Parenting Styles - does it cause a rift?
- Thread starter DanaB
- Start date
stacey
Well-known member
I agree with the ladies who said that nursing & co-sleeping are hand in hand. It's just physically exhausting so you take the easy way out.
My first son slept with me until 1 1/2. I was a single parent back then so didn't really have the means to have him sleep in his "own bed". Though, when I used to try and have him sleep in his own bed, later on, he through a fit and eventually slept with me anyway. When my husband came around it took him 3 night to have my 1st son sleeping in his own room/bed. With my second son he slept with us until he was 10-11 M.
My first son slept with me until 1 1/2. I was a single parent back then so didn't really have the means to have him sleep in his "own bed". Though, when I used to try and have him sleep in his own bed, later on, he through a fit and eventually slept with me anyway. When my husband came around it took him 3 night to have my 1st son sleeping in his own room/bed. With my second son he slept with us until he was 10-11 M.
brandiisamonkey
Well-known member
Hayden sleeps with us right now, we have one of those "safe sleeping dividers" for the bed it basically makes you baby its on bed in your bed... he sleeps with us right now for the simple fact that im too damn tired to walk down the stairs to his room in the middle of the night, Ive never been good with being abrubtly woken up so this is just easier for the time being, as soon as he gets to where he has a pretty predictable sleeping pattern ill move him to his cib (that I just had to have lol) I tried the basinette he didnt like something about it so that didnt work.... Im not one of those natural parents are whatever, Id honestly rather him not be in my bed but I just am too damn lazy for that right now... *shrug*
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
People like that should not have children. Not the overweight people and the heavy sleepers, but the people who are too irresponsible to put their children first and stop drinking till they vomit everywhere and pass out on a regular basis.
Nursing drains you more than just the getting up in the middle of the night part. It is actually physically draining for me to be producing milk. Even when I get my babies to sleep through the night and am only nursing during the day, I am still weary.
I meant to comment on the cirumcision thing as well. I think its very odd to present it, to the Western world at least (where STD education is somewhat better than in places such as Africa) as a means to help prevent STDS. That seems somewhat silly to me. Sure it can potentially reduce the possibility of contracting HIV, but so can condoms and other safe sex practices. Circumcision won't save my son's life (if I have one) because I'll be teaching him how vital safe sex is.
| Originally Posted by macluver ^People like that should NOT be co-sleeping. From what I have read, people who are on any kind of drugs, drank alcohol that night, are very overweight, toss and turn all night, or a very heavy sleeper should NEVER have their child co-sleep with them. |
People like that should not have children. Not the overweight people and the heavy sleepers, but the people who are too irresponsible to put their children first and stop drinking till they vomit everywhere and pass out on a regular basis.
Nursing drains you more than just the getting up in the middle of the night part. It is actually physically draining for me to be producing milk. Even when I get my babies to sleep through the night and am only nursing during the day, I am still weary.
I meant to comment on the cirumcision thing as well. I think its very odd to present it, to the Western world at least (where STD education is somewhat better than in places such as Africa) as a means to help prevent STDS. That seems somewhat silly to me. Sure it can potentially reduce the possibility of contracting HIV, but so can condoms and other safe sex practices. Circumcision won't save my son's life (if I have one) because I'll be teaching him how vital safe sex is.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Even one glass of wine induces a deeper sleep than an individual would normally have.
Regarding circumcision...
I would implore you to seek counsel from a male who didn't have it done as an infant, and see what issues they've had. Seek counsel from those who have had issues and those who have not. Every man whom I have met who has not had it done (and I've met probably more than the average person) has unanimously wished it was done when he was an infant. Not because of any one issue but because of a plethora of them.
It was never an aesthetical thing either.
Also have you researched the relation between HPV and uncircumcised males?
Regarding circumcision...
I would implore you to seek counsel from a male who didn't have it done as an infant, and see what issues they've had. Seek counsel from those who have had issues and those who have not. Every man whom I have met who has not had it done (and I've met probably more than the average person) has unanimously wished it was done when he was an infant. Not because of any one issue but because of a plethora of them.
