The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

Tsukasa Buddha said:
As someone who read that thread, I suggest it stay lost ;) .
Click to expand...


And I should warn you that the old thread has absolutely immeasurable amounts of clintonhammond. After he was suspended, it settled down (more or less) into a general agreement that circumcision had been shown to decrease the rate of HIV infection in Africa but outside of Africa was a nonfactor. Also, the decrease in urinary infections among the circumcised was offset by the increase in adheasions/other problems (they were all pretty small percentages).

IvortheEngineer presented the best research. Most of it only applied to adult circumcision. There were zero studies (even poorly designed ones) that showed a difference in sexual enjoyment between those circumcised as infants and those who were uncut.

And the thread also contains the first and only instance in which somebody wished ill health to my sons. That was weird.
 
Basically there is no medical reason to do it so it's really up to tradition. Personally I can't prove it (due to lack of studies) but I do think non-circumcised has advantages, especially when it comes to jacking off. I'm biased though.
 
Fiona said:
What complications are those, JoeEllison? and what problems does it solve?
Click to expand...

It solves the hygiene problem, and slightly helps avoid some STDs, and avoids the complications of phimosis, paraphimosis, stenosis.... people don't get circumcised as adults because it is a good time.
 
Don't have a source on it, but listening to a discussion on Love Line about it, Dr. Drew said that penile cancer does not happen if you are circumsized. Not exactly a fact I can link to I know, but I beleive the medical community would agree that the procedure causes no harm and can prevent some problems.

I don't think this can come down to "what is more medically adviseable" - this is kind of a choice you just gotta make. End of the day, there isn't really a ton of harm either way.

I will say however that I'm glad my parents had this done to me when I was a baby, because if they didn't, I would want it done for whatever reasons (health, aesthetics, whatever), and I would have been pretty uncomfortable doing it as an adult.
 
My opinion: circumcision is a very bad idea. I don't want to get too graphic, but it is there for a very important reason, having to do with facilitating mechanical interfacing with its intended target which may not ...uhmm be as cooperative as it could, as well as preventing desensitization of the glans by years of chafing from clothing.

I am going to go out on a big limb and suggest that many failed relationships may be due to circumcision, but no one has ever broached this subject as far as I have ever heard. It is a real can of worms. Much too sensitive an issue to men who will never know how the natural way works. Just an opinion, mind you.
 
Pssst, don't tell Ivor about this thread. ;)

We had an intense debate on this not too long ago. I'll find you the link but warn you there are pages and pages and pages because it is a very emotional issue for many.

The summary:

There were those who adamantly believed it affected one's sexual pleasure. Very little if any, actual clinical data was in the lit backing this claim up. It came almost exclusively from anecdotal reports and that was almost exclusively from men who only knew one or the other condition, mostly circumcised men who resented it, I believe. There was a discussion of the sexual receptors in the foreskin presented as evidence. But that was countered by the fact there were studies showing circumcised men reported equal levels of sexual satisfaction as uncircumcised men. It suggested the anecdotal evidence was not evidence of cause and effect but of some other issue.

There were those who wanted Jr to look like dad for various stated reasons and there were those who wanted Jr circumcised for religious reasons.

There were those who felt it was unethical to decide for the infant and insisted the decision be deferred until age of consent. This included some of the doctors on the forum who argued their personal position on the procedure could make them refuse to perform it. Problem with that is the medical benefit occurs in infancy and early childhood.

There was a medical benefit which was documented by research. There was a greater risk of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised infants which was not necessarily an overly common occurrence in the first place, but rarely was as serious as leading to a severe blood infection and future kidney problems and very rarely, death. This outweighed the risks of complications from the circumcision when weighing actual documented risk and benefit.

If you lived in a high prevalence HIV area, there was good evidence circumcision decreased HIV risk. We all agreed this was not a valid consideration in a low HIV prevalence area or country.



My feeling was the parents had every right to decide and I became annoyed at what I perceived as the judgmental physicians. They, of course, felt they were protecting the infant's rights, which would have been a stronger argument if there weren't formal medical recommendations that circumcision was a reasonable parental decision given the evidence of actual medical benefit.

I had my son circumcised using an anesthetic in the procedure. I believe that was the evidence based decision, given risk and benefit. I was not swayed by the anecdotes and all the personal emotional arguments though I understand why others came to hold those views.

Of course, lots of people were disgusted by my position. No surprise there. I was unhappy that health care providers and others were imposing their morals on parents' personal decisions. It becomes a moral imposition when there is no supporting evidence that the procedure was harmful or of no clear benefit. There were opinions on harm, but not evidence. There was evidence on benefit, it wasn't so overwhelming as to negate individual decisions. But there was no place for imposing one's choice on others.



Link to 9 threads (plus one on female circumcision given this tag)


47 page thread...I warned you. This one has a lot of links.

The citation from the thread I most recommend is Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision
Board Approved: August 2007 Reaffirmed

I think Fiona's link above is another good source, the British Medical Association, The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors; June 2006 These are the kind of sources with the best medical recommendatons. The decision, however, is not always strictly a medical one.


18 page thread. Not sure but I think I stayed out of that one as there was really not a lot more to say and the last one had gotted too intense. This one ended with Loss Leader reporting
Loss Leader said:
It is my great honor to announce that my son, Harry, was circumcised yesterday morning at 11:00 a.m. He was held by his grandfather on a pillow, the entire procedure lasting about forty-five seconds. He cried very little before, during or after the ceremony. Right now, he is resting, eating and behaving normally (or as normally as a nine-day old does anything).

I thank you for your kind wishes for his continued health.
Click to expand...
(Of course my bias is showing. But I have no issue with a parent opting not to circumcise, just with those who claim to know what is best for everyone else.)
 
Last edited:
Male circumcision... waste of time.
Female circumcision. a crime!
 
We're in the US, my son is intact, and we've had no issues with it. The national average is approaching 50%, so your kid won't grow up a freak now if he's uncircumcised.

My circumcised husband had to have a minor (but traumatic) corrective surgery as a little kid for this:

http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2356.htm

Genital disorders are commonly encountered in the office of the primary care physician. Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative.
Click to expand...

Another reason not to do it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627144210.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

I think amputating children's sex organs is completely weird and wrong, and a human right's violation, personally.
 
Olowkow said:
Certainly not before he decides his own position on the subject. Circumcision now would be pre-emptive.
Click to expand...



I cannot make this more clear: the only properly-controlled studies on the effects of circumcision show that adult circumcision carries physical and psychological risks of sexual disfunction. The procedure, if done, must be done in infancy or you risk a much, much larger impact on your child.

The so-called "human rights" argument ignores this medical evidence.
 
kellyb said:
I think amputating children's sex organs is completely weird and wrong, and a human right's violation, personally.
Click to expand...


Amputating children's sex organs?!?!

You've obviously seen different circumcisions than I have. My experience has been like Loss Leaders'. Both of my sons cried for a minute and that was it.
 
you know every time this nonsense comes up I have to point out the double standard that this subject receives

Interesting interview with Ayaan Hirsi-Ali.

She's an international "star" because she was circumcised, yet no one bats an eye that millions of boys are.


as for the health and HIV nonsense. The vast majority of the world for social and religious reason is not has not ever been circumcised. Why are these men all over the world dying from all these alleged lack of health benefits and additional exposure to these diseases.

You would think that if all these issues were so prevalent then during the 16 and 1700 when xians used any excuse to blame de joos some one would have put this together :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom