American men being "cut" increases their attraction to women whenever Americans show up in a foreign country. What was said in Britain when the USA invaded 1941-1944?

Over-paid, over-sexed and over-here. British guys just couldn't get anywhere because of all the Yanks and their circumcised penises.

It's the same in any country Americans are stationed. lol! Women just love the novelty. lol!

DAJB
I've never understood why it's always assumed that a teenage boy's bedroom would be equipped with a lifetime's supply of vaseline.

That always puzzled me as well. Aren't you glad to know now?

bravo1102
American men being "cut" increases their attraction to women whenever Americans show up in a foreign country. What was said in Britain when the USA invaded 1941-1944?

Over-paid, over-sexed and over-here. British guys just couldn't get anywhere because of all the Yanks and their circumcised penises.

.....

Yeah sure... and I suppose it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers had access to luxury items that were otherwise unavailable in their war torn country.

Also, I noticed that my attractiveness scale went from "average Joe" to "dead sexy" while I was living in UK. Maybe it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence?

Logicaly having a cut penis wouldn't have anything to do with having a lot of sex in other countries, when you think about it the women wouldn't know it's cut untill they've seen it and by then they've already decided to have sex with the American.

The reason is exactly what product placement said.

Also, at what DAJB said about hand lotion:
Eww, I never actually thought of it like that, that's kinda gross.

Product Placement

bravo1102
American men being "cut" increases their attraction to women whenever Americans show up in a foreign country. What was said in Britain when the USA invaded 1941-1944?

Over-paid, over-sexed and over-here. British guys just couldn't get anywhere because of all the Yanks and their circumcised penises.

.....

Yeah sure... and I suppose it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the soldiers had access to luxury items that were otherwise unavailable in their war torn country.

Also, I noticed that my attractiveness scale went from "average Joe" to "dead sexy" while I was living in UK. Maybe it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence?

Spoken like a true stiffed European. ;) Considering how long US personnel were posted in Iceland I am sure you felt the hit too.

As for nylons and meat? (as in the stuff from cows and such) That just got the foot in the door. The rest was simple American charm and that uncircumcised penis. lol! I work in a senior home, I've seen a great deal of women with foreign accents who are widowed war brides. I never knew.

Conversely English, Scottish, Irish and Aussie accents work like a charm on this side of the water. The result depicted in Love Actually is as not far off the mark as you'd think. Even if you're a native-born American who has a talent for dialects. ;)

bravo1102
As for nylons and meat? (as in the stuff from cows and such) That just got the foot in the door. The rest was simple American charm and that uncircumcised penis.

And the lack of competition, of course. The prime of European manhood was already out of the country fighting when the US soldiers were over here. (And had been for some years *cough!*)

bravo1102
Conversely English, Scottish, Irish and Aussie accents work like a charm on this side of the water. The result depicted in Love Actually is as not far off the mark as you'd think. Even if you're a native-born American who has a talent for dialects. ;)

Yup - I think the accent is a far more reasonable explanation than the lack of a foreskin. And far less painful to acquire!

bravo1102
Spoken like a true stiffed European. ;) Considering how long US personnel were posted in Iceland I am sure you felt the hit too.

As for nylons and meat? (as in the stuff from cows and such) That just got the foot in the door. The rest was simple American charm and that uncircumcised penis. lol! I work in a senior home, I've seen a great deal of women with foreign accents who are widowed war brides. I never knew.

Just for your information. Back when the war was ravaging Europe, Iceland was an equivalent of a third world country. Many of the products that the Brits and later on, the Yanks brought over, Icelanders had never experienced before and yes, nylon was one of those. We were an isolated country that considered nice flavored food a luxury items.

And just like I mentioned, British troops were here before the Americans and they'd received the same kind of attention. Before that, around the 19th century we were occasionally visited by French sailors. Neither democratic had circumcised penises and that didn't stop women from visiting their bunks. Funny enough, I'm reminded that we have a word for a whore which is "mella". It is derived from the French word "melle", meaning "miss". Women who frequently slept with French sailors were addressed as Melle "insert name" by them. The title stuck with those women and a new curse word was created.

