The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

As far as evolution, your argument ignores the fact
there are many medical interventions we can use as humans that benefit us regardless of how we evolved.

Yep... my 'argument' (felt like more of an observation at the time, still does) does ignore the "medical interventions we can use as humans", simply because, whilst failing to see how or why they (the other interventions) are relevant, it occurs to me as being nothing more logical than 'innocence by association'

:confused:
 
No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.
Woo, another strawman. You're on a roll!

If it's such a useless piece of skin, how about you have it removed and see how it feels like without it. I mean, you have nothing to lose at all, and you could shut the pieholes of all the other people who argue differently. Right? But I'm sure you'll refuse even if the procedure were paid for.

Reminds me of the HIV denialists who refuse to inject themselves with the virus...
 
Marcus:
Originally Posted by Olowkow
tl;dr? If you don’t have anything nice to say, shut your hole.

Why? You certainily don't seem any nicer, I don't see how that is relevant anyway.
This was not posted by me. Please get your quoting correct. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
A fingernail is part of a finger. Cutting off the end of a fingernail is therefore the same as cutting off the end of a finger?
Ridiculous analogy. The foreskin is the flesh and blood of the penis.


M.
.
I maladroitly "amputated" a considerable portion of my left middle finger.
The doc at the ER sewed it back on.
There's no indication today of anything odd having occurred there.
I do suspect that same couldn't be said of reattaching a foreskin. :)
 
On "sensitivity", sometimes I come way too quickly!
The gal doesn't like that, and I don't because I want her to have fun too!
Condoms desensitize me so I last longer, which means more fun with her.
In some of the cultures where circumcision is the rule, the woman is frequently -required- to keep herself from lubricating, so the male can have his fun.
No one cares about her feelings at all.
From what we've seen here, foregoing the foreskin operation just might improve many things in those cultures.
 
The doc at the ER sewed it back on

The wonders of modern science, huh?

Well, here's something ancient in contrast ;)


A new tax inspector visits a synagogue for an annual review of the books

The Rabbi stands patiently while the inspector pores over the paperwork

Unable to find anything out of order he turns to the Rabbi and says "All these candles that you burn Rabbi, what do you do with the dripped wax?"

"Ah" says the Rabbi, "we save all them up and send them to the candle factory, each year they send us a free box"

After a while, and still unable to find anything wrong with the books the taxman turns to the Rabbi and says

"All the Matzo biscuits Rabbi, what do you do with the crumbs?"

"Ah" he says, " We save all the crumbs and send them to the factory. Every year they send us a gift of Matzo Balls"

The tax ferret is annoyed by the wiley Rabbi and thinks he has THE question "Tell me Rabbi , what do you do with all the foreskins left after the circumcisions?"

"Ah" says the Rabbi "Here too we do not waste, we save them up and send them to the Inland Revenue, and once a year they send us a complete dick"
 
*sigh*

All this back and forth chatter.

I don't really think it's akin to mutilation. I'm circumcised, sex works just fine, etc. Maybe it would be better the other way. I don't know, I tend to doubt it. It's certainly not akin to female genitile mutilation in any way, shape, or form.

But what it comes down to is that the people who are arguing that you should cut up the human body need a better argument than "it's traditional." The default position is "don't chop off pieces of the body." Not hard to realize why that's the default.

Now with 6 fingers/toes its well established that the extra finger or toe is worthless and just tends to get in the way and/or get ripped off at a bad time (Our hands/feet weren't built for 6, bad throwback). So we lop it off.

I don't see quite the same level of proof here. Without that level of proof, I'm inclined to say "don't cut the body needlessly."

That really is end of discussion, IMO. If you want to chop up your own body later in life, your decision. Me, I think that poking holes in the body and cutting parts of it off is silly.
This post can only mean you either didn't read the medical literature or you read it and decided to ignore it as if it didn't exist. Not a word is mentioned here about the conclusions of the American Academy of Family Practice Physicians. You don't say you disagree. You don't say you find the benefits small. You simply pretend not a single argument has been put forth for circumcision except 'tradition'.

Your conclusions are either uninformed or dishonest. Which is it?
 
This post can only mean you either didn't read the medical literature or you read it and decided to ignore it as if it didn't exist. Not a word is mentioned here about the conclusions of the American Academy of Family Practice Physicians. You don't say you disagree. You don't say you find the benefits small. You simply pretend not a single argument has been put forth for circumcision except 'tradition'.

