₦airaland Forum

EEiiii!

Patience! That's my girl.

She kills it in almost all her movies.

https://nm.onlinenigeria.com/articlefiles/7240-patience.jpg

Can someone tell me what the latest and greatest Patience movies are?

I love Princess Tyra and the first Beyonce. I haven't seen American Boy yet but those films are quite good!

omowhyou:
Are you trying to tell me that our God is wrong when He told Abraham to do it?

I don't believe that you're a Christian. If you were a Christian and you had read the New Testament you wouldn't be asking such a question. Those old rituals are unnecessary once you accept Jesus Christ. Christ has fulfilled and replaced all the old covenants.

Do you still sacrifice animals to God as they did in the Old Testament? Get serious.

ThiefOfHearts:
never said it to be insulting. I can just understand your frustration now.

Frustration? Frustration with what exactly?

jaydean:
I walked in to the Teaching Hospital nearest to me but was shy to describe this situation, actually i need to know the field of the particular medical doctor whom I should confide in. some one tell me the possible medical field of such doctor as I should explain to because it`s a story i would not like to tell twice

My friend, there is no need to be shy. These are medical professionals.

And really this sounds like an infection? So almost any doctor should be able to treat it. But the doctor that specializes in male anatomy is the urologist. Please go get checked out soon! You don't want to end up with something serious because you waited.

omowhyou:
If it's a thing for the Jewish people how come every other people practice it or are going to tell me they were forced into it?

Who's every other people?

Some African tribes do it during adolescence because they believe circumcision makes you into a "man".

Americans do it because they're #1 partners with Israel and because they have a lot of myths that it's prettier and healthier

Muslims do it because they claim for religious reasons, but I don't know the exact reason because I don't know the Koran. Other than those people, no one else circumcises.

[quote author=+osisi link=topic=73994.msg1430363#msg1430363 date=1187993347]Biggest load of crap.
As a young man in Nigeria you risk being shot by armed robbers or killed in a car accident than most places in the world so why were you born? [/quote]What? Your jumbled up post doesn't make much sense.

Are you saying you're more likely to get shot in Nigeria by armed robbers than suffer from a complication of circumcision?

If so, that may be true, Nigeria is a dangerous place. But complications from circumcision while "rare" (I use that word sparingly because in the third world no one documents and reports regularly the complications) are very real and very devastating. I can post several news articles of boys who suffered from death and amputation as a direct result of their circumcision. Would you like to challenge me?

Octupus:
Ladies and gentlemen,
I thank u all for all your inputs.Having read all your wonderful and most respected inputs,I can safely draw the following conclusions:

1. There is no scriptural basis for male or female circumcision today.Fufu king has proven that from the scriptural references he quoted.In other words,circumcision or no circumcision is not what determines who goes to heaven.Therefore,circumcision per se,is no sin before God,whether it is male or female.

2. Male circumcision is fraught with as much complications as female circumcision.So siting the complications of female circumcision as a reason to stop it is not tenable.If complications is the issue,then like Fufu king suggested,the campaigners should campaign against both male and female circumcision.

3. There are many more uncircumcized males in the world than the circumcized.So male circumcision is the exception rather than the rule.It also suggests that those who practice it,do so for cultural reasons and the pious ones will want to tow the line of Old testament instructions by doing it on the 8th day of life.These are all ok if it satisfies there cultural and religious egos.

4. Claiming that female circumcision is not beneficial as a reason to stop it is also a matter of individual opinion.Those who practice it claim very strongly,that it has checked the infidelity in their societies.Who are we to to deny it? If it works for them,so be it.

5. Cultural practices are optional.One reserves the right to refuse any item of practice in his culture and nothing will happen,especially if the person is independent financially and otherwise.I remember a few years ago when we went to bury my father.The villagers had certain expectations of my poor mother,but my brothers and I put our feet down and refused them.She did not shave her hair,she slept when she wished and where she wanted.We refused her being disturbed when she wanted to rest.There was nothing anybody could do about it because they knew we depended on them for nothing.We just wanted the feel of home and family for my dad's burial,but on our own terms.Had they proved difficult,we would have done well with our guests and friends who came from outside town!But fortunately they cooperated.So what am I saying? If you don't like female circumcision,don't perform it on your daughters.For those who believe its beneficial,leave them alone.Otherwise u will be poke nosing in other people's biz.

5. I also noticed that the majority of opponents of female circumcision are just being sentimental and sensational,because it has to do with the female privates.Everybody seems interested and naturally,curious.There is a lot of unsupported name calling such as "barbaric", "evil", "wicked" etc.Yet no clear arguements in favour of female circumcision over male cicumcision.Is that not hypocrisy? I think it is.These people claim they love the female folk so much and want to "defend" them,but I know its mostly gossip and insincerety.