I'm not as stiffed as you may think but the American occupation during WWII is an embarrassing topic among many Icelanders who were alive to witness it. The men were faced with the problem of there being roughly 100.000 Icelandic men, 100.000 Icelandic women and 100.000 US soldiers. It was called "the situation". For a long time the women who "betrayed" us by sleeping with the occupation force were branded. Called "Kanamella" or "Yankeewhore". I'm married to an American and a friend of mine, who's married to one as well, jokingly call each other that. We also jokingly claim to others that we're importing all the beautiful women from America as a revenge for "the situation". Now our ladies don't seem to mind the two of us uncircumcised at all.

Even more of topic since you got me started.... I hold no grudge against the occupation. Some may do so, most don't. Back then we didn't want to know anything about what was going on outside our shores. The war didn't concern us because we were neutral. The reasons why were because foreign countries had hurt us immensely as a nation in the past. We were proud people reduced to a shadow of what we once were by starvation and massive robbery of wealth. The occupation brought many improvements to our country. Opened our eyes to what was happening abroad. Showed us the harm of staying isolated. By the end of the war when the army left, we were faced with the decision of staying hidden or go out in the world. We choose the later. We invited the US army back and joined international treaties and brought our country up to date. My father was born in a turf house. That's a building made mostly from the ground that surrounds us. He was raised without electricity, running water, tv or phone. The only way to reach his home was by horse.

I argue that the greatest winner of the war were us.

bravo1102
Conversely English, Scottish, Irish and Aussie accents work like a charm on this side of the water. The result depicted in Love Actually is as not far off the mark as you'd think. Even if you're a native-born American who has a talent for dialects. ;)

Hmm... Sounds to me that I have to un-americanize my accent again. Let's see..... I can pull of English, maybe Irish....

I have to agree that this fact about American men surprised me greatly, too. I was always under the impression that circumcision is a religious matter only.

As for health, I don't think one can count on having or not a circumcision. I think to ensure good health you need to wash often and not sleep around more than field mice or doves.

The AIDS argument is a flawed one honestly, even if it DOES have a slight chance of reducing the spread of AIDS let's have a look at the amount of infected in America where circumcision is prevelent. It's 12.8 per 100,000 population. Take note this is actually much higher then most other western countries including Canada, UK and Australia where circumcision is not well practiced. 0.8, 1.4 and 0.9 respectively.

http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm [avert.org]

A slight chance of protection clearly isn't helping you any, and certainly doesn't stop any other STDs or pregnancy. So who cares if lopping off the foreskin can by a small chance prevent AIDS, the fact is if your in a position where you could get that you could get something else nasty anyways. And it really doesn't matter if you have the foreskin or not once you stick a condom over it.

Also the bacteria everyone seems to like talking about, according to my research can be stopped with simple hygiene of pulling back the foreskin and cleaning it. Something which frankly cut men should be doing anyways, minus pulling back the fore skin obviously.

It really should be the decision of the person who's penis it is, pure and simple. You wouldn't like it if someone took one of your kidneys out without permission, I mean yes you can live with one kidney, but it's a part of your body, it should be your choice what bits get cut off or have holes put in them and foreskin being removed is very permanent.

The way I see it, if you don't want to wash down there reguarly, then get it cut. Otherwise it really isn't a drama if you show the proper care you should be giving it. Perhaps parents should say "Don't forget to wash behind your foreskin" as well as ears.

As for it being the social norm in the US, only way that is going to change is if people don't do it. Now I have an American boyfriend, he's cirumcised, I'm not(I'm also an Australian just to clarify). I don't really care that he is, but he loves the fact I'm not. Maybe it's the whole exotic thing some people are going on about, I know he's obsessed with my accent.

I think honestly there's people who like unusual things their not used to and those who like things to be what they are used to. I really don't think not being circumcised is going to affect an American guy THAT much, unless he feels the need to tell his partner on the first date, but your penis is generally not a first date topic.

Shade
"Don't forget to wash behind your foreskin"

I'm sorry but I never want to hear my mom say that to me.

Otherwise I agree with your statement that it should remain the decision of the individual in question.

Product Placement

Shade
"Don't forget to wash behind your foreskin"

I'm sorry but I never want to hear my mom say that to me.

Otherwise I agree with your statement that it should remain the decision of the individual in question.

Well that was more to just inject a little humor, I'm horrible at being perfectly serious. Though the point is that's really something you should know and have as part of your hygiene regime. There really is no excuse to have bacteria growing under there unless your living in a country without running water.

Shade
The AIDS argument is a flawed one honestly, even if it DOES have a slight chance of reducing the spread of AIDS...