Your conclusions are either uninformed or dishonest. Which is it?

Neither. The evidence is particularly uncompelling. Preventing HIV infection is best done through minimizing risky behaviors, not circumcision. The only place it might be beneficial is Africa, elsewhere I don't see the small prevention powers of uncircumcised penises particularly outweighing the potential complication effects (up to, and including, death).

I mean either way you're talking about 0.06% for complications given modern technology, and a very, very low AIDs infection rate among the heterosexual population (circumcision is no help among gay males, obvious).
 
LossLeader and JoeEllison, you are acting like we have to defend the practice to you. That is not the case. You are making a positive claim that cutting off part of the human body is defensible and logical. You have to prove that claim to us.


Me? Why do I have to prove anything? I have repeatedly said that if you are not Jewish, do not have your child circumcised.

I'm Jewish. I had my children circumcised. End of anecdote.
 
Last edited:
On "sensitivity", sometimes I come way too quickly!
The gal doesn't like that, and I don't because I want her to have fun too!
Condoms desensitize me so I last longer, which means more fun with her.
In some of the cultures where circumcision is the rule, the woman is frequently -required- to keep herself from lubricating, so the male can have his fun.
No one cares about her feelings at all.
From what we've seen here, foregoing the foreskin operation just might improve many things in those cultures.
Not sure what to make of what you are saying here except that you've drawn at least one false conclusion.

Where have you found any data that says this particular sexual practice is more frequent in cultures that practice male circumcision?

I found evidence it appears to be unrelated to the frequency of circumcision. It seems to be more widespread of a practice than circumcision is.

AIDS: THE AGONY OF AFRICA: Part 5: Death and the Second Sex
Harare, Zimbabwe and Nigeri Village, Kenya -- Sipewe Mhakeni used herbs from the Mugugudhu tree. After grinding the stem and leaf, she would mix just a pinch of the sand-colored powder with water, wrap it in a bit of nylon stocking, and insert it into her vagina for 10 to 15 minutes. The herbs swell the soft tissues of the vagina, make it hot, and dry it out. That made sex "very painful," says Mhakeni. But, she adds, "Our African husbands enjoy sex with a dry vagina."

Many women concur that dry sex, as this practice is called, hurts. Yet it is common throughout southern Africa, where the AIDS epidemic is worse than anywhere in the world. Researchers conducting a study in Zimbabwe, where Mhakeni lives, had trouble finding a control group of women who did not engage in some form of the practice. Some women dry out their vaginas with mutendo wegudo -- soil with baboon urine -- that they obtain from traditional healers, while others use detergents, salt, cotton, or shredded newspaper. Research shows that dry sex causes vaginal lacerations and suppresses the vagina's natural bacteria, both of which increase the likelihood of HIV infection. And some AIDS workers believe the extra friction makes condoms tear more easily.

Dry sex is not the only way African women subordinate their sexual safety to men's pleasure. In a few cultures, a woman's vagina is kept tight by sewing it almost shut. But in most African societies, the methods are subtler: Girls are socialized to yield sexual decision-making to men. Prisca Mhlolo is in charge of counseling at The Centre, a large organization for HIV-positive Zimbabweans. "You're not even allowed to say, 'Can we have sex?' " she notes. "So it's very hard to bring up condoms." ...

Of course, Africa contains thousands of cultures, some of which have strict sexual codes. But common to many sub-Saharan societies are the gender roles epitomized by dry sex: Women are unable to negotiate sex, and so must risk infection to please the man. In fact, there are very few female checks and balances on male behavior. This stark inequality "is part of our culture," Mhlolo says, "and our culture is part of why HIV is spreading."...

It's not surprising that men like dry sex -- the swollen tissues make the vagina smaller and, therefore, make the man feel bigger. Also, some men (and women) find vaginal secretions repugnant, while others don't like the sound of wet sex. And to many men, a vagina that is too wet and loose can signify infidelity.

But some women also prefer dry sex. Mhakeni stopped only because she is HIV-positive and wants to protect herself against getting any sexually transmitted diseases that might weaken her immune system. Despite the pain of dry sex, she favors it. "It's our culture," she explains. Then she adds a reason researchers and AIDS workers say they hear over and over again: "If I don't use herbs, our men will go with someone else." Indeed, Mhakeni sells the herbs, and even when she warns women of the risks, they still buy. ...