It was never an aesthetical thing either.
Also have you researched the relation between HPV and uncircumcised males?
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
I have. I have an ex-boyfriend whom I was sexually intimate with who, like a lot of non-American males, is not circumcised. He doesn't have a single problem, nor do my English brothers. I think that its not commonplace in Europe. I think, if I remember correctly, that it tends to be more emphasized in Jewish tradition and American culture than it does in other places around the world. It is really, really hard to find hard stats on this topic since most resources tend to be REALLY biased towards one side of the other.
And I still don't see circumcision as a way to prevent STDs as being a sensible argument for it. I can't put it into words properly but that argument just seems so odd to me.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer Regarding circumcision... I would implore you to seek counsel from a male who didn't have it done as an infant, and see what issues they've had. Seek counsel from those who have had issues and those who have not. |
I have. I have an ex-boyfriend whom I was sexually intimate with who, like a lot of non-American males, is not circumcised. He doesn't have a single problem, nor do my English brothers. I think that its not commonplace in Europe. I think, if I remember correctly, that it tends to be more emphasized in Jewish tradition and American culture than it does in other places around the world. It is really, really hard to find hard stats on this topic since most resources tend to be REALLY biased towards one side of the other.
And I still don't see circumcision as a way to prevent STDs as being a sensible argument for it. I can't put it into words properly but that argument just seems so odd to me.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
Absolutely. And I don't think that people who do choose to circumcise their sons are evil
I just think that if you do your research and come to a conclusion, then that's what is best for you and your family.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer It's ultimately your decision. 
|
Absolutely. And I don't think that people who do choose to circumcise their sons are evil
Another Janice!
Well-known member
Quote:
Yep. I was too. Nursing burns 500 calories a day. Which is a whole lot. If you aren't making those calories up (I wasn't), then you will be more tired....but the happy side is the weight falls off quicker! =)
| Nursing drains you more than just the getting up in the middle of the night part. It is actually physically draining for me to be producing milk. Even when I get my babies to sleep through the night and am only nursing during the day, I am still weary. |
Yep. I was too. Nursing burns 500 calories a day. Which is a whole lot. If you aren't making those calories up (I wasn't), then you will be more tired....but the happy side is the weight falls off quicker! =)
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
Well they also linked circumcision to a reduction in AIDS in Africa, when comparing a population that has a majority circumsized with another that did not.
I can see why it would help reduce the transmission of STD's, i mean it is a flap of skin. Fluids and moistness etc are going to get trapped in that area during and after sex. And according to the article i read about the above, the higher concintration of bloodcells in that area is what contributes to the increased risk of STD's.
I think there was a reason for it back in the day, and just as good of a reason for it now. It was probably more of a hygene thing back in the day, since people probably weren't taking showers twice daily a few thousand years ago. However nowdays while the hygene might not be an issue for all males, especially in developed nations like the United states, STD's are.
Not to mention from my perspective it's just gross lol. But thats just my opinion lol. Circumcised only please LOL!
| Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 And I still don't see circumcision as a way to prevent STDs as being a sensible argument for it. I can't put it into words properly but that argument just seems so odd to me. |
Well they also linked circumcision to a reduction in AIDS in Africa, when comparing a population that has a majority circumsized with another that did not.
I can see why it would help reduce the transmission of STD's, i mean it is a flap of skin. Fluids and moistness etc are going to get trapped in that area during and after sex. And according to the article i read about the above, the higher concintration of bloodcells in that area is what contributes to the increased risk of STD's.
I think there was a reason for it back in the day, and just as good of a reason for it now. It was probably more of a hygene thing back in the day, since people probably weren't taking showers twice daily a few thousand years ago. However nowdays while the hygene might not be an issue for all males, especially in developed nations like the United states, STD's are.
Not to mention from my perspective it's just gross lol. But thats just my opinion lol. Circumcised only please LOL!