Sorry, WRONG. 60% is NOT "slight".
And I'll keep on coming back to this because when people refute this they're going against scientific evidence. - THREE recent large scale RANDOMISED tests in Africa have shown a SIXTY PERCENT decrease in transmission rates following a program of circumcision.

The U.N. and World Health Organisation support these finding and use them as part of their campaign against the disease along with condom usage (which of course is the best protection), and anti virals.

If you want to go into your fatuous reasoning about U.S. transmission rates you'll have to also go into the TYPES of transmission in the U.S. - Intravenous drug use being a big one. The homosexual community unfortunately experience much higher transmission rates too. Circumcision helps to majorly (so extensive studies TELL US) cut down transmission during vaginal penetration. Anal penetration is not the same thing, there's no self lubrication there and there's always a much greater risk of opening small wounds so Circumcision isn't likely to provide nearly as much protection in this case.

I'm sorry to have to go into detail but it seems people don't understand these very simple concepts.

Debate is fine but sophistry and flat out denial of major scientific studies is plain moronic.
-------------------------

I could care less about people's opinions of dick-cheese, aesthetics, and squeamishness regarding genitals and circumcision. The back and forth opinions there are nothing but entertaining. But I get tired of silly attacks on facts and science.

If it's not fluoride, it's Obama's birth place or 911 being an inside job. -_-

Shade
Well that was more to just inject a little humor.

Don't worry. I knew you were joking. I was just carrying on with it by pointing out the disturbance of having your parents tell you these things.

And to Oz: While these studies may say that circumcision helps cutting down HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse it is only one way. From women to men. I fully agree with Shades statement that when it comes to such serious disease, I wouldn't care that circumcision helps protect me in 60% of the cases, I'd prefer using a protection that protects me in 99% of the cases. Now, people in African countries that don't have the same availability to medicine and health care like people in the western world in addition to suffering from staggeringly high numbers of HIV transmission should use every form of protection they could get their hands on. Circumcision sounds like a logical choice to them. That being said it is their decision to do so. They choose to undergo the procedure in order to protect themselves. I feel like this discussion should focus now on whether or not circumcision on infants should be acceptable or not.

The human body is a delegate device. Removing some part of it should be a personal decision as long as the individual is not being threatened by it. An appendix and tonsils are frequently removed as a precautionary method to prevent possible complications related to them as they are considered redundant. Tonsils offer protection from bacterial infections as long as it's healthy and now I'm reading about the appendix being a haven for intestinal bacteria that protects them during intestinal infections and thus contribute to stabilizing the digestive tract faster. Bottom line, I consider it wrong to remove it just to be on the safe side. If my appendix becomes inflamed and my tonsils start to swell to the point that it makes eating and breathing difficult then of course they should be removed since I can easily live without them but it remains my decision. It should not be up to my parents or other care givers to decide whether or not parts of my body should be removed while it's still perfectly healthy and functional. The same comes to my foreskin. Whether or not my children will be born in the states or not I can ensure you that I will not impose such rule on them. It is their decision to make.

Ozoneocean-- actually, I discovered that those three studies that you pointed out had a lot of major problems with it that makes the validity questionable. The same with the whole cervical cancer thing.

the whole bit about the foreskin supposedly causing cervix cancer in women? Apparently the study couldn't help but point out that most of the women who got cervix cancer was sleeping with multiple panthers, just not one man. In fact, most women who often get it usually got it from becoming sexually active at a early age and by having more more than one casual fling. which is another no-brainer... if you contract the STD which specifically causes cancer... then it wasn't the men's penis which caused your cancer, they got it from being sexually active.

“Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.” “The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sex partners.” Penile warts which are caused by a virus have been linked to cervical cancer. Studies have been conducted to compare the frequency of cervical cancer in countries where most men are circumcised to countries where most men are intact. The results showed no significant difference. Many case/control records in the U.S. demonstrated no difference in cervical cancer incidence in women with intact or circumcised partners."

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/ [cirp.org]

The hypothesis that cervical cancer is caused by smegma of the male foreskin was invented in 1954 by Wynder. His study was found to be invalid, because most of the cervical cancer patients in his study incorrectly reported that their husbands were uncircumcised. These women had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. They gave the answer they thought the doctor wanted to hear. Wynder later recognized and admitted the error in 1960.3 This hypothesis was formally and scientifically disproven in 1962 by Stern.4

The known etiologies of cervical cancer are: early onset of sexual activity, number of sexual partners, smoking, and the presence of HPV.27 Based on currently available evidence, it would be mistaken to suggest an association between cervical cancer and the presence of the foreskin in the male partner.