Concern voiced over "dry sex" practices in South Africa
Phillip Kubukeli, President of the Herbalists and Spiritual Healers Association in the Western Cape, says the use of dry sex is most prevalent in Kwazulu-Natal, which has the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS.

In the first descriptive study of its kind in South Africa, Norar found dry sex to be prevalent among prostitutes in the midlands of Kwazulu-Natal. At least 80% of a group of 150 prostitutes aged between 15 and 45 years who work at truck stops favour high, tight, and dry sex. Competition is tough and it is imperative the men return to them for economic reasons. One woman explains: "men do not like loose vaginas. If sex is wet the man thinks that I have had sex with someone else and then he won't pay me."



Geographical Patterns of Male Circumcision Practices in Africa: Association with HIV Seroprevalence
Male circumcision practices for over 700 African societies were identified, and HIV seroprevalence in general adult populations from 140 distinct locations in 41 countries was obtained. In locations where male circumcision is practised, HIV seroprevalence was considerably lower than in areas where it is not practised.

Lack of Circumcision and the spread of AIDS in Africa
circumcision is very often practiced by some tribes and not by others in the same geographical region.
See the map at the link to see the geographical distribution of circumcision practices.


Other studies are not finding the rate of HIV to be as closely related to dry sex as it is related to lack of circumcision. Though they don't specifically point to any relationship between circumcision and more frequent dry sex practices, the implication is dry sex and no circumcision equals greater HIV risk and dry sex and circumcision does not. That suggests dry sex is practiced by both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Otherwise, who would they have studied? I did find a study concerned with whether the circumcision itself might increase vaginal tearing when combined with dry sex. The preliminary results in one study were maybe. But at least one other study found no difference in the risk of HIV in females based on which drying substances they used. There appears to be a need for a lot more research in this area.




Then there is this perception that circumcision improves sexual preformance. It is anecdotal in the sense this is a survey of beliefs, but nonetheless, that is all we are hearing from the opposite position as well, a report of people's beliefs.

Perceived health and sexual benefits [of circumcision]
Perceived improvement of sexual attraction and performance can also motivate circumcision. In a survey of boys in the Philippines, 11% stated that a determinant of becoming circumcised was that women like to have sexual intercourse with a circumcised man, and 18% of men in the study in South Korea stated that circumcision could enhance sexual pleasure. In Nyanza Province, Kenya, 55% of uncircumcised men believed that women enjoyed sex more with circumcised men. Similarly, the majority of women believe that women enjoyed sex more with circumcised men, even though it is likely that most women in Nyanza have never experienced sexual relations with a circumcised man. In northwest Tanzania, younger men associated circumcision with enhanced sexual pleasure for both men and women, and in Westonaria district, South Africa, about half of men said that women preferred circumcised partners.
 
Last edited:
Neither. The evidence is particularly uncompelling. Preventing HIV infection is best done through minimizing risky behaviors, not circumcision. The only place it might be beneficial is Africa, elsewhere I don't see the small prevention powers of uncircumcised penises particularly outweighing the potential complication effects (up to, and including, death).

I mean either way you're talking about 0.06% for complications given modern technology, and a very, very low AIDs infection rate among the heterosexual population (circumcision is no help among gay males, obvious).
If you felt the evidence noncompelling, then say so. You claimed there was only a single argument and that was tradition. That is dishonest.

Are you qualified to claim your assessment of the medical risk and benefit is superior to the medical professionals who don't agree with you?

BTW, no one is arguing for circumcision to prevent HIV in low prevalence areas. That is a straw man.
 
Last edited:
Skepti, I haven't done much "research" other than skim popular literature.
Probably because I think any "interference" with what nature provides has no basis in practicality... whether it's circumcision or dry sex or anything else related to cultural mores, as these are the most variable things anyone could find.. What's goose sauce in one culture isn't even considered as edible in another, if it's considered at all.
These interferences have their roots in male dominance, which is pervasive in many/most of the cultures that promote them.
I'm prejudiced against anything from the "good old days" that is "good" because "we always do that".
If there's a good reason for "always doing that", then OK, but for this subject in particular, there's no reason at ALL for doing it.
 
This having been said, I honsestly do not care if any particular Jewish man is circumcised or not. I don't consider him less Jewish.

Except those that you spawn, right?

