Ok... WHO (not the band) and UNAIDS just released a report today, encouraging widespread use of male circumcision in order to prevent the spread of HIV. Tests have shown it to be very effective, although I prefer not to test the method on myself, thank you very much (ouch...).

Should relative simple procedures like this be made mandatory for newborns (or whenever you normally perform a circumcision) or should it be up to the individual?

I know that we're probably all gonna say "up to the individual", but maybe that stems from our American/European outlook on things, where HIV and AIDS isn't the biggest issue around. But how about Africa? A whole generation has been ravaged by these diseases? Is this a way to deal with it, through mandatory circumcision or is that a violation of the individual's rights?

Read an exempt of the report here!

Oh.. and the name of the spokesman is Kevin de Cock... coincidence? I think not

__________________
There's no theory of evolution, only a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live...

The procedure should absolutely not be "mandatory." There are plenty of other effective means of HIV prevention.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I am opposed to both male and female forms. As for myself. Mine remains natural.

I'm opposed to all circumcision. Although, I've never seen an uncircumcised one up close. I saw one in a hot tub once, but it was dark and I didn't really get a look at it. I think it's barbaric to cut pieces of babies genitals off.

Guess I'm the only one here so far who is clean down there.

I think its up to the person. I can tell you it was the worst day of my life. I can remember it like the day I was born.....Wait....I don't remember being born...nor do I recall any pain when it happened. But I'm sure as hell glad my parents decided to do it.

The only friend I ever knew who wasn't circumcised we called pencil
D!ck.

__________________
If the average person's butt caught on fire I'd be willing to bet the American media could convince them its not in their best interest to put it out.

I dont know why the practice is acceptable. Were talking about the social approval of male genital mutilation. Sick!
Its a disgusting practice that should be BANNED.
Yes, ive been mutilated. My mother thought it was for sanitary reasons. I'm afraid this is the norm here in America.

__________________

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?

HIV spread has got nothing at all to do with whether or not sex partners are circumcized. It's got way more to do with unprotected sex than anything else, and sexual promiscuity to a degree (though more of the former than the latter). This is true for Africa, India and many other HIV/AIDS ridden nations/continents.

And yes, mandatory circumcision is most certainly a violation of the person's rights - you are in essence making him cut a part of his body off - in most cases, without his consent.

You know boys, that extra skin makes sex even better. A circumsized BF I had said he can't imagine it feeling any better, but isn't it sad that you are all missing out on that extra good feeling because you are missing a part of your penis?

That part of the skin is endowed with nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, much like a woman's "g-spot", so yes, you are right and I fully agree.

I believe that the World Health Org. and UNAIDS would beg to differ. Or so seems to be the entire point of the OP.


But for the record, I think mandatory circumcision is a terrible idea.

Please tell me how exactly circumcision has got anything at all to do with HIV/AIDS spreading. I did read the report in the OP, but am still fogged.

In unprotected sex, uncircumcised males are more likely to acquire/transmit the HIV virus because of increased abrasion.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Actually, I don't think this is quite accurate. The area you're refering to on a male is actually on and around the "head" of the glans penis, or the skin beneath the foreskin (which is itself retracted during erection). This area isn't removed during a normal circumcision.
The female counterpart would actually be the clitoral hood (which is likewise retracted during arousal).

pramjocky gives one possibility, here are a few more from a seperate article:

How much more likely though? As far as the abrasion theory goes, I am just curious - why would this not apply to cut men also?? Because the skin in the latter case is harder? Or ... ?