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
True, but you can't make any comparison between AIDS prevention education here and AIDS prevention education in Africa because it basically doesn't exist in many places in Africa. So, to me, you could make the argument for circumcision as a (poor) way to avoid AIDS in Africa but here, in the US, it makes little sense to make it a part of the fight against AIDS.
| Originally Posted by Raerae Well they also linked circumcision to a reduction in AIDS in Africa, when comparing a population that has a majority circumsized with another that did not. |
True, but you can't make any comparison between AIDS prevention education here and AIDS prevention education in Africa because it basically doesn't exist in many places in Africa. So, to me, you could make the argument for circumcision as a (poor) way to avoid AIDS in Africa but here, in the US, it makes little sense to make it a part of the fight against AIDS.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
Both places compared were in Africa. And considering due to the many religions not condoning birth control (condoms), as well as just the lack of availibility to provide that type of borth control, it seems like a very good way to reduce the spead of a disease. Especially AIDS, considering the rate of infection in Africa, every little bit helps towards reducing the infection rate as a whole.
And education only goes so far (even in the USA). I'm sure everyone has at one point had unprotected sex. If you haven't, i'm amazed, since sometimes stuff just happens.
| Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 True, but you can't make any comparison between AIDS prevention education here and AIDS prevention education in Africa because it basically doesn't exist in many places in Africa. So, to me, you could make the argument for circumcision as a (poor) way to avoid AIDS in Africa but here, in the US, it makes little sense to make it a part of the fight against AIDS. |
Both places compared were in Africa. And considering due to the many religions not condoning birth control (condoms), as well as just the lack of availibility to provide that type of borth control, it seems like a very good way to reduce the spead of a disease. Especially AIDS, considering the rate of infection in Africa, every little bit helps towards reducing the infection rate as a whole.
And education only goes so far (even in the USA). I'm sure everyone has at one point had unprotected sex. If you haven't, i'm amazed, since sometimes stuff just happens.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
Its not a good way though because circumcised people STILL get AIDS. Considering just how many Africans ARE circumcised should be proof of the fact that its a TERRIBLE way to attempt to prevent it. Sure, it can reduce the possibility, but at some point, even circumcised, if a man is having unprotected sex with someone infected, he is going to contract AIDS.
| Originally Posted by Raerae Both places compared were in Africa. And considering due to the many religions not condoning birth control (condoms), as well as just the lack of availibility to provide that type of borth control, it seems like a very good way to reduce the spead of a disease. |
Its not a good way though because circumcised people STILL get AIDS. Considering just how many Africans ARE circumcised should be proof of the fact that its a TERRIBLE way to attempt to prevent it. Sure, it can reduce the possibility, but at some point, even circumcised, if a man is having unprotected sex with someone infected, he is going to contract AIDS.
Raerae
Well-known member
Quote:
Your missing the point. You dont use circumcision as the only method of AIDS prevention. You use it in combination with all the other techniques to reduces the spread of AIDS. And considering it's a global problem, the human race needs all the help it can get.
To say it's not a good way to help stop aids because circumsised men can still contract HIV is just silly. Thats like say, "Using a condom for birth control is stupid because it's not 100% guarenteed to prevent pregnancy." Nothing is 100%.
From my 1/2 a second of googling related to the topic:
source: http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/2003/AD030841.html
Circumcision Shown to Deter HIV Spread
Washington Times (04.25.03) - Friday, April 25, 2003
Tom Carter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumcised men are at least 50 percent less likely to contract HIV during unprotected sex than uncircumcised men, according to a soon-to-be released report by the US Agency for International Development.
Based on a systematic review of 28 scientific studies published by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the USAID report "found that circumcised males are less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men." "A sub analysis of 10 African studies found a 71 percent reduction among higher risk men," said the report obtained by the Washington Times.
According to the scientific studies, the skin on the inside of the male foreskin is "mucosal," similar to the skin found on the inside of the mouth or nose. This mucosal skin has a high number of Langerhan cells, which are HIV target cells, or doorway cells for HIV. "HIV looks for target cells, like the Langerhans; it's a lock and key," said Edward G. Green, senior researcher at Harvard University. "The rest of the skin on the penis is armorlike."