I don't mind his choice at all.

I'm sorry - choice, you say. What's that then?

No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.

Well that depends on your experiences involving it. Yours sound sadly limited to me.
 
1999 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Circumcision Policy Statement; A statement of reaffirmation for this policy was published on September 1, 2005.
Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. This practice has been advocated for reasons that vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measure. Until the last half century, there has been limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision.

Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.

In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.5

Because of the ongoing debate, as well as the publication of new research, it was appropriate to reevaluate the issue of routine neonatal circumcision. This Task Force adopted an evidence-based approach to analyzing the medical literature concerning circumcision. The studies reviewed were obtained through a search of the English language medical literature from 1960 to the present and, additionally, through a search of the bibliographies of the published studies.
 
This having been said, I honsestly do not care if any particular Jewish man is circumcised or not. I don't consider him less Jewish.

Except those that you spawn, right?

I don't mind his choice at all.

I'm sorry - "choice", you say. What's that then?

No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.

Well that depends on your experiences involving it. Yours sound sadly limited to me.
 
The best we have seen here on the pro side is an assertion that it is not harmful; and a belief that this is a preventive measure ( most strongly stated by thesyntaxera when he said it is like vaccination). The health problems it is said to combat are rare and I do not think it is at all like vaccination because vaccination prevents common and serious diseases: circumcision does not.

How common are measles mumps and rubella again? Are we only talking in western countries, or the whole world here anyway? Circumcision has shown to decrease the transmission of HIV...that seems like a pretty serious and wide spead disease. It is also suggested through scientific findings that smegma may actually be a carcinogen contributing to cervical cancer. There is also the information that has already been supplied in this thread, such as the prevention of prostate cancer, uninary tract infections, and HPV.

http://www.circs.org/library/heins/index.html
The clinical and sociological facts and observations concerning smegma strongly indicate that in some way it is implicated in the genesis of penile and cervical carcinoma. Whole raw smegma as well as some of its components is stimulatory to the cervico-vaginal epithelium of mice and invasive carcinoma will eventuate if the stimulus persists. It must be realized that the epithelium of the lower genital tract of mice is labile and probably reacts proliferatively to a wide variety of stimuli. Whole raw smegma, however, exclusive of known carcinogens, has proved to be the most effective stimulus in this experiment, followed by either some of its components or closely allied substances.

If lack of circumcision should prove to be of significance in the development of cervical cancer, a gradual reduction of this type of cancer may be expected in the United States. Wynder[2] has noted the circumcision rate in groups of hospitals studied to be 8O to 85 per cent of the non-Jewish males.

As Younge[15] has recently stressed, celibacy and late marriage will never be popular methods of the control of cervical cancer. He enthusiastically feels that invasive cancer of the cervix can be prevented by widespread advocation of circumcision, care of the abnormal-appearing cervix, and early detection of intraepithelial cancer.

Epidermoid cancer of the cervix has been noted in women exposed only to circumcised males and in virgins. Other etiological factors than those involving coitus and lack of circumcision must therefore exist.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...n#Possible_protections_gained_by_circumcision

Prostate cancer rates vary greatly. They are lowest in South and East Asia, higher in Europe - though the rates vary widely between countries - and highest in the United States [44]. In the USA, prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer, with a lifetime risk of 1 in 6 and rising.[45]. According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is least common in Asian men, more common in European men and most common in Black men [46] [47]. However, these high rates may reflect increased detection rates [48].

Neither the American Cancer Society nor the professional medical organizations' policy statements on circumcision cited here mention a relationship between circumcision and prostate cancer.

Early ecological studies suggested that circumcision may have a protective effect against prostate cancer. Ravich and Ravich [N Y State J Med. 1951 Jun 15;51(12):1519-20.] reported that in patients operated on for prostatic obstruction, 1.8% of obstructions in Jews were cancerous, compared with 19% in non-Jews. [49] Ecological studies are considered unreliable but later case-control studies obtained results as follows:

Ross et al. [J of the National Cancer Institute. 1987 May;78(5):869-74] reported on two case-control studies in Southern California. Both studies included 142 cases and both found that circumcised men were at reduced risk (relative risk of 0.5 in whites and 0.6 in blacks).[50]

Mandel & Schuman [J Gerontology. 1987 May;42(3):259-64].reported on a case-control study with 250 cases. Compared with controls drawn from their neighborhood, circumcised men were less likely to develop prostate cancer (odds ratio 0.82). [51]

Ewings & Bowie [Br J Cancer. 1996 Aug;74(4):661-6] performed a case-control study of 159 cases of prostate cancer, and found that circumcised men were at a reduced risk (odds ratio 0.62) [52]. They noted: "...some statistically significant associations were found, although these can only be viewed as hypothesis generating in this context."

Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection, including a study of healthy Mexican military men [53] and Castellsagué et al (2002), who found that male circumcision correlated with a reduced risk of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer in his female partner if the man had had more than six sexual partners. [54] That study was criticized on methodological grounds.[53] [54] but Baldwin et al (2004) [55] also found less HPV infection in circumcised men in their sample.

Some genital HPV strains some can cause genital warts, cervical or penile cancer [56]. One study found no statistically significant difference in HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men, but did note a significantly higher incidence of urethritis in the uncircumcised.[55]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/4/789

Conclusions. Newborn circumcision results in a 9.1-fold decrease in incidence of UTI during the first year of life as well as markedly lower UTI-related medical costs and rate of hospital admissions. Newborn circumcision during the first year of life is, thus, a valuable preventive health measure, particularly in the first 3 months of life, when uncircumcised males are most likely to be hospitalized with severe UTI.
 
Skepti, I haven't done much "research" other than skim popular literature.
Probably because I think any "interference" with what nature provides has no basis in practicality... whether it's circumcision or dry sex or anything else related to cultural mores, as these are the most variable things anyone could find.. What's goose sauce in one culture isn't even considered as edible in another, if it's considered at all.
These interferences have their roots in male dominance, which is pervasive in many/most of the cultures that promote them.
I'm prejudiced against anything from the "good old days" that is "good" because "we always do that".
If there's a good reason for "always doing that", then OK, but for this subject in particular, there's no reason at ALL for doing it.
The medical literature supports a medical benefit from circumcision. It is reasonable for parents weighing the risks and benefits to come to different conclusions about circumcision depending on their personal views and priorities. I believe there is no right or wrong here and everyone claiming moral outrage is trying to apply their view of the world to everyone else. That is inappropriate in this case.

In the 40 some page thread on this subject I argued repeatedly that a parent who for example, had lost a previous child to infection had every right to find the medical benefit from circumcision worth the risk/cost. The people who would apply their personal morality to such a decision are no better than a fundie claiming gay sex was a sin. The same goes for people condemning someone who decided to have their child circumcised for either traditional or religious reasons.

The arguments for and against circumcision are a wash. The scale does not tip one way or the other based on evidence, only on personal beliefs. Get over it people. You are out of line unless you are merely expressing your personal choice. And if that is the case, well then, that is how this matter should be decided, based on one's personal beliefs, not based on someone else's.
 
Well that depends on your experiences involving it. Yours sound sadly limited to me.

Perhaps you are overestimating your own. There is no appreciable difference, so we can quit tooting that horn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings

According to this study women apparently prefer circumcision in the US:
http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/
This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men.

Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still prefer circumcised sexual partners.

Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for sexual activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual stimulation, and visual appeal.

They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being cleaner and looking sexier.

The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means something different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent balanitis and other complications.

To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis tastes, smells, and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity is more likely to be enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because bathing efforts last for longer periods of time. For the uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be attended to frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the glans to air prevents the build up of odors and secretions.

Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual activities is the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What is sexier about a circumcised penis?

Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona without them being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all, such is the appearance of an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the erect penis involves exposure of the glans.

While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect. Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

So if you hetero and interested in sexual satisfaction perhaps this is something to consider...
 
SEXUAL PRACTICE, SENSATION, AND CIRCUMCISION STATUS
A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.13 There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.31
In other words, those crying loss of sexual sensation are exaggerating if we look at the actual evidence. Maybe they personally have an issue, but the majority of men do not.

13 Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of circumcision across various social groups and examine the health and sexual outcomes of circumcision. DESIGN: An analysis of data from the National Health and Social Life Survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national probability sample of 1410 American men aged 18 to 59 years at the time of the survey. In addition, an oversample of black and Hispanic minority groups is included in comparative analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, the experience of sexual dysfunction, and experience with a series of sexual practices. RESULTS: We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However, uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors. CONCLUSIONS: The National Health and Social Life Survey evidence indicates a slight benefit of circumcision but a negligible association with most outcomes. These findings inform existing debates on the utility of circumcision. The considerable impact of circumcision status on sexual practice represents a new finding that should further enrich such discussion. Our results support the view that physicians and parents be informed of the potential benefits and risks before circumcising newborns.

