Going for the snip

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Far less common than recurring yeast infections and yet where is your advocacy for surgical intervention to prevent those?

there is no surgical intervention for a yeast infection. just better hygiene education. u cant really remove a womans vagina hun. the foreskin on a penis is a lot different then the vagina. though itsd attached, it can be removed

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Lorizael


You're not understanding me. How many uncircumsized men come in and go, "Doctor, doctor, I don't have an infection in my private parts, what do I do!?!???!"?

You don't see the other side of the equation. You don't see all of the uncircumsized men who are perfectly healthy and don't need to come in and get treatment.

Your DanSing proved my point. Okay.

ok first of all why would they run to a dr and pay them good money to say dr dr i dont have an infection?? i already said that uncirced men can be uncirced if they practice good hygiene and clean the area. using just water is not going to kill germs. I ask u this do any of u men wash ur hands before u goto the bathroom??? in case u didnt know this but everything u have touvhed before goes on ur penis when u go

[Lorizael]

I give up.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

there is no surgical intervention for a yeast infection. just better hygiene education. u cant really remove a womans vagina hun. the foreskin on a penis is a lot different then the vagina. though itsd attached, it can be removed

Labia can be removed too. Colonization begins there and causes trouble further in. Reduce the large external surface area for such colonization and harmful infection should be dramatically reduced.

Although I must state for the record I would be appalled by such a procedure. Even though that would be no worse than circumcision of males it would remain totally unacceptable.

prophylactic destruction of healthy tissue in healthy individuals is never medically acceptable. Circumcision is an exception that got grandfathered in from the days when doctors thought things like lobotomies for depression were a pretty keen idea.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

im sorry yeast infection begins on the labia?? which one the minora or the majora?
if u want the truth on what causes the yeast infection and it isnt the lips, so to speak, is the fact that women dousche and that kills the normal flora in the vagina which cant fight of the infection. that the flora was there for

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
im sorry yeast infection begins on the labia?? which one the minora or the majora?

colonization of foreign organisms easily begins in the vulva in general but gets overlooked because it's often asymptomatic in those tissues.

Furthermore, the protective effects of such a (ghastly) procedure should be even greater for UTI's.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

ok now were to utis, urinary tract infection. So now ur telling me vaginal yeast infections are utis ok im sorry but ur wrong. yeast doesnt grow on the lips it grows int he vagina not having a thing to do with lips

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
ok now were to utis, urinary tract infection. So now ur telling me vaginal yeast infections are utis ok im sorry but ur wrong. yeast doesnt grow on the lips it grows int he vagina not having a thing to do with lips

NO. Im saying not only will this nasty procedure reduce incidence of yeast infections (vaginal or otherwise) it will ALSO reduce incidence of UTI.

You are reaching for flaws if you some how equate those two separate statements as "vaginal yeast infections are utis".

Your claim that yeast can not colonize the vulva flies in the face of all clinical micro workups of urine. The vast majority of yeast found on (non catheterized) urine cultures is from vulvar contamination. This doesn't mean the yeast was passed in the urine rather it's just a result of a failure to produce a 'clean catch' specimen. It does however demonstrate that yeast can be present on the vulvar tissues even in the absence of a symptomatic vaginal yeast infection. Ask the MT's who do urine micro at your hospital where most of the yeast contamination they find in urines come from. It's not from the bladder or the urethra! This is the reason that a single colony of yeast on a plate is clinically significant for a cath urine even though a single yeast colony on a "clean catch" urine is not clinically significant. Please note also that the presence of yeast in the bladder is an entirely different condition from Vaginal candidiasis. Furthermore UTI's can also arise from an enormous variety of other organisms which colonize the vulvar surfaces. Yeast is only a fraction of the total pathogenic picture.

The labia and associated tissues serve as a reservoir for many types of potentially pathogenic organisms (not just yeast!) in precisely the same manner as the foreskin is accused of doing.

Cutting off the foreskin will produce no more bennefits than slicing away the labia.

[MRT144]

may all you foreskin having folks get penile cancer

[Snotty]

I feel sorry for the circed guys who can only afford cheap pants

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
OMG!

A thread in which Sava is more rational than KH.

No, im not going to participate in this debate, but I WOULD like to know where I can get a good view of the world coming to an end.

Your lack of a foreskin has obviously impeded your ability to clearly judge arguments.

[Dis]

I really won't defend it anymore (though I do think it looks better). Penises aren't ugly (even if it is a woman's opinion).

But I get tired of men slamming cut men. Are you puposely trying to make me feel bad about my body? Why not just make fun of me because I'm fat, and no woman would want me. It's over and done with, I have no choice in the matter. So stop making me feel bad about myself.

I do see it as an uncecessary procedure. It's not worth the risk. Just watching that story about that canadian guy who got the botched circumcision is enough to convince me to not get it done if I ever have male kids.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Snotty
I feel sorry for the circed guys who can only afford cheap pants

I can't even figure out what this means.

Anyway I think I'm burned out on this topic. carry on with out me.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

BTW, absent from your post are such studies

Wow. What a great point. Except that Dr Strangelove didn't post any studies either. You maroon.

Just because I don't feel like spending 5 minutes googling for reputable studies doesn't mean they don't exist.

Dr. Strangelove had to go tend to his real life, that's why. Frankly two years ago I took the opposite position, I was skeptical that circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Then I was against circumcision. Since I've seen the data showing that circumcision does indeed reduce HIV infection I've changed positions.
Actually there is some reason to believe that it is not the case that circumcision protects against infection, but that instead the intact foreskin enhances the invasion of the immune system by HIV viruses.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Dr. Strangelove had to go tend to his real life, that's why. Frankly two years ago I took the opposite position, I was skeptical that circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Then I was against circumcision. Since I've seen the data showing that circumcision does indeed reduce HIV infection I've changed positions.
Actually there is some reason to believe that it is not the case that circumcision protects against infection, but that instead the intact foreskin enhances the invasion of the immune system by HIV viruses.

I'm not criticising you for not doing so. I figured your reasons were the same as mine. I was simply pointing out that neither of us had bothered to post links to studies, and that this in and of itself was insufficient reason to damn either of us.

I am open to the suggestion that circumcision reduces the transmissability of HIV since after circumcision the skin which remains and the glans penis toughens and thickens, reducing its status as a mucous membrane. I simply don't think that the link has been definitively proven yet. Even if we postulate it, however, HIV incidence in North America and Europe is low enough among the non-IV drug using population for me to question whether reduced transmissability is sufficient cause for routine neonate circumcision in NA, given the downside risks. Africa may well be a different story...