It is now clear that the major risk factors for both penile cancer and cervical cancer are the use of tobacco,22,31 which spreads carcinogens throughout the body via the bloodstream, and the presence of the human papillomavirus,35 which is communicated through sexual activity.

Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile cancer were false and mislead the medical community for decades.34 Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer in men and it does not prevent cervical cancer in the female partner.

However, phimosis, or a non-retractile foreskin, is a risk factor in adult males who are sexually active, because a non-retractile foreskin is more difficult to clean. There are many non-traumatic, non-distructive methods for conservative effective treatment of phimosis available to the male with phimosis. Circumcision is neither required nor recommended to treat phimosis. Cancer may form on the circumcision scar.16,24

A new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine offers protection against both penile and cervical cancers.64 Fear of cancer cannot be used to support the practice of male circumcision.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/ [cirp.org]
And this covers what you so falsely believe:

A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.

Unfortunately, this subject has received an unbalanced treatment in the popular and scientific press. For example, in February 1996, Scientific American printed an article by two Australian researchers, JC Caldwell and P Caldwell, based on the apparent correlation between HIV infection and non-circumcised populations in Africa. Their retrospective analysis did not examine any patients. Furthermore, de Vincenzi and Mertens (AIDS, 1994) had, two years previously, criticized the design of such studies;17 and although this fact was pointed out in at least two letters to the editor, the magazine chose to edit the letters severely for publication. The Caldwells were also allowed a rebuttal that did not address the criticisms. See the original complete (unpublished) Fleiss and Hodges (1996) and Falk (1996).

In one recent study, Baeten et al.75 reported a small increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition in intact vs. circumcised truck drivers in Kenya. This study followed a cohort of 745 long-distance truck drivers. Subjects self-reported their sexual behavior at quarterly intervals over a 1–2 year period. Commonly reported behaviors included multiple partnerships, failure to use condoms, and contact with prostitutes. This study concluded that circumcision status "may explain the rapid spread of the HIV epidemic in settings, found throughout much of Africa, in which multiple partnerships and a lack of male circumcision are common."

Baeten et al. estimated that the rate of HIV-1 infection amongst prostitutes frequented by working-class men in Kenya is 60-65%.75 During the course of the study, 43 of the 745 men experienced seroconversion to HIV-1. It is important to point out that HIV can be prevented through several known very effective means, such as condom use, and limiting exposure to multiple partners. Rather than advocating universal circumcision (as some have done), it would be more appropriate to advocate better public health education in African countries regarding these issues.

Self-reporting is an unreliable means of collecting data on sexual behavior. For instance, Baeten et al.75 relied on self-reporting of sexual behavior in a group of 745 truck drivers in Kenya. This study was designed to investigate female-to-male HIV transmission. Over the study duration, none (0) of the subjects reported having had a sexual contact with another man. As this is rather implausible, given the size of the study group, studies based on self-reporting must be seen as questionable at best.

Demographic assumptions. Many of the African studies did not directly verify the circumcision status of the study subjects. The circumcision status was guessed based on tribal or religious affiliation. Without actually examining the patients to determine their circumcision status, obviously, it is impossible to get valid results.

Statistical significance. Most of those studies that claimed a positive correlation between circumcision and reduced HIV incidence had a small sample size. If there had been only a small number of misclassifications of circumcision status (Demographic assumptions), the results of those studies are not statistically significant.

Publication bias. Studies claiming a positive link between circumcision and reduced HIV incidence are more likely to be published than studies that found no correlation. Publication bias is a common phenomenon across the medical literature: Studies finding a positive result are "more interesting" to journals and therefore more likely to be published. Publication bias unfairly distorts the true significance of circumcision vis-à-vis HIV infection.

"Dry sex." Studies from Zimbabwe,9,19,25 Zaire,13, Malawi,20 Zambia,26 The Central African Republic,30 and South Africa40,46 have documented the popular practice of drying and/or tightening the vagina by various methods of douching and/or application of leaves and powders to absorb the vaginal lubrication. Dry sex is a pervasive practice in sub-Saharan Africa. This practice is purported to increase sexual pleasure.