31
Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human Sexual Response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1966:189-191
No link provided.



CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND UTI IN INFANT MALES
There may be a relationship between young age at first symptomatic UTI and subsequent renal scar formation.88,89 Similarly, there may be a relationship between young age (<= 3 years) at first episode of pyelonephritis and decreased glomerular filtration rate.90 However, the relationship between renal scar formation and renal function is not well defined, and the long-term clinical significance of renal scars remains to be demonstrated.

Data from multiple studies suggest that uncircumcised male infants are perhaps as much as 10 times more likely than are circumcised male infants to experience a UTI in the first year of life. This means that an uncircumcised male infant has an approximate 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI during the first year of life; a circumcised male infant has an approximate 1 in 1000 chance of developing a UTI during the first year of life. Published data from a population-based cohort study of 58 000 Canadian infants suggest an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infant males of lower magnitude than data from previous studies. Using data from this study, an uncircumcised male infant has a 1 in 140 chance of being hospitalized for a UTI during the first year of life; a circumcised male infant has an approximate 1 in 530 chance of being hospitalized for a UTI during the first year of life.

In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies among studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold during the first year of life, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%).
There is an extensive discussion of the literature in the article for anyone interested.

88
Winberg J, Bollgren I, Kallenius G, Clinical pyelonephritis and local renal scarring: a selected review of pathogenesis, prevention, and prognosis. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1982; 29:801-814
No abstract available.

89
Renal damage one year after first urinary tract infection: role of dimercaptosuccinic acid scintigraphy.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether age, C-reactive protein (CRP), body temperature, or results of voiding cystourethrography at diagnosis of first-time symptomatic urinary tract infection could predict the risk of renal damage as evaluated by dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy performed 1 year after the infection. DESIGN: The study included 157 children (median age, 0.4 year, range, 5 days to 5.8 years) with first-time symptomatic urinary tract infection. In children 1 year of age or older, a body temperature of 38.5 degrees C or higher was necessary for inclusion. CRP and body temperature were measured at the time of infection, and voiding cystourethrography was performed shortly thereafter. DMSA scintigraphy was performed 1 year later in all children. RESULTS: After 1 year, 59 (38%) of the 157 children had renal damage as evaluated by DMSA scintigraphy, and of these, 28 (47%) had reflux. There was a positive correlation between renal damage and CRP, body temperature, and reflux. Children with high levels of CRP, high fever, and dilating reflux had a risk of renal damage up to 10 times higher than children with normal or slightly elevated CRP levels, no or mild fever, and no reflux. CONCLUSION: CRP concentration and body temperature at the index infection, in combination with the results of voiding cystourethrography, are useful in classifying children at high and low risk of scintigraphic renal damage 1 year after urinary tract infection.

90
Age as a main determinant of renal functional damage in urinary tract infection
Renal function was studied in 61 girls suffering from recurrent urinary tract infections, with at least one febrile infection. Clearance of inulin was determined. Intravenous urography and micturating cystourethrography were performed 1-6 months after the first infection and 0-6 months before or after the function test. A low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was found only among children with their first pyelonephritis before the age of 3 years. A low GFR was found mostly in patients with small or scarred kidneys but was also seen in a few patients with normal intravenous urographs. Low GFR as well as radiologically small kidneys at the time of the function test were found independently of the presence or grade of vesicoureteral reflux at first infection. Patients with early onset pyelonephritis (before age 3 years) had a low capacity for early compensatory hypertrophy in contrast to patients with late onset pyelonephritis.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.
 
Last edited:
Yep... my 'argument' (felt like more of an observation at the time, still does) does ignore the "medical interventions we can use as humans", simply because, whilst failing to see how or why they (the other interventions) are relevant, it occurs to me as being nothing more logical than 'innocence by association'

:confused:
Perhaps you can clarify your point here. From what I read you are saying, however we evolved is superior to interventions we are capable of, while at the same time when I point out interventions that are superior to evolution you dismiss that fact as irrelevant.

If your argument is the evolutionary state is always assumed to be superior, I believe there is evidence that is an invalid argument.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom