Circumcision: Yes or No?

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Me and my roommate discussed it after watching an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit and can't come to an agreement. His opinion is that it should be up to the person (when they reach an age where they can make the decision themselves) whether or not their foreskin is removed. My opinion is that it is healthier and cleaner for the child so it should be done as an infant.

There are other factors that go into this too that we discussed:
• the need to do it - is it a real risk?
• is it purely asthetic or does it serve a real purpose
• is performing it on an infant traumatizing (ie, will it scar the newborn for life)?

My conclusion is that the foreskin can cause urinary tract infections in infants, is more susceptible to tearing during intercourse (allowing for the easy contraction of STDs if not wearing a condom), it allows for the collection of Smegma (basically smegma is stagnant urine, dead skin cells and anything else that happens to collect inside it) and asthetically it is not attractive. As for the sensitivity of the penis, I've concluded that the extra sensitivity could be either a good or bad thing (i say bad because sex may not be as long lasting - I would sacrifice a bit of sensitivity for longer sex)

His conclusion is that the foreskin serves a purpose - to make the penis more sensitive dring intercourse, and it is naturally that way so it should be left that way. He says that regular hygiene will take care of the smegma problem and that asthetics are just that - asthetic - kinda like a boob job. As for sensitivity, he said maybe people don't like to have long sex O_o and that if tearing of the foreskin is a concern, a condom is the answer, in addition to having foreskin.


As for whether or not it's traumatic to a child we can't agree on, as well as the choice (should it be made by the person or by the doctor?)

[GenocideAlive]

The child won't remember the circumcision.

And there are two schools of thought, equally valid:

Circumcision at a young age introduces the possibility of infection at the site. It needs maintenance.

Not getting circumcised increases the possibility of infection once the man gets older because of the skin folds.

[Prozerran]

I wish I still had my foreskin. I believe sex would be much more enjoyable. As I see it, the foreskin serves to protect that very sensitive area around the head of the penis until it actually penetrates the vagina. The foreskin also seems more or less designed for the very purpose of allowing the head of the penis to reach the lubrication inside the vagina and create some suction as to extract it from the woman before fully inserting.

Since I have no foreskin, I cannot say it would be 100% effective, but as it stands now, when my fiance is "warmed up" enough, the lubrication is still down in there and must come out further before insertion.

Sorry to be blunt with information you probably don't want to hear about, but hey, you asked.

[EvilEggCracker]

Cutting anything off a penis is wrong:(

But seriously, If I was givin a choice to have a circumcision, then I would most definatly say no. I believe its up to the person whether or not they wish to have their foreskin cut off. Besides Id prefer to have that extra "humprf!" during sex...

[GenocideAlive]

I wish I still had my foreskin. I believe sex would be much more enjoyable. As I see it, the foreskin serves to protect that very sensitive area around the head of the penis until it actually penetrates the vagina.
It also serves to deaden some of the feeling that you'd get out of it. Frankly, I'd rather get some K-Y and keep the feeling.

[Xenon]

I like my bald penis. I don't like the hoodie.

[GenocideAlive]

I like my bald penis. I don't like the hoodie.
Good point. Maybe in cold weather, I'd advocate keeping it. Although it seems under cold-weather conditions you'd be more likely to develop an infection in the folds. Man, it's a tough call. But I'd rather the devil I can see vs. the devil I can't. Ahahahahah. Replace "devil" with "penis". I'm a regular Robert Frost.

[Prozerran]

It also serves to deaden some of the feeling that you'd get out of it. Frankly, I'd rather get some K-Y and keep the feeling.

Well, as it stands now, I find myself concentrating on not ejaculating for so long I lose focus on the sensation of the act. So, bassackwards, we're sort of in agreement I suppose.

You're right though, I can see deadening the feeling to be less enjoyable. I prefer, however, that my partner enjoy it for just as much and as long as I do.

[frazz]

Well, I'm a Christian, and I don't think there are too many people who have died of circumsision. I am and my children will be because the Bible says too. If you're not a Christian or Jew then there's not much point to it.
But I'm not saying people should go out and get circumsised. But Christians should circumsise their newborn kids because the Bible says to.
And before someone says anything, the Bible does not tell you to own slaves. So don't hit me with any of that junk, ok?

