Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:59 am
by Geebs
Last I heard, the president of South Africa doesn't accept the routes of transmission of HIV. They haven't got a fucking chance.
BTW, they don't like to make it public, but 90% of new cases of heterosexually transmitted HIV in England are imported - either the patient is not a native of Britain and given leave to stay on a compassionate basis, or they have a partner who was infected overseas.
I'm not saying "send them all home", just that if there's so much fall out over here, imagine what the problem's like over there.
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:23 pm
by iambowelfish
[xeno]Julios wrote:There are some valid medical indications for male circumcision. The most common one is phimosis.
However, from what I recall, phimosis is a term used for a broad range of different phenomena regarding the foreskin's retractivity. Basically there may be many reasons that a foreskin experiences difficulty retracting, and to various degrees; yet phimosis is the term usually used for all of them.
As such, phimosis is generally misunderstood as a single phenomenon.
To further complicate the issue, is the ignorance that many have regarding the natural retraction of the foreskin. The foreskin is not meant to retract at an early age. It loosens up naturally as the years progress. At birth, the foreskin is connected to the penis in a similar fashion to how the nail is connected to the finger (I think). Trying to retract the foreskin prematurely is dangerous, and leads to damage.
There are also non-invasive procedures to resolve retractivity problems - a recent study noted the effectiveness of steroidal creams (i think high potency cream). There are also minor surgical interventions that can be done in place of a full blown circumcision.
(btw not all circumcisions are equal in style or degree of tissue removal).
Interesting.
I had something like that, when I was young, maybe 5 or so, but Its just a vague memory now, I have never mentioned it to anyone since but I'm not sure how long it went on for.
Treatment, as far as I can remember, involved a routine of repeated retraction, a painful ordeal which I'm sure I howled about, as well as being told that I had to do it whenever I washed, or went for a pee. (I remember at school someone commented on my peeing habit as being odd - I'm British, so the other boys had foreskins, they just didn't retract them for peeing.).
I do remember that I was told that it might have to have my foreskin removed, which happened to some other boy I knew. I Suppose this must have been to persuade me to do the retractions.
Now I think about it, that's more than a little weird.
Thanks for bringing it up, just when I had almost successfully repressed it.
My foreskin's just fine now, by the way. Wonder if I suffered any psychological damage.
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:18 am
by [xeno]Julios
so did your friend end up having her baby circumcised?
btw TNF I think you'll appreciate this excellent video presentation that details the structure and function of the prepuce:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision. ... epuce.html
direct link here:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision. ... 256k_D.wmv
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:23 am
by saturn
[xeno]Julios wrote:yea there's absolutely no valid reason for routine neonatal circumcision.
truth
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:31 am
by Foo
It's funny that it's so accepted in the USA.
Over here in the UK it's a rarity and for someone to consider it as normal is really wierd.
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:43 am
by Foo
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:45 am
by tnf
Nope. They opted out of the procedure...
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:45 am
by phantasmagoria
Well played
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:49 am
by [xeno]Julios
tnf wrote:Nope. They opted out of the procedure...
ah good to hear - is the father circumcised?