by Scott77 24 Replies latest social current
| So, unless you are too poor to pay for condoms (and in a gambling mood), have a medical issue, or have a mutilation fetish, going under the knife sounds like a crappy option... | |
| eric356 |
@eric356 , Non applies to me at all. It was a just a discussion issue to get other's perspective. So you are against it? Were not Jesus as well as Timothy circumcised before? Is there any signficant different as to sexual potency or performance for a circumcised versus those not circumcised?
Scott77
Circumcised or not, you should wear a condom regardless. Being circumcised isn't a 100% guarantee against sexual diseases.
@Broken Promises , Thanks for the comment but still, more was needed to answer the questions raised.
Scott77
As an atheist, I don't really find it relevant whether a religious character was circumcised or not. Even if I was a believer, how is that relevant unless one is Jewish or Muslim?
In regards to the reduced infection transmission rates, some context is needed. Research seems to indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the transmission of certain STDs among intact vs. circumcised males. (There are certain criticisms of the methodologies, but let's ignore that) It is important to note that this is a relative difference. As Broken Promises said, being circumcised is not a 100% protection, not even close. It is "safer" RELATIVE to the control, not absolutely "safe". One must also understand the situation in Africa to appreciate why some medical researchers and organizations advocate and fund mass circumcisions in the region. Disease is rampant, and condom use is often attacked by groups such as the Catholic church and other right-wing religious groups. Circumcision is fairly cheap, and the RELATIVE difference in infection rates can be significant when millions of people are concerned. When you're at the end of your public health rope, even modest gains are valuable.
That said, there is a cultural undercurrent to these recommendations. As I said, female "circumcision" has the same reduced STD transmission effects as the male version. However, I've never seen a Western medical group or researcher advocate mass female circumcision. Why not? Because it's not culturally acceptable in the West, whereas male circumcision is. The Gates Foundation et al faces no blowback by funding this research, whereas if they were calling for female circumcision there would be a huge outcry in the West (but not in certain Islamic or African circles). So really, if these large scale public health affects are somehow important to you as an individual, then why the discrepancy?
Living a first world country with access to sanitation, condoms, vaccines, and regular checkups there is no reason to alter your own or anyone else's genitals. Any tiny advantages immediately raise the question: if you or your child was female, would you even be asking the question?
According to research there is no appreciable difference in sexual performance between intact and circumcised males. I would imagine the the variation from individual to individual is greater than the difference between the two groups. Those who claim one or the other is vastly superior to the other are usually fetishists.
eric356, very excellent arguement.
Scott77