[LinkTheGameFreak]

Well, I'm a Christian, and I don't think there are too many people who have died of circumsision. I am and my children will be because the Bible says too. If you're not a Christian or Jew then there's not much point to it.
But I'm not saying people should go out and get circumsised. But Christians should circumsise their newborn kids because the Bible says to.
And before someone says anything, the Bible does not tell you to own slaves. So don't hit me with any of that junk, ok?

I suppose it ALSO doesn't tell you to sell your daughters or to allow them to be used them as prostitutes ;)

(i'm on your side... kinda... ;))

[Xenon]

Muslims also circumcise.

Also, most christians do NOT circumcise their children as it only mentions circumcision in the Old Testament. If you're going to start following the Old Testament, you also need to stop eating pork, shellfish, and other "unclean" food. No dairy products mixed with meat (Cheeseburgers, Pizza, etc.) and you need to take the Sabbath off... You may also have to burn your clothes if a woman on her menses touches you.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

The New Testament establishes a new covenant between God and Man so the ceremonial things mentioned in the Old Testemant need not apply anymore (circumcision, sacrifice and the like)

I also remember God showing Peter (?) and telling him to not call anything that He has made unclean anymore (I can't remember exactly) so that would mean that kosher (according to the New Testament) along with circumcision doesn't apply anymore, but I will still circumcise my son for health reasons and such

[GenocideAlive]

Well, as it stands now, I find myself concentrating on not ejaculating for so long I lose focus on the sensation of the act. So, bassackwards, we're sort of in agreement I suppose.
Yeah, wait till you're married. Problem solved.
You're right though, I can see deadening the feeling to be less enjoyable. I prefer, however, that my partner enjoy it for just as much and as long as I do.
I don't particularly care. Just lay still. ;)
I also remember God showing Peter (?) and telling him to not call anything that He has made unclean anymore
DOUBLE ENTANDRE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...ok, a little childish. But still...

[Prozerran]

The New Testament establishes a new covenant between God and Man so the ceremonial things mentioned in the Old Testemant need not apply anymore (circumcision, sacrifice and the like)

I also remember God showing Peter (?) and telling him to not call anything that He has made unclean anymore (I can't remember exactly) so that would mean that kosher (according to the New Testament) along with circumcision doesn't apply anymore, but I will still circumcise my son for health reasons and such

I guess it's too much to ask that we stay on topic. As in, the establishment of the New Testament has about as much to do with circumcision as music has to do with science, and staying in the here and now is a definite plus. Now, if we were in Rome, where politics = religion, then you might have something. At this point, circumcision has more to do with health science than religious belief.

I believe that's what you said, but just so the topic doesn't shoot into left field, I felt it needed to be said.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

I was just pointing out that religiously, circumcision serves no purpose anymore (for the people who view it as HAVING to be done because the Bible said so), but as a healthy means for penis upkeep, it's perfectly fine :)

DOUBLE ENTANDRE!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...ok, a little childish. But still...

hehehe, I haven't heard anyone call their tallywacker a Peter in a very slong time :D

[frazz]

I suppose it ALSO doesn't tell you to sell your daughters or to allow them to be used them as prostitutes
You are absolutely right.
Also, most christians do NOT circumcise their children as it only mentions circumcision in the Old Testament. If you're going to start following the Old Testament, you also need to stop eating pork, shellfish, and other "unclean" food. No dairy products mixed with meat (Cheeseburgers, Pizza, etc.) and you need to take the Sabbath off... You may also have to burn your clothes if a woman on her menses touches you.
Ya I pretty much figured someone would react to my post in that way. Some people are so predictable.:concern:
(for the people who view it as HAVING to be done because the Bible said so)
I don't view it as having to be done. I view it as an act of reverence toward God. Not neccesary. It's like those sort of oaths they took back in the Old Testament. Where you can't cut your hair or drink whine etc. It's not necesary, but something you do as an act of reverence toward God.

People try not to be predictable.

