Its summer once again during this times some things remind me. Flying kites, going to the beach, picnics. But there's one thing familiar that i noticed during this times. Little children getting circumcised. It may be not done and practiced on some parts of the world but in my country(Philippines) are being maintained. All the children undergo on this surgery.
As i watched on the group of children waiting for their turn. Line by line different emotions from the looks for their face. Some are similing somewhat a little excited, some are obviously scared and crying. Some are comparing their organs to who are ready(palos) and have cleaner penis.
To some reactions when the surgery is going on. Other kids are crying when the needle is injected with anesthesia. Some are crying because of the fear that their penis is cutted off. Other's were calm and steady especially ages 16 above.
After all the slicing and stitching at last your penis looks differently and permanently changed now. And can finally say that im a grown up man now.
The sooner this outdated custom dies out, the better. Cutting parts off someone's genitals does not make them a man, or a woman for that matter.
ReplyDeleteDrops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 56%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among Christians)
Australia: 90% to 12.6%
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5% (includes many of the world's most Christian countries eg Poland, Spain, Italy, Brazil)
pede tigtan-aw lang koh?
ReplyDeletehehehehe....
tig monitor sa mga gipang tuli...lol
"It may be not done and practiced on some parts of the world" It isn't done or practised in MOST of the world. Not in Europe, Scandinavia, South America, China, Japan or most of South East Asia. It's being done to a small and declining minority in the English-speaking world (outside the US). 3/4 of the world's men are supót! And that includes almost all your favourite football stars, and many actors and singers. See these actors and sportsmen just for starters. Pinoys who are supót are starting to stand up with pride (as it were). They are getting together for support at websites like this one.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately your post has attracted the attention of the gay dominated anti-circumcision activists who troll the internet.
ReplyDeleteThe value of male circumcision is scientifically confirmed. Read this from the joint statement from WHO and UNAIDS:
New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
I don't know why anonymous (or "Joshua" to give him the name he normally uses) thinks that anti-circumcision activists are "gay-dominated". I'm certainly not gay, and in my country (the UK), circumcision is actually more of a gay thing.
ReplyDeleteCircumcision can only possibly help men who have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners, so why this bizarre obsession with genital surgery to fight AIDS when we know that ABC works better than circumcision ever could? (ABC=Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms). The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Rwanda has almost double the rate of HIV in circed men than in intact men, yet they've just started a nationwide circumcision campaign. Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania. Something is very wrong here. These people aren't interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives.
Latest news is that HIV+ men are more likely to transmit the virus to women if they are circumcised.
Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldn't investigate cutting off women's labia, and then start promoting that.
Since when did a person have to be gay to recognise cruelty? These poor boys may never truly know what they have lost, but that doesn't make it right any more than cutting the clitoris off an eight year old girl is right. She's told it will make her a woman, these boys are told their mutilation will make them a man...both are told it will make them cleaner. In fact this act does nothing but bring shame on the adults who inflict it.
ReplyDeleteOh dear now they trot out a female (is it a real female?) to prove that they are not a gay dominated activist group.
ReplyDeleteThe option is quite clear, do you accept what this weird single issue fringe group says or does one accept what the WHO and UNAIDS states as being "compelling evidence" that male circumcision "reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%"?
Joshua
Are the Royal Australasian College of Physicians a "weird single issue fringe group" or a "gay dominated activist group"? According to your logic, they must be one or the other since this is what they say in the summary statement of their paediatric policy on circumcision:
ReplyDelete"After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (those last 9 words in bold on their website).
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
Most of the people responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves or married to circumcised men, since the circ rate in Australia was 90% in 1950 (down to 12.6% now).
Now why would a national organisation of mostly circed doctors say it's not necessary? There are no similar groups of intact doctors saying it's a good thing.
Routine circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in all Australian states except one. The children's commissioner in Tasmania wants to ban it there altogether. Does that make him gay or weird or both? I presume that you don't believe he could be interested in the welfare of children.