6. Finally,I want to thank everybody again.Lets move on to something else.I sign out.

Octopus, your post made a LOT of sense and your points are valid. Thank you.

Is that supposed to be an insult? LMAO

Cause it's not to me.

omowhyou:
Male circumcision is a thing that is ordained by God for the good of man. If there is any complication that is man made

Only if you're Jewish.

Christianity states that circumcision is not necessary and serves NO purpose.

And complications are not man-made, they happen because the genitals are being mutilated.

You're right about some women, because it is their norm.

Just like some women who are used to non-circumcised joysticks think that circumcised joysticks, with their ugly scars and dried-out penis heads are gross.

To each their own, no? 

ThiefofHearts,

I'm well-versed in biology. The question is are you?

And what fact is it that most women don't like an uncircumcised penis? The majority of men in the world are uncircumcised, it would seem that plenty of women have no problem with it.

And if you consider pulling back the foreskin and washing, which takes all of 5 seconds, to be difficult, then I feel sorry for you, because clearly simple tasks are a challenge for you.

[QUOTE]or they can just use condoms like normal people.[/QUOTE]

That's not what they tell the men. They tell them to get circumcised because it "protects" them from HIV.

Actually, there is a study that says that circumcised women are less likely to get HIV. The same as circumcised men:

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

So when will the campaigns to circumcise women in order to lower HIV infection roll out?

[QUOTE]Consistent with the baseline findings, women partnered with circumcised partners had higher levels of sexual risk during follow-up, being more likely than women with uncircumcised partners to self-report a sexually transmitted infection (6% versus 4%, p < 0.001), have symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection (26% versus 20%, p < 0.001), and to have a risky sexual partner (a man with symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection, or who was HIV-positive; 23% versus 14%, p < 0.001). Women with circumcised partners also had a lower mean number of protected sex acts (8.6 versus 8.3 per month, p < 0.001). [/QUOTE]

This part is very interesting to me.

So according to this study, women with circumcised partners are more likely to have a man infect with an STI and to have a more promiscuous man.

AND THIS IS BEING PROMOTED IN AFRICA? WOW.

http://www.nam.co.uk/en/news/863ED8A3-78C8-4C9C-BF22-FA0685E5D140.asp

Male circumcision has “little influence” on a woman’s HIV risk, according to a study conducted in Uganda and Zimbabwe published in the August 20th edition of AIDS. However, the study did show that women with high levels of sexual risk were slightly less likely to contract HIV if their partners were circumcised, and the investigators suggest that this finding should be explored in further studies.

Three randomised controlled trials have now shown that circumcised men might have a significantly lower risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. It is uncertain, however, if male circumcision has a protective effect against HIV infection for women. The studies that have examined this question have so far yielded conflicting results.

It is biologically plausible that women with circumcised partners have a lower risk of HIV infection. Uncircumcised men could be more likely to transmit HIV because the foreskin contains cells capable of shedding HIV and the foreskin also provides an environment where microorganisms can grow. Studies have also shown that uncircumcised men are more likely to have genital ulcers, and the presence of ulcers can facilitate the transmission of HIV.

In the current study, the effect of male circumcision on women’s HIV risk was examined by analysing data from the Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of HIV Acquisition (HC-HIV) study.

Data from 4417 sexually active women aged between 18 – 35-years in Uganda and Zimbabwe were included in the investigators’ analyses. The study population comprised 2,231 Zimbabwean women (50% of the population) and 1,793 Ugandan women assessed as having a low HIV risk (41%).

In addition, a further 393 Ugandan women with a high HIV risks, including patients from sexually transmitted infection clinics, sex workers, and military wives, were included in the study.

At baseline women were asked to say if their partner was circumcised or not. Women were also asked to provide details of the circumcision status of any new sexual partners.

At enrollment structured interviews were also used to obtain details of the women’s reproductive, contraceptive, and sexual behaviours. Follow-up visits, including physical examinations and specimen collection, took place every twelve weeks. All the women were HIV-negative on enrollment.

Almost three-quarters of the women (3,249, 74%) at baseline reported that their partner was uncircumcised. A total of 989 (22%) said their partner was circumcised, and 166 (4%) reported that they did not know the circumcision status of their partner.

Circumcision was more common amongst the partners of Ugandan (36%) women then Zimbabwean (9%) women. But Zimbabwean women accounted for 98% of those who said that they did not know if their partner was circumcised.

Women with a circumcised partner had a riskier sexual background, having an earlier mean age of sexual debut (17 years versus 18 years, p < 0.001), a higher number of mean life-time sexual partners (five versus three, p < 0.001), and a higher mean number of nights when their partner was away from home in the last month (nine versus six, p < 0.001).

The median duration of follow-up was 23 months.