Reports indicate that dry sex dramatically increases HIV infection risk. Several reports document that dry sex causes various problems with condom usage.19,20,26 Dry sex is associated with an increased report of STDs in men.48 Several studies report increased HIV incidence among women.9,13,30,39 Vaginal dryness is associated with increased lesions,13 lacerations,19 peeling of the vagina,25, chlamydial infection,43 and epithelial trauma in both male and female,13 thus creating a portal of entry for HIV.

Because of this increased risk, dry sex is an obvious confounding factor in any study of HIV seroconversion vs. circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa. However, all of the approximately forty existing studies have ignored this potential confounding factor.

Genital ulcer disease (GUD). Genital ulcer disease, endemic in parts of Africa, is a very strong risk factor for HIV infection.10,12,17,35 Pépin reported that HIV positive males often have pre-existing genital ulcers of an untreated STD other than HIV.10 It is believed that these lesions may provide an entry point for the HIV virus. O'Farrell found that Zulu men with bleeding genital ulcers often continue to have sexual intercourse with women, including prostitutes.12 Kaul et al. reported on the prevalence of GUD in female sex workers in Kenya, noting that many prostitutes continue to work despite having the disease.33 Therefore, the presence of GUD becomes a significant confounding factor in any study that attempts to make meaningful conclusions about the relationship between circumcision status and HIV susceptibility.

Female circumcision. Hrdy identified female circumcision as a possible contributing factor to the spread of HIV in 1987.4 Brady has done the same in 1999.49 However, the effect of female circumcision, common in parts of Africa, on the reception and transmission of HIV has not been studied. Not one study (as far as we are aware) has been done to determine the effect of female circumcision on HIV transmission/reception; although more than 40 African studies of the effects of male circumcision have been carried out. All existing studies of the effects of male circumcision on HIV transmission/reception (as far as we are aware) lacked controls for the effects of female circumcision. Female circumcision is a potential confounding factor of unknown magnitude in the study of the effects of male circumcision on HIV transmission/reception. No published studies control for female circumcision.

Cross-cultural comparisons. Since circumcision status is a cultural marker,6 circumcising and noncircumcising tribes may differ markedly in cultural mores, sexual behavior and in other ways.17 These and other such confounding factors make meaningful cross-cultural comparisons essentially impossible.

Viral load. Recent studies report that viral load is a major factor in the transmission of HIV.50 51 This is in itself a major confounding factor.59 Most studies of HIV infection failed to control for viral load.59 68

High Risk populations. Many of the African studies used unrepresentative high-risk sample populations, such as clients of prostitutes, or visitors to a sexually-transmitted-disease clinic. Unfortunately, such groups do not represent a balanced sample of the population in terms of sexual behavior, general health and other factors.

Male-to-female transmission. Two studies report that partner circumcision is a risk factor for female sero-conversion.21 23

Psycho-cultural factors. The AIDS researchers who propose that circumcision can prevent HIV transmission are overwhelmingly, white, male, and the products of English-speaking nations where male circumcision was once the usual practice. Females are seldom, if ever, represented. Male researchers from nations that do not practice male circumcision are usually not amongst those who advocate circumcision to prevent HIV transmission. There are few, if any, South American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, European, or Scandinavian males amongst those who advocate male circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.

In a comparison of studies performed by European vis-à-vis those performed by white male English-speaking researchers, the studies by white male English-speaking researchers have been more likely to report a protective effect for male circumcision. In the absence of another logical explanation for this effect, it is possible to conclude that the circumcision status of the researcher(s) may influence the conclusions of their studies.67

Male circumcision is common in North America, but uncommon in most of Europe. In a survey, Laumann reported that 77% of adult American men were circumcised.31 Goldman explains why doctors from circumcising cultures may tend to overstate the purported benefits of circumcision.41

The body evolved into what it is, for a reason. You go lopping pieces off, you are destroying functions and protections that were supposed to be there.
And the appendix is not a good example of an extraneous body part.
WASHINGTON - Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.
IMHO, it should be done as a consenting adult, doing it to babies is wrong.

Aurora Moon
Ozoneocean-- actually, I discovered that those three studies that you pointed out had a lot of major problems with it that makes the validity questionable. The same with the whole cervical cancer thing.

Sorry Aurora, but that info is not applicable ;)
You're referring to OLD data there. These studies are far more recent than that:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html [who.int]

I put that link up before... I said many times it was RECENT data, I don't think you guys listen to news or facts or fallow links...Ugh. And Product Placement too lol!