[Greyscale]

I still have it, and there are two downsides that I can think of (One possible).

First, the foreskin greatly reduces the time required to reach climax. If i'm really horny, It is possible to go off in less than 2 min :shiftyr: . If i'm not feeling up to it, it can take up to 10 or 15.

The other possible downside is the increased risk of prostate cancer :concern: . However, I'm not going to cut it off just because of that. I have it, and its going to stay there. (Unless a major problem arises).

In the end, the decision is up to the individual person.

[Xenon]

http://www.circinfo.net/slide1.jpg
As a prelude to this, one needs to first understand the anatomy. The foreskin is composed of an outer layer that is keratinized, i.e., as is skin generally, and an inner layer that is a mucosal surface. The inner lining thus resembles other mucosal epithelia such as line the cervix, nasal passages and rectum. It had been suggested that the foreskin protected the glans from drying out and becoming keratinized. However, histological examination has shown the same amount of keratin in the skin of the head of the penis irrespective of circumcision status. The inner layer lines a 'preputial sac', which becomes a repository for shed cells, secretions and urinary residue that accumulates. It is also a hospitable environment for the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms. During an erection the head and shaft of the penis extend so that the inner layer becomes exteriorized along the distal half of the shaft. This exposes it to infectious agents during sexual intercourse. It has been speculated that the prepuce is a source of secretions, pheromones, etc, but given the dubious authorship of these reports and the absence of any research support, such suggestions should be regarded as fanciful.

It has been suggested that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:





The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.
The moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans of both circumcised and uncircumcised penis, which have been found to have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms). This means that the inner lining is a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria
The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.
The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed in detail later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection', as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection.
Circumcision pre-dates recorded history. Egyptian mummies and wall carvings record the practice of circumcision over 6000 years ago. Along with Columbus' 'discovery' of North America he noted that many of the natives there were circumcised. In fact circumcision is seen in diverse people all over the world, ranging from African, the Middle East, parts of Asia, Australian aboriginals, Pacific Islanders and native Americans, both North and South. Whether this indicates a very ancient origin that was part of human practice as our species colonized the globe, or whether it arose independently in different regions of the world will probably never be known. There is evidence to suggest that hygiene may be one reason, as appears to be the case for elite classes in ancient Egypt and the Aztec peoples. Ritualistic circumcision has been practiced in West Africa for more than 5000 years and in the Middle East for over 3000 [190, 299]. It is virtually universal in the Jewish and Muslim religions.

In the late 19th century circumcision became routine as a result of pronouncements in publications by various physicians most notably Remondino. The procedure rapidly gained popularity and became routine. Although most of the claims in Victorian times were absurd, some have nevertheless stood the test of time, including prevention of penile cancer, syphilis, balanoposthitis and phimosis.

A trend not to circumcise started in the UK in 1948 when Britain adopted a nationalized healthcare system and removed procedures in which it considered cost exceeded benefit. Circumcision also dropped rapidly across Europe after a (misguided) paper by Gairdner in 1949. It was not until the early 1970s that a similar fall happened in Australia and Canada, in reponse to statements by the pediatric bodies in each country. Curiously a simliar statement by the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) Committee for the Newborn in 1971 that there are "no valid medical indications for circumcision" had only a slight effect. In 1975 this was modified to "no absolute valid ...", which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to "New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits". However, in the 1999 Statement the AAP went backwards. Although the literature review was academically weak, this did, nevertheless, mention the vast array of benefits. Its major flaw was that it fell short of stating the obvious, if it had used a more balanced literature survey, in recommending circumcision. As mentioned above this is quite understandable, given medico-legal worries in the face of very hostile, politically active anti-circ groups. Interestingly, a joint response by the previous Chair of the AAP Taskforce and others more expert than those on the recent Taskforce rebutted the 1999 statement. Others also levelled valid criticisms. The various statements highlight the information that follows in the present much more comprehensive and better balanced web review. It is clear that providing a scientific and balanced statement by a pediatric body is difficult in the face of minority lobby groups whose agenda tends to be a political one rather than medical or scientific. This is not to detract from the clear scientific weaknesses in the 1999 AAP Statement and their pamphlet.

Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the 1989 Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure. He has continued to this day to campaign for public education of the benefits of circumcision. During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of post-newborn circumcision (to over 80% in one study) and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from "suggestive" to "conclusive". Moreover, this period heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime".

Some of the health benefits are: Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin.
Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis.
Reduced urinary tract infections.
Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
Decrease in certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as HIV.
Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
<li> Decrease in urological problems generally.
Therefore the benefits are different as the human male progresses through life.

The proponents of not circumcising nevertheless stress that lifelong penile hygiene is required. This acknowledges that something harmful or unpleasant is happening under the prepuce. Studies of middle class British and Scandanavian schoolboys concluded that penile hygiene, as such, is at best poor and at worst non-existent. Furthermore, Dr Terry Russell, an Australian medical practitioner and circumcision expert states "What man after a night of passion is going to perform penile hygiene before rolling over and snoring the night away (with pathogenic organisms multiplying in the warm moist environment under the prepuce)". The bacteria start multiplying again immediately after washing and contribute, along with skin secretions, to the whitish film, termed 'smegma', that is found under the foreskin. Bacteria give off an offensive odour. Men differ in their sensitivity to this smell and some shower several times a day as a result. Some uncircumcised men, and/or their partners, find the stench so unpleasant that the smell has caused these men to seek a circumcision on this basis alone. Penile hygiene is often difficult to achieve and attempting a very high degree of hygiene in uncircumcised men can result in new dermatological problems. For mothers and fathers, it is far easier to maintain cleanliness of their son's penis if it is circumcised. If their son is not circumcised the messages are confusing: should they clean under the foreskin or leave it alone? Anti-circ activists make unusual claims about the smegma and even claim there are glands under the foreskin that secrete pheromones important in sexual attraction. There is no support for such claims and all of their statements should be regarded as fantasies unless proved otherwise by credible scientific evidence. The wet tip of an uncircumcised penis could permit quicker penetration. However, the requirements of the modern woman generally differ somewhat from this kind of sex, which might have had some benefit for primitive humans who may have wanted to complete the sex act quickly to minimize the time they were vulnerable to predators.


Over 60 million people have been infected with HIV (15,000 each day; 4.3 million in 2003), with 37.8 million currently living with HIV, and 25 million having died as a result, leading to greater than 15 million children being orphaned www.unaids.org (http://www.unaids.org). By 2050 there could be one billion infected. Half of HIV cases are men, most of whom have been infected through their penises, the foreskin being implicated as early as 1986. Over 80% of these infections have arisen from vaginal intercourse. How then does HIV enter a man's body in this way? Epidemiological data from more than 40 studies (discussed below) shows that HIV is much more common in uncircumcised, as opposed to circumcised, heterosexual men. A wealth of evidence indicates that male circumcision protects against HIV infection, as acknowledged in the major journals Science and Nature and its promotion in HIV prevention is advocated.



