Fridae

Ouch. Using a condom has to be better than genital mutilation any day.

If people actually sit down and read the research, you'll find that mostly the results are not statistically significant, so if circumcision does have an effect, it's only minimal. Many of the studies showing a protective effect are known to be scientifically flawed, and there are many studies showing the opposite effect. Overall, anyone espousing circumcision to reduce the rate if HIV infection is not looking at the full picture. Condoms, for example, have a much greater effect if reducing transmission so we would be much better off promoting widespread condom use.

You can call it genital mutilation if you wish, but that is just a PC emotive label like "patriarchal" or "colonial" or "sexist' or "racist". The truth is, it is the best small operation you can have to improve the look, feel and taste of your dick. I would not do anyone who was uncut.

hey, I am a new dad, gay and part Jewish so circumcision was a given for my son . .. the girl I accidently got pregnant who is Chinese thought it to be cruel and usual punishment, but I still slipped the doctor some RMB at the Song Qing Ling Hospital and forced it to be done .. . his penis looks great and I think he will thank me greatlly one day when I am grey and old . . . hopefully he will use it wisely

Circumcision or otherwise, condom is tbe best protection against HIV and other sexual related diseases.

When I come across pro- and anti-circumcision debates, I often get the feeling that people seem to have some personal stake in this matter, and are desperate to win this argument in order to recruit more numbers into their respective camps.

We forget one important thing: people who demand circumcision are actually demanding THE RIGHT TO MUTILATE OTHERS, not themselves. Shouldn't that make us tread a little more cautiously? Shouldn't the person who is actually going to be mutilated and affected have some say in this matter?

What if medical research showed that having four fingers instead of five reduced the incidence of some kind of disease? Or that our ears attracted too many bad bacteria? Would we rush just as eagerly to get our children's fingers and ears chopped off ? Or would we think that perhaps those decisions were best left to the person who would actually be affected?

Why do some parents rush so desperately to get their child mutilated, as if it is some kind of contest that they simply must win? What is the problem in allowing the child to take his own decision regarding circumcision when he is old enough? Some cultures indeed have adult circumcision, as a rite of passage into manhood.

Why not allow the child to find out what it feels like to have a foreskin? Aren't parents being selfish in forever depriving the child of an opportunity to see and feel the foreskin that was actually very much a part of his body before they got it hacked off without consulting him? How will the child know the difference if he never had a foreskin for comparison?

I saw a video on YouTube, of a baby being circumcised. The baby appeared traumatised and in terrible agony as the doctor took his own sweet time stretching and loosening the foreskin, cutting through with a pair of scissors and then cutting all around to remove the foreskin.

Aren't there less painful ways of doing it? Perhaps with local anaesthesia? Or is that dangerous?

There are indeed some physical conditions in which it is a good thing to get circumcised. One is "phimosis", where the foreskin is so tight and narrow at the tip that it is very hard to push it back, and therefore the person simply cannot have sex without extreme discomfort. Circumcision in this case will certainly improve the person's sex life, while not having it done could lead to adverse effects. This again will become apparent when the child gets older, and not so much as a baby.

Perhaps we need to stop and wonder if nature had a good reason for providing the foreskin. And also, perhaps we should give the affected person the opportunity to take his own decision when he is old enough.

hmmmm well I like em cut on fair skin men dark men look good uncut but really if Gay males in this day arn't using rubbers then they're just 'skanky queers'

Is it the case that in all the trials & studies carried out that the people involved in these tests had sex with either male or femail partners without condoms? If not, how can the results be relevent to a true comparison. Are they saying that people have been put at risk to try to prove that a forskin is more likely to harbour HIV, or is it just speculation? how do they set about a study if the subject is wearing a condom
Bryan of Ealing (UK)

HIV NOT CAUSE AIDS
and pls don't use poppers,
don't do bareback

U want to cut my foreskin then, you'd have to kill me first. From a purely personal sexual asthetic & practical level, I find most uncut, equivalent to a mutillated, dried out sausage, that needs ample lubrication of yr choice, to even get it moving & some of the butchered knobs I've seen, aka USA guys, leaves me wanting to possibly swap sides & go to a moist vaginal entrance ! Use protection & HIV should not be an immanent threat. As for an Uncut preference, that's my personal taste but advocating widespread mutilation, in the name of HIV prevention I'd say ultimately, this should be, medical evidence aside, a matter of personal choice & not medico or government legislative dictate, telling me, that my foreskin is a potential threat to the global spread of HIV. Protect thyself.