Despite what YOU guys "falsely" believe, the studies speak for themselves. The point isn't whether you will get any benefit from what you find so squeamish, your own situation is irrelevant, the point is whether is procedure has any proven medical benefit, it turns out that it does and I'll thank you to acknowledge that.

if it helps I DO agree that, in countries where they cannot maintain personal hygiene on a regular basis, that circumcision then can be a great help in curbing the spread of diseases. After all, the Data does point out that it's very good in that respect.

However my main concern is the Africans. Especially the south Africans. did you know that many of the men in South Africa actually believe that having sex with an virgin actually cleanses them of sexual diseases such as STDS, HIV and aids? this has caused an alarming climb in the rates of infant rape.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aids-virgins.htm

Added to that, however, is the rumor in parts of Africa, including large portions of South Africa, that having sex with a virgin will cleanse a male of AIDS. The Johannesburg city council conducted a three-year study of about 28,000 men. They found that 1 in 5 believed in the virgin-AIDS cure. The fallout from that is a rise in assaults of women and children, some of whom contract AIDS themselves.

Of particular alarm has been the rise in infant rapes. Not all researchers blame that on the virgin-AIDS cure myth, but they believe it has contributed to it. The rape of the nine-month-old by six men in Upington at the end of 2001 enraged many South Africans. That was followed by the discovery of a seven-month-old who had been raped and left for dead in a suburb of Capetown in November, 2001. There have been other high profile cases since.

so if they're stupid enough to believe some urban myth by an witch doctor to the point of actually harming an baby like that....

then they might just think that the 60% rate automically makes them SAFE from the spread of AIDs/HIV, giving them a free pass in continuing harmful practices such as:

Studies from Zimbabwe,9,19,25 Zaire,13, Malawi,20 Zambia,26 The Central African Republic,30 and South Africa40,46 have documented the popular practice of drying and/or tightening the vagina by various methods of douching and/or application of leaves and powders to absorb the vaginal lubrication. Dry sex is a pervasive practice in sub-Saharan Africa. This practice is purported to increase sexual pleasure.

Reports indicate that dry sex dramatically increases HIV infection risk. Several reports document that dry sex causes various problems with condom usage.19,20,26 Dry sex is associated with an increased report of STDs in men.48 Several studies report increased HIV incidence among women.9,13,30,39 Vaginal dryness is associated with increased lesions,13 lacerations,19 peeling of the vagina,25, chlamydial infection,43 and epithelial trauma in both male and female,13 thus creating a portal of entry for HIV.

Because of this increased risk, dry sex is an obvious confounding factor in any study of HIV seroconversion vs. circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa. However, all of the approximately forty existing studies have ignored this potential confounding factor.

in which circumcision won't be much help against.

I have to agree with P.P... I'd rather have them go with 99% prevention than 60% prevention.

if men there learned how to use condoms and other methods of safe sex, then being circumcised or uncircumcised wouldn't matter much.

They also need to learn how to let go of such unsafe sex practices like their "dry sex" method.

ozoneocean

Shade
The AIDS argument is a flawed one honestly, even if it DOES have a slight chance of reducing the spread of AIDS...

Sorry, WRONG. 60% is NOT "slight".
And I'll keep on coming back to this because when people refute this they're going against scientific evidence. - THREE recent large scale RANDOMISED tests in Africa have shown a SIXTY PERCENT decrease in transmission rates following a program of circumcision.

The U.N. and World Health Organisation support these finding and use them as part of their campaign against the disease along with condom usage (which of course is the best protection), and anti virals.

If you want to go into your fatuous reasoning about U.S. transmission rates you'll have to also go into the TYPES of transmission in the U.S. - Intravenous drug use being a big one. The homosexual community unfortunately experience much higher transmission rates too. Circumcision helps to majorly (so extensive studies TELL US) cut down transmission during vaginal penetration. Anal penetration is not the same thing, there's no self lubrication there and there's always a much greater risk of opening small wounds so Circumcision isn't likely to provide nearly as much protection in this case.

I'm sorry to have to go into detail but it seems people don't understand these very simple concepts.

Debate is fine but sophistry and flat out denial of major scientific studies is plain moronic.
-------------------------

Well fine I'm sorry I said slight then, clearly that was a misinformed choice of word given the current evidence. It has a high chance and I accept the fact it's been proven, but it's honestly redundant once you have the condom on. Which if there's even a slight chance of any disease most of which aren't affected by circumcision you should have it on if even having sex at all.

