The most weird or stupid news story you heard today.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

That's the first time I've heard that.

From the World Health Org

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/maleci.../en/index.html

[knight_shadow]

Interesting.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Interesting.

I first heard about it just a couple of months ago. It was in an article about a HIV/AIDS prevention group trying to spread the practice of circumcision in Africa.

[Alumiyum]

Never heard that before, interesting.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

But what is the risk, here? How many of these procedures have mishaps, out of the who knows how many performed every day? I guess my take is, is it really that big of a deal? Were there an equivalent surgery for females (that basically everyone in the country has done, is safe) I don't think I'd feel any differently.

Would you support removing the clitoral hood if everyone did it? Or is it just because everyone does it that you have no problem with it. What if every female infant got a nose job, no anesthetic, low risk of complications. Would that be ok? Why is that different?

What if it was removal of the ear lobe or cutting some skin between the toes?

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Well the same can be said for circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS. Ultimately I don't think the gov should make circumcisions illegal, It should be up to the parents no matter what their reasoning is or isn't.

Circumcision does provide protection for heterosexual males when it comes to HIV/AIDS, however nothing like being vaccinated does/would. And condoms in the US are more effective and generally affordable, unlike in Africa. And heterosexual males are not our biggest concern with the spread of AIDS as it is in Africa.

Parents are not circumcising their children with HIV in mind. Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily, but we can't pretend that it's not a weird cultural thing that we're doing here.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Parents are not circumcising their children with HIV in mind. Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily, but we can't pretend that it's not a weird cultural thing that we're doing here.

So we should make it illegal then????

Don't mistake me for being pro or anti circumcision because I could really care less and I believe it's the parents choice. I'm taking issue solely with the fact that they want to make it illegal.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Would you support removing the clitoral hood if everyone did it? Or is it just because everyone does it that you have no problem with it. What if every female infant got a nose job, no anesthetic, low risk of complications. Would that be ok? Why is that different?

What if it was removal of the ear lobe or cutting some skin between the toes?



Circumcision does provide protection for heterosexual males when it comes to HIV/AIDS, however nothing like being vaccinated does/would. And condoms in the US are more effective and generally affordable, unlike in Africa. And heterosexual males are not our biggest concern with the spread of AIDS as it is in Africa.

Parents are not circumcising their children with HIV in mind. Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily, but we can't pretend that it's not a weird cultural thing that we're doing here.

As I said, I don't think I'd object to a comparable operation. A nose job IMO is more complicated and certainly more risky, with a longer recovery time. That isn't a good comparison. I don't know if the clitoral hood is a good comparison. Would that have the same result? Would it be less painful, and would the recovery time be the same? The same goes for an ear lobe, or cutting skin between the toes, especially as neither of those even have hygiene as a weak defense. But I suppose that no, I wouldn't object to that either were it comparable on the amount of pain, recovery time, risk, etc. and if it were something almost everyone in America chose for their children.

Basically, if it's a societal norm with little risk of negative effects (both physically and mentally), I don't see the big deal.

[Drolefille]

I disagree with the idea that just because it is a societal norm it should be acceptedas it is. Or that elective procedures should be encouraged and socially supported just because they always have been. If an adult male wanted to be circumcised that's one thing, but encouraging surgery on infants - with generally little to no anesthetic - feels wrong in any context. Although there can be both physical and mental side-effects, those are secondary to the overall discussion.

And no, PIKA2001, I didn't say it was inherently wrong, just the opposite, and I never said it should be illegal. I did say it's a tricky issue and one that most people don't actually look at closely because it's been accepted as the norm for so long in this country. Even though that makes us fairly strange world wide.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I disagree with the idea that just because it is a societal norm it should be acceptedas it is. Or that elective procedures should be encouraged and socially supported just because they always have been. If an adult male wanted to be circumcised that's one thing, but encouraging surgery on infants - with generally little to no anesthetic - feels wrong in any context. Although there can be both physical and mental side-effects, those are secondary to the overall discussion.

And no, PIKA2001, I didn't say it was inherently wrong, just the opposite, and I never said it should be illegal. I did say it's a tricky issue and one that most people don't actually look at closely because it's been accepted as the norm for so long in this country. Even though that makes us fairly strange world wide.