Green said that if all males in Africa were circumcised, the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate could be reduced from 20 percent in some regions to below 5 percent. In addition, circumcision reduces the transmission of other STDs, reduces infections associated with poor hygiene, and makes it easier to use a condom, Green said.
The 60-page USAID report is based on presentations given at a conference in September, and will be available on the USAID Web site "soon," said Dr. Anne Peterson, assistant administrator for global health at USAID. She said that while the information "looks profound and wonderful," she cautioned there may be other factors that reduce HIV transmission in circumcised men.
If circumcision is promoted, another concern is that circumcised men may mistakenly believe they are invulnerable to HIV. They are not, said Peterson. "It reduces your risk. It does not protect you outright," she said. "People who are circumcised still get HIV. It is still better to abstain, be faithful in marriage," or use condoms.
030425
AD030841
I bolded some points I thought were well said. Obviously the only guarentt you wont contract HIV as a STD, is to abstain from sex. But even then AIDS would still spread, as it can be contracted other ways than just intercourse.
| Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 Its not a good way though because circumcised people STILL get AIDS. Considering just how many Africans ARE circumcised should be proof of the fact that its a TERRIBLE way to attempt to prevent it. Sure, it can reduce the possibility, but at some point, even circumcised, if a man is having unprotected sex with someone infected, he is going to contract AIDS. |
Your missing the point. You dont use circumcision as the only method of AIDS prevention. You use it in combination with all the other techniques to reduces the spread of AIDS. And considering it's a global problem, the human race needs all the help it can get.
To say it's not a good way to help stop aids because circumsised men can still contract HIV is just silly. Thats like say, "Using a condom for birth control is stupid because it's not 100% guarenteed to prevent pregnancy." Nothing is 100%.
From my 1/2 a second of googling related to the topic:
source: http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/2003/AD030841.html
Circumcision Shown to Deter HIV Spread
Washington Times (04.25.03) - Friday, April 25, 2003
Tom Carter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumcised men are at least 50 percent less likely to contract HIV during unprotected sex than uncircumcised men, according to a soon-to-be released report by the US Agency for International Development.
Based on a systematic review of 28 scientific studies published by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the USAID report "found that circumcised males are less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as uncircumcised men." "A sub analysis of 10 African studies found a 71 percent reduction among higher risk men," said the report obtained by the Washington Times.
According to the scientific studies, the skin on the inside of the male foreskin is "mucosal," similar to the skin found on the inside of the mouth or nose. This mucosal skin has a high number of Langerhan cells, which are HIV target cells, or doorway cells for HIV. "HIV looks for target cells, like the Langerhans; it's a lock and key," said Edward G. Green, senior researcher at Harvard University. "The rest of the skin on the penis is armorlike."
Green said that if all males in Africa were circumcised, the HIV/AIDS prevalence rate could be reduced from 20 percent in some regions to below 5 percent. In addition, circumcision reduces the transmission of other STDs, reduces infections associated with poor hygiene, and makes it easier to use a condom, Green said.
The 60-page USAID report is based on presentations given at a conference in September, and will be available on the USAID Web site "soon," said Dr. Anne Peterson, assistant administrator for global health at USAID. She said that while the information "looks profound and wonderful," she cautioned there may be other factors that reduce HIV transmission in circumcised men.
If circumcision is promoted, another concern is that circumcised men may mistakenly believe they are invulnerable to HIV. They are not, said Peterson. "It reduces your risk. It does not protect you outright," she said. "People who are circumcised still get HIV. It is still better to abstain, be faithful in marriage," or use condoms.
030425
AD030841
I bolded some points I thought were well said. Obviously the only guarentt you wont contract HIV as a STD, is to abstain from sex. But even then AIDS would still spread, as it can be contracted other ways than just intercourse.
Raerae
Well-known member
Nother good article that refutes your point about the amount of Africans that are circumsised. According to this study HIV is the lowest in the African populations that are circumsised (less than 1% HIV), wheras the African areas that dont circumsize have the highest rates of infection.
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/nation_kenya.htm
Studies Validate Link Between Circumcision And HIV
The Nation (Nairobi)
April 13, 2000
Nairobi - Clinical studies conducted recently across Africa show a clear association between circumcision and HIV seropevalence. It may well be the poor genital hygiene among non-circumcised males that elevates their risk of contracting HIV, reports OSCAR OBONYO
Recent studies comparing HIV/Aids rates among circumcised and uncircumcised men in Africa now show, on average, three times more HIV infection among the uncircumcised.
Clinical studies conducted in the continent over the last five years show evidence of geographical clusters of high seropositivity in certain countries.
According to Dr Stephen Mosses's lead study, "Geographical Patterns of Male Circumcision Practice in Africa: Association with HIV Seroprevalence", ethnic groups where adult HIV levels were below one per cent in sub-Saharan Africa, 97 per cent of the males are circumcised, and where the levels were above 10 per cent, only six per cent of males are circumcised.
Dr Moses, who has reviewed 30 studies, primarily from Africa, reveals that this association has been observed in studies carried out among more than 40 circumcising and non-circumcising communities across Africa.
Lack of male circumcision has been associated with high levels of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, which according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) represents 68 per cent of the global infection.
In Kenya, the data is telling. Some of the communities that traditionally do not practice circumcision are most ravaged by the pandemic.
According to statistics of the National Aids and Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Programme (NASCOP), the largest non-circumcising community in the country - the Luo, for instance, is worst hit by HIV/Aids.
Basing their arithmetic on Kenya's big tribes, researchers note that the Luo who constitute only 12.38 per cent of the country's population account for 29.2 per cent of the HIV/Aids cases as compared to the Kikuyu of central Kenya who constitute 20.78 per cent and the Luhyia of Western Kenya 14.8 per cent (1995) yet they account for only 9.2 per cent and 9.1 per cent of the cases, respectively.
Biological evidence points to increased susceptibility (among uncircumcised males) of the flesh under the foreskin to inflammation, abrasions during intercourse and prolonged viral survival due to warmth and moistness under the "sheath" of the uncircumcised.
Dr William Cameron, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, who has co-authored several African studies, reveals that several studies have established that such sexually transmitted diseases as syphilis and chancroid occur more frequently among the uncircumcised.
Researchers argue that it may well be the poor genital hygience among non-circumcised male rather that their non-circumcised status that elevates their risk of contracting HIV.
A number of reasons have been floated, though, to explain the apparent ease of HIV transmission among non-circumcising ethnic communities in Kenya. Social, economic and cultural factors have been implicated in the elevated risk of transmission, including polygamy, widow inheritance, population mobility and sexual networking.
NASCOP reports that by 1998, adult HIV prevalence had increased to about 13.9 per cent. The prevalence in urban and rural areas is estimated to be 17-18 and 12-13 per cent respectively. Close to 400 people die everyday due to HIV related diseases, says NASCOP in its latest report, "Aids in Kenya: Background Projections Impact Interventions Policy".
Despite the devastating impact, the government and medical authorities have refused to divulge information on the link between HIV/Aids and circumcision claiming such a disclosure is "tantamount to licensing circumcised Kenyans to have unprotected sex".
"Though it is increasingly becoming evident that there is a link between the two, there are fears in some quarters that such information should not be relayed to the public,' a medical doctor at Kenyatta National Hospital who sought anonymity says.
Government authorities ought to be embarrassed of advancing such simplistic arguments, argued Mr. Edmond Kwena. "Most Kenyans are now an informed and educated lot and the assumption that they need to be protected from making erroneous decisions is an abuse to this country"
Noting that the crucial challenge lies in how and not whether to relay the information, Kwena says that it is this very lack of openness that has made Kenya lag behind in the Aids campaign in the continent.
Most recently, a study in the lake side town of Kisumu by Mark Tyndall and Allan R. Ronald also found out that more uncircumcised men than their circumcised colleagues having contact with commercial sex workers recorded a higher HIV positivity rate.