Consistent with the baseline findings, women partnered with circumcised partners had higher levels of sexual risk during follow-up, being more likely than women with uncircumcised partners to self-report a sexually transmitted infection (6% versus 4%, p < 0.001), have symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection (26% versus 20%, p < 0.001), and to have a risky sexual partner (a man with symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection, or who was HIV-positive; 23% versus 14%, p < 0.001). Women with circumcised partners also had a lower mean number of protected sex acts (8.6 versus 8.3 per month, p < 0.001).

A total of 210 women became infected during follow-up (34 women with circumcised partners, 167 women with uncircumcised partners, and nine women who did not know the circumcision status of their partners). This provided an unadjusted HIV incidence of 2.03 per 100 person years for women with circumcised partners, 2.96 per 100 person years for women with uncircumcised partners, and 3.51 per 100 person years from women who did not know if their partner was circumcised.

[b]The investigators then performed a number of statistical analyses. In their first unadjusted model, they found that the risk of HIV infection was reduced for women with circumcised partners compared to women whose partners were uncircumcised (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 – 0.99). This difference was of border-line statistical significance (p = 0.06).

But the protective effect of having a circumcised partner weakened when the investigators adjusted their model to include age, age at sexual debut, contraceptive use, husband’s employment status, level of education, and number of sexual partners in the previous three months (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53 – 1.14, p value not provided). Further adjustment, taking into account population subgroups, meant that the protective effect of circumcision disappeared entirely (HR, 1.03, 95% CI, 0.69 – 1.53).

In further analysis, the women’s HIV risk group was then taken into consideration. The investigators found that low-risk Ugandan and Zimbabwean women had a similar risk of HIV infection, regardless of their partner’s circumcision status. [/b]However, the high-risk Ugandan women derived a non-significant protective effect from having a circumcised partner (HR 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02 – 1.25).

“After adjustment, we did not observe a significant protective effect of male circumcision overall…for a small group referred through high-risk settings, we found a suggestion of a lower HIV risk for women with circumcised partners,” write the investigators, adding that the finding for this high-risk subgroup “is based on few HIV infections (19 total infections, and only two among women with circumcised partners), and, therefore the suggestion that male circumcision may be protective for these high-risk women must be interpreted very tentatively.” Nevertheless, they conclude that this finding “warrants further investigation.”

Reference

Turner AN et al. Men’s circumcision status and women’s risk of HIV acquisition in Zimbabwe and Uganda. AIDS 21: 1779 – 1789, 2007.

[QUOTE]Cgift: God that instructed the isrealites limited it to the men. Where on earth did women entr into the picture. It is just barbaric really.[/QUOTE]

God instructed the JEWS to circumcise their sons. And even then, circumcision back then didn't remove nearly as much skin as it does today.

Christians are under NO obligation whatsoever to circumcise their sons. The New Testament releases Christians from all of the Old Testament's covenants, such as sacrificing animals and eye-for-an-eye.

Romans 3:29-30
Does God belong to the Jews alone?  Is he not also the God of the
Gentiles?  Yes, of the Gentiles, too.  It is the same God who justifies
the circumcised and the uncircumcised on the basis of faith.

1 Corinthians 7:18-19
Was someone called after he had been circumcised?  He should not try to
hide his circumcision.  Did the call come to another who had never been
circumcised?  He is not to be circumcised.  Circumcision counts for
nothing, and its lack makes no difference either.  What matters is keeping
God's commandments.

There is no CHRISTIAN reason to circumcise anyone. Male or female.

HEALTH COMPLICATIONS FROM MALE CIRCUMCISION:

-Meatal Stenosis (Only circumcised boys suffer from this and many times the condition requires surgical correction)
-Tight painful erections (If the circumcision removes too much skin, there is not enough skin left to accomodate the erection. This can cause the skin to BREAK on the penis)
-Skin bridges
-Penile adhesions
-Desensitization of the penis
-AMPUTATION (YES, THERE ARE SEVERAL CASES OF THE PENIS HEAD GETTING CUT OFF DURING CIRCUMCISION)
-DEATH (AGAIN, SEVERAL DOCUMENTED CASES)

With that long list of complications, how can people NOT call male circumcision "mutiliation" just like they call female circumcision? Hypocrisy.

I agree with those who say FGC is not that different from Male circumcision.

Did you know that men and women both have foreskins? Both men and women have prepuces. In the male it's called the foreskin, and in the female it's called the clitoral hood.

If female circumcision was medicalized, just like male circumcision, and they didn't do the infibulation and sewing up of the vagina (which is what causes most of the health issues) then why be against it? It's no different from male circumcision in that case.

Me, personally, I think ALL circumcision is wrong. We're made the way we are for a reason.

Male circumcision is WRONG. It's forced genital modification that can sometimes have dire consequences.

Oh no, this is very sad. My friend it sounds like you have a complication from your circumcision.

This is why male circumcision is wrong. I hope the doctors have fixed you up by now.