Some things shouldn't be accepted as societal norms. This doesn't feel like one of those things. I don't believe it's a big deal, personally.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Some things shouldn't be accepted as societal norms. This doesn't feel like one of those things. I don't believe it's a big deal, personally.

Ultimately I don't have an opinion as I don't have a penis, nor do I have children with penises. I'm too far removed. But enough people with penises have objected to it that it is worth reviewing, particularly as the actual individuals involved are too young to speak for themselves for quite a long time.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ultimately I don't have an opinion as I don't have a penis, nor do I have children with penises. I'm too far removed. But enough people with penises have objected to it that it is worth reviewing, particularly as the actual individuals involved are too young to speak for themselves for quite a long time.

I've just never heard a guy complain about being circumscribed (and yeah, you'd be surprised how many times that topic has come up in conversations where I and other females are present...my friends are odd). And since it doesn't really hurt anything...

[Drolefille]

Driver kills kid, sues parents

HARTFORD, Conn. — A driver who's serving a manslaughter sentence for striking and killing a 14-year-old boy is suing the victim's parents, blaming them for their son's death because they allowed him to ride his bike in the street without a helmet.

Matthew Kenney's parents, Stephen and Joanne, sued 48-year-old driver David Weaving shortly after he was sentenced last year to 10 years in prison, accusing him in Waterbury Superior Court of negligence and seeking more than $15,000 in damages.

Weaving, who has a history of drunken driving convictions, responded months later with a handwritten countersuit accusing the Kenneys of "contributory negligence." He's also seeking more than $15,000 in damages, saying he's endured "great mental and emotional pain and suffering," wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and the loss of his "capacity to carry on in life's activities."

Weaving has five drunken driving arrests since the late 1990s on his record, four of which resulted in convictions. He was not charged with drunken driving in the Kenney case.

The Kenneys say Weaving's license should have been permanently revoked in 1999 under state law because of the multiple convictions. They're seeking permission from the state claims commissioner to sue the Department of Motor Vehicles and its commissioner, Robert Ward.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I've just never heard a guy complain about being circumscribed (and yeah, you'd be surprised how many times that topic has come up in conversations where I and other females are present...my friends are odd). And since it doesn't really hurt anything...

They do exist, louder since the internet came out. And some do claim negative effects (not side-effects) including reduced sensation. There are actually foreskin restoration procedures, though I have no knowledge of how effective they are.

Is a lack of obvious harm a default approval for the procedure? Again, the clitoral hood would be a similar piece of skin for females, and among other things, it protects the clitoris from being constantly in contact with other objects - the body, clothes, etc. It is claimed that men with foreskins are more sensitive than those without due to the glans being protected from constant contact. Are men without foreskin incapable of sex? Of course not. But it's an example of harm that is neither obvious nor easily quantifiable.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They do exist, louder since the internet came out. And some do claim negative effects (not side-effects) including reduced sensation. There are actually foreskin restoration procedures, though I have no knowledge of how effective they are.

Unless a man was circumcised as an adult and could compare his sex life in a before and after way, how would he know that he has reduced sensation due to circumcision?

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

They do exist, louder since the internet came out. And some do claim negative effects (not side-effects) including reduced sensation. There are actually foreskin restoration procedures, though I have no knowledge of how effective they are.

Is a lack of obvious harm a default approval for the procedure? Again, the clitoral hood would be a similar piece of skin for females, and among other things, it protects the clitoris from being constantly in contact with other objects - the body, clothes, etc. It is claimed that men with foreskins are more sensitive than those without due to the glans being protected from constant contact. Are men without foreskin incapable of sex? Of course not. But it's an example of harm that is neither obvious nor easily quantifiable.

This isn't the sort of thing that's proven, which means it's mostly based on anecdotal evidence...even if it were factual, though sensation would be a consideration, is it really that big of a difference? It could be argued that dulling sensitivity could lead to longer sex sessions which some people prefer. There are all kinds of arguments surrounding that issue. I still don't see the big deal, personally, that's all.

I don't have a penis, but wouldn't it be worse to have the operation at 18?