I'm not refuting the evidence, I'm questioning the practicality of it when quite frankly the issue should never turn up during safe sex. Just because something is proven doesn't mean it's practical.

I'm well aware of the differences between anal and vaginal penetration, but unless your seriously suggesting forgoing established safe sex procedures because of it the 60% is moot. I'd think the same even if it was 75% or even 99%. As said before in African countries it does become more practical but even there they can choose based on evidence like everyone else and it's a good thing they have the option.

Now if you want to be on the safe side and have it done just in case, that's your decision but to do it to infants to me just seems wrong. They have no idea what's going on, they can't exmaine the evidence, they can't make an informed choice based on the evidence.

freefall_drift
And the appendix is not a good example of an extraneous body part.
WASHINGTON - Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

Uhm... I didn't use the appendix as an example of extraneous body part. I was making the same point that you just made. Am I writing my points in a hard to understand manner?

ozoneocean
I don't think you guys listen to news or facts or fallow links...Ugh. And Product Placement too lol!

Are you trying to be rude? I base my comments on everything that I read about this matter, including these studies that you posted.

So I thought you based your arguments on Langerhans cells. Can you blame me? That's what I've been reading about before jumping into this discussion. You eventually posted your links and I posted mine. If you check, both studies were released around similar time. Study refuted previous claim that circumcision protected you from HIV infection.

I've mentioned several times myself that your study admits that no efforts was made into checking how male circumcision affected HIV transmission from men to women.

Tougher skin or not, condoms offer better protection. That's a fact that you have to agree on.

And finally, my involvement in this argument was originally to discuss whether or not it is right to impose circumcision on infants.

ozoneocean

Shade
The AIDS argument is a flawed one honestly, even if it DOES have a slight chance of reducing the spread of AIDS...

Sorry, WRONG. 60% is NOT "slight".
And I'll keep on coming back to this because when people refute this they're going against scientific evidence. - THREE recent large scale RANDOMISED tests in Africa have shown a SIXTY PERCENT decrease in transmission rates following a program of circumcision.

This is an honest question, Ozone, as I have not ever looked into the effects of circumcision on the spread of AIDS or any STD at that, but the researcher in me has to ask: is this 60% decrease noted with sexual behavior being held constant? I mean, these people participating to the program, did they continue having as much sex as before the circumcision? And these people who got circumcised, were they HIV positive? (that would be kind of shocking and unethical, considering that they'd have to be HIV carriers and watch them spread the thing around instead of stopping them from bedding unknowning women. Or were they healthy chaps who slept around with HIV positive women?)

What I am saying is, have they managed to control for confounding variables so that the only independent variable is the circumcision, and the only dependent variable the contamination?

This is a real question. Not an effort to prove or refute a thing.

I think it's fucked up to do that to babies.

It's even MORE fucked up that they can turn what's been lopped off into FACE CREAM!

Imagine if it accidentally went in your mouth! THAT'S FUCKED UP! FUCKED UP TO THE FUCKING HIGHEST FUCKING FUCKED UP LEVEL FUCKING EVER! FUCK THAT!


That thing over, it's serious time.
I live in a country that has an uncut majority. The whole idea that institutionalised body modification of minors can exist in a first-world country just for aesthetic reasons repulses me. I'd never do that to any boys I might raise in future. If a girl/boyfriend complains about it my lad shouldn't be with such a spoiled brat that wants everything bloody PERFECT otherwise they'll jump off a bridge. And I DEFINITELY don't want my grandkids getting it done. I'll sleep next to the crib with a loaded GUN if need be... And if I can find somewhere that'll sell a gun to someone with noted psychological problems...

That noted, I could possibly be with someone cut... If he agrees that it's the choice of the child and not the parents. It'd be kinda hypocritical of me not to if I loved someone cut. Stuff out of my control caused me to have to wake up every day eighteen plus years on with a bloodstained bra. I can't control gravity or the temperature of boiling hot tea anymore than he can control the minds of doctors.

Now I've stayed away from the religious implications of circumcision (specifically speaking, the Jewish bris) because I understand the futility of arguing against it, being from an outside faith. I'd be shot down for not understanding and being discriminative against them. That being said, I find this discussion to be interesting.



This man dislikes circumcision even more then me.

Hmm... Kind of funny, but very interesting. In America, most states you find, guys will have already been circumcised. Donno about women though...