However, Isabelle de Vencenzi and Thiery Mertins in their study (1994), "Male Circumcision: A role in HIV Prevention?" argue that the association between HIV and circumcision is weakened when factors such as contact with commercial sex workers, ethnic origin and birth place are adjusted for.
"Such inconsistent findings suggest that researchers cannot, at this stage, recommend male circumcision as a policy in controlling HIV infection,' they say.
Evidence from studies validating circumcision as a control measure is, however, outweighing. In 1986, Dr Thomas Wiswell studied records of more than 200,000 male infants born in US Army hospitals worldwide. He found that circumcised boys were ten times more likely to suffer from urinary-tract infections (UTIs). He discovered, too, that 1.4 percent of uncircumcised male infants suffered UTIs in the first year of life. Wiswell's figures translated into 5,000 to 10,000 UTIs a year.
"There is overwhelming proof that circumcision may protect against foreskin infections and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids. One gets multiple benefits from one procedure."
*An Impact Feature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2000 The Nation. Distributed via Africa News Online (www.africanews.org). For information about the content or for permission to redistribute, publish or use for broadcast, contact the publisher.
EDIT: I have a feeling that, that last paragraph is supposed to read. "UNcircuncised boys are 10 times more likeley to suffer UTI's." But since it's not my article I'm not going to change it.
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/nation_kenya.htm
Studies Validate Link Between Circumcision And HIV
The Nation (Nairobi)
April 13, 2000
Nairobi - Clinical studies conducted recently across Africa show a clear association between circumcision and HIV seropevalence. It may well be the poor genital hygiene among non-circumcised males that elevates their risk of contracting HIV, reports OSCAR OBONYO
Recent studies comparing HIV/Aids rates among circumcised and uncircumcised men in Africa now show, on average, three times more HIV infection among the uncircumcised.
Clinical studies conducted in the continent over the last five years show evidence of geographical clusters of high seropositivity in certain countries.
According to Dr Stephen Mosses's lead study, "Geographical Patterns of Male Circumcision Practice in Africa: Association with HIV Seroprevalence", ethnic groups where adult HIV levels were below one per cent in sub-Saharan Africa, 97 per cent of the males are circumcised, and where the levels were above 10 per cent, only six per cent of males are circumcised.
Dr Moses, who has reviewed 30 studies, primarily from Africa, reveals that this association has been observed in studies carried out among more than 40 circumcising and non-circumcising communities across Africa.
Lack of male circumcision has been associated with high levels of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, which according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) represents 68 per cent of the global infection.
In Kenya, the data is telling. Some of the communities that traditionally do not practice circumcision are most ravaged by the pandemic.
According to statistics of the National Aids and Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Programme (NASCOP), the largest non-circumcising community in the country - the Luo, for instance, is worst hit by HIV/Aids.
Basing their arithmetic on Kenya's big tribes, researchers note that the Luo who constitute only 12.38 per cent of the country's population account for 29.2 per cent of the HIV/Aids cases as compared to the Kikuyu of central Kenya who constitute 20.78 per cent and the Luhyia of Western Kenya 14.8 per cent (1995) yet they account for only 9.2 per cent and 9.1 per cent of the cases, respectively.
Biological evidence points to increased susceptibility (among uncircumcised males) of the flesh under the foreskin to inflammation, abrasions during intercourse and prolonged viral survival due to warmth and moistness under the "sheath" of the uncircumcised.
Dr William Cameron, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada, who has co-authored several African studies, reveals that several studies have established that such sexually transmitted diseases as syphilis and chancroid occur more frequently among the uncircumcised.
Researchers argue that it may well be the poor genital hygience among non-circumcised male rather that their non-circumcised status that elevates their risk of contracting HIV.
A number of reasons have been floated, though, to explain the apparent ease of HIV transmission among non-circumcising ethnic communities in Kenya. Social, economic and cultural factors have been implicated in the elevated risk of transmission, including polygamy, widow inheritance, population mobility and sexual networking.
