticing the name Florin - not being mean.

This whole genital mutilation thing drives me crazy. Imagine yourself a parent for the first time with all the protective instincts that go with it. You would do anything to defend that baby. And then you hand this days old human being to the doctors and allow them to cut off a very sensitive part of the body - with no anesthesia. Personally I think it's barbaric too.

And I find it hard to talk about female genital mutilation. Don't those stupid, shortsighted men realize that if she doesn't enjoy it enough to cheat - she won't enjoy it with her husband either. Assholes.

Kathleen