Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

Right..

A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM. There are as yet no convincing data to help determine whether male circumcision will have any effect on HIV risk for men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner. Receptive anal sex is associated with a substantially greater risk of HIV acquisition than is insertive anal sex. It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM engage solely in insertive anal sex.

---------------------------------------------------

As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
​

In short, use a condom..

 

The CDC were quite clear. Using a study from Africa where the transmission of HIV is more common with male/female sexual intercourse and attempting to use it in the US, where it is more commonly transmitted throush anal sex cannot really provide a clear and accurate picture of the its reduction of the disease in the US. With the spread of HIV being much lower in the US as it stands at present, one should consider whether one should even consider circumcision for this specific reason.

And it is also clear that it does not provide protection for the person being inserted with the penis, circumcised or not. And it recommends that adult males can consider circumcision with other safe sex practices if they wish to truly reduce transmission of the disease. In other words, it should never be considered as a sole form of protection and it cannot.

Because people in Germany often walk around with their penis hanging out and those with a circumcised penis would just stick out of the crowd of those who are uncircumcised, and thus, would find it difficult to intergrate? Circumcisions in religious ceremonies will still continue, regardless of what the laws state. People will still find a way to remove the foreskin from their baby boys, even though it isn't necessary.

Some of those cultures also perform FGM. Are you saying that countries in the West should allow that as well so that migrants can fit in with their respective new societies?

But lets have a look at this ban and the panic it has caused a bit more clearly, shall we?

The court in the western city of Cologne handed down the decision on Tuesday in the case of a doctor prosecuted for circumcising a four-year-old Muslim boy who had to be treated two days later for post-operative bleeding.

It ruled involuntary religious circumcision should be made illegal because it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it.

However, the ruling, which applies only to the Cologne area, said boys who consciously decided to be circumcised could have the operation.

No age restriction was given, or any more specific details.​

Not really a ban, is it?

It is saying that boys should be given a say over what happens to their bodies. The horror... I am sure the religious people who wish to circumcise their sons for religious reasons will be able to drive to another region and have it done.

 

You mean like the studies which state that HIV transmission is greatly reduced if the male is circumcised?

Yes. It may offer a minute level of protection to the male. However it offers little protection to the woman. In fact, the opposite to the woman may very well be the case:

There is no evidence that circumcision increases or decreases the risk of HIV transmission by HIV-infected men. However, risk compensation by HIV-infected circumcised men will substantially increase the risk of transmission to their sex partners. This suggests that, in the short term at least, circumcision would reduce the incidence of HIV among men, but increase the incidence among women, translating to increased prevalence among women, which in turn translates to greater risk to men. Epidemiological models of MC should take this dynamic into account.

​

It also carries with it the risk of complacency and the mistaken belief that circumcision will now allow STD's and HIV/AIDS to spread. This is inherently false and dangerous.

Possibly because you do not see removing perfectly healthy and non-deformed tissue from a newborn baby for religious or cosmetic reasons as being a form of mutilation?:shrug:

Oh, I am sure they do. After all, we have religious practices around actually slicing off skin of the male genatalia as forms of either a religious rite of passage or as a form of reminding one's self of one's God.. Why God would request parents cause their newborn children untold amount of pain is beyond me personally.

But why don't we talk about removing people's penis? It does happen during male circumcision and it isn't that uncommon for things to go wrong, resulting in painful reconstruction surgery. As for female genital mutilation. What of it? Many cultures deem it important to remove the hood of the woman's clitoris. And yet, we find that repulsive and see nothing about removing the hood of the male penis?

Why is that?

We correctly talk about how and why FGM reduces a woman's ability to experience pleasure during sex. And yet, no one mentions why circumcision became so popular in many English speaking Western countries.

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[40] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"

"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration." Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:

"In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the 'vestigial' prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause 'nocturnal incontinence,' hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might 'give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.' Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that 'circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity...it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.' No wonder it became a popular remedy."[40]​

At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[40]​

I agree, the male penis is as important as the woman's clitoris. Maybe it's time we started treating it in the same light?

Right...

As I said, it could be because for some bizarre reason, some do not view the male genitals as being as important as the female genitals?

Actually, it does not.

It is only after they reach their teens and the foreskin can be fully retracted that they need to start washing their penis - ie - retracting the foreskin wash the head of their penis. Before then, you don't do anything differently. Wash as normal.

It takes years to be able to fully retract the foreskin fully to explose the head. Therefore, it's something that boys will do when the foreskin is no longer fused to the head of their penis. And when they can retract it, you explain to them why it needs to be washed.

What has been proven to provide protection from STD's is safe sex practices. Even WHO advises that they should be using condoms anyway. Strange concept, I know, but circumcision may provide some protection. It will not provide any protection the their female partner.

As for infections, women get more UTI's than circumcised men. Does that mean we should be removing the hood of women's clitoris just to make sure it reduces the risk of infection? Children, boys included, are more likely to develop throat infections than they are UTI's in the West. Should we be removing their tonsils as a precautionary measure? You know, just in case?

Yep.

And anti-FGM laws in the West are aimed solely at Africans and Asians where the practice is entrenched in their culture. Shame on the West for denying people their right to painfully mutilate their children!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have proof that uncircumcised men wish they had been circumcised as babies?

Why do men need to be circumcised?

Is there a particular reason? You have studies to show why men need to be circumcised?