NASCOP reports that by 1998, adult HIV prevalence had increased to about 13.9 per cent. The prevalence in urban and rural areas is estimated to be 17-18 and 12-13 per cent respectively. Close to 400 people die everyday due to HIV related diseases, says NASCOP in its latest report, "Aids in Kenya: Background Projections Impact Interventions Policy".
Despite the devastating impact, the government and medical authorities have refused to divulge information on the link between HIV/Aids and circumcision claiming such a disclosure is "tantamount to licensing circumcised Kenyans to have unprotected sex".
"Though it is increasingly becoming evident that there is a link between the two, there are fears in some quarters that such information should not be relayed to the public,' a medical doctor at Kenyatta National Hospital who sought anonymity says.
Government authorities ought to be embarrassed of advancing such simplistic arguments, argued Mr. Edmond Kwena. "Most Kenyans are now an informed and educated lot and the assumption that they need to be protected from making erroneous decisions is an abuse to this country"
Noting that the crucial challenge lies in how and not whether to relay the information, Kwena says that it is this very lack of openness that has made Kenya lag behind in the Aids campaign in the continent.
Most recently, a study in the lake side town of Kisumu by Mark Tyndall and Allan R. Ronald also found out that more uncircumcised men than their circumcised colleagues having contact with commercial sex workers recorded a higher HIV positivity rate.
However, Isabelle de Vencenzi and Thiery Mertins in their study (1994), "Male Circumcision: A role in HIV Prevention?" argue that the association between HIV and circumcision is weakened when factors such as contact with commercial sex workers, ethnic origin and birth place are adjusted for.
"Such inconsistent findings suggest that researchers cannot, at this stage, recommend male circumcision as a policy in controlling HIV infection,' they say.
Evidence from studies validating circumcision as a control measure is, however, outweighing. In 1986, Dr Thomas Wiswell studied records of more than 200,000 male infants born in US Army hospitals worldwide. He found that circumcised boys were ten times more likely to suffer from urinary-tract infections (UTIs). He discovered, too, that 1.4 percent of uncircumcised male infants suffered UTIs in the first year of life. Wiswell's figures translated into 5,000 to 10,000 UTIs a year.
"There is overwhelming proof that circumcision may protect against foreskin infections and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids. One gets multiple benefits from one procedure."
*An Impact Feature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2000 The Nation. Distributed via Africa News Online (www.africanews.org). For information about the content or for permission to redistribute, publish or use for broadcast, contact the publisher.
EDIT: I have a feeling that, that last paragraph is supposed to read. "UNcircuncised boys are 10 times more likeley to suffer UTI's." But since it's not my article I'm not going to change it.
Raerae
Well-known member
Seems like a very compelling argument to circumcise your child. Even in the USA. So that if he does have the misfortune of sleeping with a HIV positive person, his own body isn't helping him contract the disease. Teaching safe sex, and smart decision making only helps protect him even more.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/v0...05p104main.htm
And that's just one article of many that I found questioning the methodology, statistical analysis and structure of the studies that conclude that circumcision can help prevent the contraction of AIDS. I'm too lazy to post more.
I'm not missing the point. My point is that in my house, circumcision as a method of preventing STDs is a nonsensical argument. Properly educated and given a set of values to follow, my child should be safe from contracting AIDS via sexual contact.
| Despite differences in the extent of their harmful effects, neither female nor male circumcision have clear therapeutic benefits. Claims have been made that male circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer, cervical cancer (in sexual partners), urinary tract infection, and sexual transmitted diseases while improving overall hygiene. Even if these claims were true (and there is conflicting evidence suggesting they are not), the risk reduction is most likely trivial compared to that achieved by using condoms or maintaining good foreskin hygiene, meaning that routine neonatal circumcision should not necessarily be the norm (for reviews, see 29-34). |
http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/v0...05p104main.htm
And that's just one article of many that I found questioning the methodology, statistical analysis and structure of the studies that conclude that circumcision can help prevent the contraction of AIDS. I'm too lazy to post more.
I'm not missing the point. My point is that in my house, circumcision as a method of preventing STDs is a nonsensical argument. Properly educated and given a set of values to follow, my child should be safe from contracting AIDS via sexual contact.