And yes, Laura is female. For what it's worth, I'm a heterosexual male.
'is it a real female' Joshua says
ReplyDeleteOf course i am Joshua,and like most of the females in the world i sleep with an intact man and am disgusted by the genital mutilation of children.
UNAIDs have stated 'Mandatory or coerced male circumcision is a violation of a range of humanrights, including rights to dignity, bodily integrity and personal autonomy.' so they do NOT approve what has been described in this article.
As regards the research you talk about, this was deeply biased research - delivered and promoted under the influence of diehard circumcisionists. Even if we were to accept the methodology and results, what about the problems with men abandoning condoms, and what about the fact that it offers no protection to women? Even Catherine Hankins an arch circumcisionist has indicated the circ programme will likely result in an increase in HIV among women. Circ has been shown also to offer no protection when the sex is anal...and we know this is underreported in Africa, and that circ increases the likelihood of heterosexuals choosing anal sex. There are so many issues and not enough room here to cover them all....
The most important point of all is that LITTLE CHILDREN DON'T HAVE SEX! Not where i come from anyway.
You need to go away and consider why you feel this aggressive need to promote circumcision. I think it's because you were genitally reduced as a helpless infant and you don't like the idea that other men have more penis and more pleasure than you.
But there is hope Joshua - you can't get your nerve endings back but you might be able to restore some foreskin. Check it out on google - thousands are doing it, and their women say sex is much improved!
Hi Laura or is it Lawrence?
ReplyDeleteYou know that when children are vaccinated it is not because the face an immediate problem or risk of disease. We do it to protect them from that day onwards for the rest of their lives. Circumcision of males as infants serves the same purpose as does circumcision at puberty or at an age before they become sexually active.
It is always better to be honest. Unfortunately you have misrepresented Catherine Hankins' position. http://tinyurl.com/69amyx She merely referred to the findings of the Williams study which found that male circumcision could avert 2.0 million new HIV infections and 0.3 million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa. As the number of male infected decreases through the direct benefit of male circumcision the mathematical proportion of females who are infected will reflect as a higher percentage of the total HIV infections. http://tinyurl.com/fmsfj
Why do you feel the need to misinterpret the studies Lawrence? What psychosexual hang-up do you have for foreskins that forces you to lie and lie repeatedly on this matter? It is so very sad to see people reduced to lies to try to sell their sexual fetish to others. Shame on you Lawrence.
Another lie is the one about the nerve endings in the foreskin having a sexual function. http://tinyurl.com/2ds7f5 The Payne study found:
"These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."
Then there was another study by Gray http://tinyurl.com/6785h5 which found: "Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."
In fact so desperate were the anti-circumcision activists that they have to organize and fund a study of their own in order to get the results they were looking for. Now would you believe the results of a study organised and funded by the tobacco industry that said that smoking caused no harm? Would you believe the findings of a study orgainsed and funded by an anti-circumcision organization which found benefits to having a foreskin?
Joshua
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteI have no proof that you are a heterosexual male. Given the fact that the vast a majority of anti-circumcision activists are gay the chances are that you are not being entirely honest.
Now why did you not say that the Royal Australasian College of Physicians is reviewing its current position on male circumcision against the recent research findings? See: http://tinyurl.com/ysnlb8
Mark, why do you feel this need to deceive people in this way? Should you not seek help from a medical professional?
Joshua
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Laura is female, and that I am a heterosexual male? And what evidence do you have that the "vast majority of anti-circumcision activists are gay"? From my own experience, I think the vast majority are heterosexual.
ReplyDeleteThe RACP is indeed reviewing its policy on circumcision, but is not likely to change its stance of opposition, and may in fact become more anti-circumcision.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/071209/21/157hr.html
The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.
The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.
The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice, except where there are medical or religious reasons.
He says there is only rarely a medical need to carry out the procedure.
"There were quite a lot of folk myths around the advantages of circumcision. They've almost all been debunked," Prof Walters said.
"There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," he said.
This is what RACP policy director Gary Disher said in February this year:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23181817-23272,00.html
RACP policy director Gary Disher suggested yesterday the college would maintain an opposition to circumcising baby boys as standard practice.
"The debate around circumcision at the moment . . . focuses on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases," he said.
"New parents with a new baby boy in their arms are not thinking about the sexual activity of that boy 20 years on.
"As pediatricians, that baby boy and his parents are our client group. The evidence suggests there is no medical reason for circumcision at that point.
"Our new policy, I'm sure, will keep that as a headline."
All Australian states except one have recently banned non-medical circumcision in public hospitals, as you are presumably aware.
It's hard to take the Payne study seriously when they didn't measure the sensitivity of the inner foreskin itself. They were either ignorant of the anatomy of the penis, or seeking to confirm a pre-determined conclusion.
The Gray study has very unrealistic figures for sexual satisfaction (all 98% and above), but still shows 1.6% of circumcised men reporting dissatisfaction at the end of the study v 0.1% of the intact men.
What about the studies that show adverse consequences to circumcision? This one for instance, published in the March 2007 issue of BJU International on "The Effect Of Male Circumcision On Sexuality":
"About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.
This study suggests that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a significant number of men, and the authors suggest that it may be due to loss of nerve endings in the removed skin. In addition, there was an approximately 9% incidence of severe penile scarring or uncomfortable erections from curvature or tethering after circumcision."
http://tinyurl.com/2fjtxb
I don't need help from a medical professional, and if you were being clear-minded, I don't think you'd suggest that.
Difficult to know where to begin in contradicting your nonsense Joshua. I am female and always have been. Your comments about those who promote informed choice in circumcision being 'gay' betray a childish homophobia in addition to a complete disregard for facts.
ReplyDeleteWhat you call the 'anti-circ' movement is natural coming together of all kinds of people against forced amputation.
There are indeed many women and gay men in the movement because having seen the joy of an intact man in action we want men to have the choice to remain whole. Vaccination? An amputation is never comparable to an injection - and if you look at what vaccinations are given in infancy you will see they are those which are needed to prevent serious illness in childhood. If they can be given later, and as a choice, they usually are.
But it's in the idea that research showing foreskin value (Sorrells, Taylor, Kim & Pang, Fink, Solinis Masood etc etc) is comparable to tobacco industry research that you betray your bitter and twisted bias. Most of the research put forward in favour of circumcision comes from people who are deeply embroiled in this practice and who have come from a family in which the natural male body is an object of disgust. There should have been no need for Sorrells to demonstrate what is perfectly obvious to the naked eye - foreskin is a source of joy. likewise there is no need to prove the value of female genital parts but you wouldn't slate someone who did, you'd thank them.
In the area of female cutting psychologists have postulated that dissociation processes after a genital mutilation (even medically done) trigger a desire for re-enactment. I believe that is what has happened with you.
Please stop Joshua, it's not too late to recognise that human beings own their body. If we don't have this primal right, what other rights can we have? Haven't you got better things to do with your life than promote genital cutting on non consenting individuals?
hey...circumcision is not about sexual preferences....whats wrong with the gay!!!
ReplyDeleteI look at circumcision as a culture...
aside from the fact that it is much more hygienic....
Here in a Philippine, uncircumcised is very shameful because you will be teased. To avoid this, young boy will have to face it and be part of everybody...
1) Women don't need surgery to keep clean, and neither do men.
ReplyDelete2) Some people regard female circumcision as part of their culture, but it's still wrong.
3) This teasing is because circumcised men can't bear the thought that what happened to them was a mistake, so they try to get everyone else to keep doing it. It's shameful for the Philippines that they still continue this outdated custom. Did you see my first comment about the drops in male circumcision in other countries? When will the Philippines start to abandon this outdated tradition?
in many parts of Africa little girls are teased if they still have a clitoris, so they long to be cut to be clean and acceptable
ReplyDelete'On behalf of the Gay Community' presumably you think this teasing is acceptable too?