I hardly pay attention to it much though. besides, I went through it at a very young age :p.

I would actually prefer being circumcised as I prefer to be able to pe without that fold of skin getting in the way. Apperently, bacteria likes to accumulate there aswell.

You know you can roll that back when you pee. And bacteria only accumulates there if you don't wash it.

BffSatan
You know you can roll that back when you pee. And bacteria only accumulates there if you don't wash it.

yeah, that apparently only happens if you left it unwashed for over a month. Seriously, who does that?

bravo1102
Conversely English, Scottish, Irish and Aussie accents work like a charm on this side of the water. The result depicted in Love Actually is as not far off the mark as you'd think. Even if you're a native-born American who has a talent for dialects. ;)

I have a friend who used his deep voice and very British accent to bed a large amount of american girls during his year studying over there. Another weapon was his uncut penis, having generally not seen one before many girls were happy to accept a show and tell at drunken student parties, and to "help" when they were offered the chance to see it in its "other" state.

Not having a penis, I am not so sure where I stand on this argument, but I have researched on a practical level as much as I have been able. I don't think there is a vast aesthetic difference, depending on the severity of the circumcision or the size of the foreskin in uncut specimens. There is almost a crossover between those of less harse circumcisions and those uncut and less blessed in foreskin quantity. I have to admit, that I didn't notice my ex was cut until we had been at it like rabbits for nearly a week, and I'm not *that* unobservant (maybe if I had seen more of it "at rest" *shrugs*)

That said, the glans is an internal organ, particularly in prepubsescent boys, and I would be concerned about how that might affect them. If you ever see a baby circumcision happening, it is quite alarming how the foreskin has to be forced away from the glans.

The best protection from AIDS and HPV is to use a condom. This is proven and far higher than any of the stats produced about circumcision. If you are not sure your partner is disease free, the fact that they are cut is NOT and excuse to have unprotected sex, ever, not at all, oh no, absolutely not.

And a dirty infected knob is still dirty and infected whether it has the extra bit to wash or not.

Puff_Of_Smoke
I would actually prefer being circumcised as I prefer to be able to pe without that fold of skin getting in the way.

What, you think it covers the hole? The skin doesn't get in the way. And like Bff said, you don't need to worry about bacterial infections as long as you bother to clean yourself. I mentioned before that the underside of the foreskin creates antiseptic fluids that accumulate over time. If allowed to drastically build up it could loose its bacteria killing properties and become growth centers for those little buggers. A person without foreskin looses the ability to create that fluid at the head of the penis.

There's allot of debate whether or not foreskin is good for you. I tend to claim that it's better to keep it. You could claim that I base my opinions on the fact that I still have it but I'd argue back that allot of pro-circumcision research seem to come from countries that practice trimming their johnsons while con-circumcision studies are done at places that don't. One might think that the scientists are influenced somehow, hm?

Shade
Perhaps parents should say "Don't forget to wash behind your foreskin" as well as ears.

Incidentally, if I ever have a son, I shall be using this.

i would be a terrible mother ;)

I read the book "God is not Great" a while ago (& not just to piss off my mother) & it had a whole chapter on circumcision. Because it's so normalized here, people accept it as a morally ambivalent thing to do- "Well, I'm circumcised and I work just fine" etc.

There is only one plus side to circumcision that I can think of, inspired from a Savage Love column a while back; a girl wrote in complaining that her uncircumcised boyfriend got pee stuck in the foreskin, and it tasted gross when she gave him blow jobs (she was asking the proper etiquette for this situation). Ew. But as others have mentioned, if he just takes proper precautions...

And there are too many reasons why not to. The case of David Reimer, Yes, I am an avid Savage Love reader.

Another reason: why do something just because tradition tells you to? It reminds me of that parable: a little girl is learning how to prepare a traditional family dish, and her mother tells her to use the square casserole dish. She asks, "Why?" and the mother says, "Because that's how my mother taught me." And the little girl goes to her grandmother and asks, "Why?" and she says, "Because that's how my mother taught me." And she goes to her great-grandmother and asks, "Why?" and the old woman says, "Because the other casserole dish was dirty."
Ok, I just botched up paraphrasing that, but you get the point.

Incidentally, all other arguments aside, I cannot imagine how any parent could stand aside and let someone do this to their child, let alone ask them to.

If you are of a delicate disposition, you don't want to watch this http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/circumcision-video.html