Raerae
Well-known member
Version 2
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/v0...05p104main.htm And that's just one article of many that I found questioning the methodology, statistical analysis and structure of the studies that conclude that circumcision can help prevent the contraction of AIDS. I'm too lazy to post more. |
First off, your article is specifically about female circumcision, with only a small blurb on male circumcision. Secondly, it's dated 1999, which is 4 years before the most current article I posted, and a year before the 2nd. It's very possible the information your article is based on was printed before the studies my articles were based on were printed.
Sources your blurb were based on:
29. Grossman E, Posner N. Surgical circumcision of neonates, a history of its development. Obstetrics and Gynecology 58: 241-246; 1981.
30. Poland RL. The question of routine neonatal circumcision. New England Journal of Medicine 322: 1312-1315; 1990.
31. Robson WL, Leung AK. The circumcision question. Postgraduate Medicine 91: 237-244; 1992.
32. Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JE, et al. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 21: 201-210; 1994.
33. Harbinson M. The arguments for and against circumcision. Nursing Standard 11: 42-47; 1997.
34. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. International Journal of STD and AIDS 10: 8-16; 1999.
The oldest is 1981... Is 25 year old information regarding HIV even relevant anymore? Only two sources even deal with AIDS, the oldest being 12 years OLD, the most current being 7. Is that even relevant to HIV anymore? Also, your article concludes that circumcision may not reduce the rate of STD infection. The newer study in my article (dated 2003) releases information specifically dealing with the forskin and increased rate of HIV infection due to the type of cells that line the forskin.
Not to mention can you really ignore the large amount of impiracle evidence that clearly shows that in communities and countries where male circumcision is low, the rate of infection is signifigantly higher than in communities where circumcision is high. How can you ignore that?
Quote:
| I'm not missing the point. My point is that in my house, circumcision as a method of preventing STDs is a nonsensical argument. Properly educated and given a set of values to follow, my child should be safe from contracting AIDS via sexual contact. |
Shouldn't you be more conscerned with giving your child every possible little bit of protection he can get. We've all been teens and young adults once. You know as well as I do that it's ignorant to assume that education and moral values alone are enough to keep your child safe. Children learn from their own mistakes, not ours, as much as we try so hard to save them the trouble of making it themselves. Obviously abstinence is best, and using a condom 100% of the time goes a long way. But lets be realistic.
Who uses a condom 100% of the time? I'll admit it, I've had unprotected sex with some of the guys I've dated. I didn't start the night off thinking, "I want to have unprotected sex!" It just kinda happened. Or how about "Comitted relationships." Think your safe there? Your safe until your boyfriend cheats on you with some other whore, and you only find out after you've been with him several more times (yes i'm still bitter). Girlfriends cheat too, so honest boys aren't 100% safe eigther.
Easiest way to get a guy to not use a condom? Two words, "The Pill." Thats all the girl needs to tell a guy, and he'll forget he even brought a condom (especially if your his girlfriend). Young couples are more conscerned with unplanned pregnancy, than STD's. Especially since you know who got pregnant, or had an abortion in your circle of friends, but I can't remember the last time I've heard anything about anyone catching a STD. The only time people talk about it is when they get the results in from their STD test (Usually prompted because of unprotected sex) and announce to everyone that it came up nagative on everything.
I'm not trying to personally attack your stance. Just remind you of what goes on, since maybe you've forgotten? Or perhaps you were one of the good girls who's only been with one person, their husband (props to you if it's true). All I know, is that people change, and kids change, and as a parent all you can do is do your best, but in the end the decision are up to your kids. My mom taught me EVERYTHING about STD's and protected sex, Drugs, Smoking, Alcohol, you name it, she made sure I knew about it.
Yet I've still had un protected sex, smoked pot, smoked cigarette's and have had a few nights passed out in the bathroom regretting all the fun I had at the party/bars the hours before. What can I say, life happens.
HIV spreads because people dont know they are infected. Don't your want your son to have every bit of protection against HIV he can get?