http://www.circinfo.net/image006.jpg

During heterosexual intercourse the foreskin is pulled back down the shaft of the penis, meaning that the whole of its inner surface is exposed to vaginal secretions. An early suggestion that attempted to explain the higher HIV infection in uncircumcised men was that the foreskin could physically trap HIV-infected vaginal secretions and provide a more hospitable environment for the infectious inoculum. It was also suggested that the increased surface area, traumatic physical disruption during intercourse and inflammation of the glans penis (balanitis) could aid in recruitment of target cells for HIV-1. Initial thoughts were that the port of entry could potentially be the glans, sub-prepuce and/or urethra. It was suggested that in a circumcised penis the drier, more keratinized skin covering the penis may prevent entry. However, more recent studies showed that the glans of the circumcised and uncircumcised penis were in fact identical in histological appearance, having exactly the same amount of protective keratin. In contrast, the inner lining of the foreskin is a mucosal epithelium and lacks a protective keratin layer. The foreskin's inner epithelium thus resembles histologically the lining of the nasal passages and vagina. All such mucosal epithelia are major targets for infection by micro-organisms (colds, flu, STDs, etc). Added to this is the fact that the uncircumcised penis is more susceptible to minor trauma and ulcerative disease, and the preputial sac could harbor pathogenic organisms in a pool of smegma. The mucosal inner lining of the adult foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells and other immune-system cells (22.4, 11.5 and 2.4% of total cell population is represented by CD4+ T cells, Langerhans cells and macrophages). (This contrasts with the neonate, where the foreskin is deficient in such cells, the proportion being instead 4.9, 6.2 and 0.3%, respectively). The respective percentages for immune-system ce lls in the cervical mucosa are: 6.2, 1.5 and 1.4%. In the external layer of the foreskin, which is like the rest of the penis, the proportions are very much lower: 2.1, 1.3 and 0.7%, respectively. Although the urethra is also a mucosal surface, it lacks Langerhans cells, so is not likely to be a common site of HIV infection. The immune cells of the inner lining of the foreskin help fight bacteria and viruses that accumulate under it. However, in the case of HIV, they act as a 'Trojan horse' and in fact serve as portals for uptake of HIV into the body, where HIV entry generally requires CD4 receptors and cofactors such as chemokine receptors CCR5 and CXCR4 present in high density on the surface of the Langerhans cells. Moreover, the selective entry of HIV via the inner foreskin has been shown by direct experimentation. Punch biopsies were taken from fresh foreskin obtained immediately after circumcision of an adult male. Cultures were made of cells from the external surface (which resembles the rest of the penis) and from the inner mucosal surface of the foreskin. Live HIV tagged with a fluorescent marker was then applied. Within minutes the HIV entered the Langerhans cells. No uptake occurred for cultured epithelium of the keratinized outer surface of the foreskin, i.e., the part that resembles the skin of the circumcised penis. The mean number of HIV copies per 1000 cells (determined by quantitative PCR) one day after infection was 301 for the mucosal inner foreskin, but was undetectable in the outer, external, foreskin. For cervical biopsies mean HIV copy number was 30, showing that the mucosal inner foreskin is 10-times more susceptible to HIV infection than the cervix. Also, the HIV receptor CCR5 was especially prevalent on foreskin tissue cells. This biological work thus nicely confirms the epidemiological evidence below. It is furthermore supported by experiments in which SIV (the monkey equivalent of HIV) has been applied to foreskin of monkeys, that then became infected. The monkey work also showed infected Langerhans cells. Antigen presenting cells in the mucosa of the inner foreskin are a primary target for HIV infection in men. The foreskin is thus the weak point that allows HIV to infect men during heterosexual intercourse with an infected partner. A circumcised man with a healthy penis is thus very unlikely to get infected. However, ulcerations or abrasions on the penis will allow infection and a circumcised man with these will continue to be at risk of HIV, as well as some other STIs. Thus condom use is strongly advocated in an attempt to make absolutely sure that infection will not occur. Condoms are not, however, a panacea, and a man with a foreskin can still be infected even if using a condom during intercourse, if infected fluids come into contact with the inner foreskin, for example during foreplay.



Perhaps the first, albeit small and restricted, but interesting survey of circumcised vs uncircumcised men and their partners was conducted by Sydney scientist James Badger (who regards himself as neutral on the issue of circumcision). It involved responses to a questionnaire placed in clinics of the Family Planning Association in Sydney. This led to 180 participants (79 male, 101 female) who were aged 15-60. The women were mainly (50%) in the 20-30 year-old age group cf. 25% of the men, more of whom (33%) were aged 30-40. It found that:




18% of uncircumcised males underwent circumcision later in life anyway.
21% of uncircumcised men who didn't, nevertheless wished they were circumcised. (There were also almost as many men who wished they hadn't been circumcised and it could be that at least some men of either category may have been seeking a scapegoat for their sexual or other problems. In addition, this would no doubt be yet another thing children could "blame" their parents for, whatever the decision was when their child was born.)
No difference in sexual performance (consistent with Masters & Johnson).
Slightly higher sexual activity in circumcised men.
No difference in frequency of sexual intercourse for older uncircumcised vs. circumcised men.
Men who were circumcised as adults were very pleased with the result. The local pain when they awoke from the anaesthetic was quickly relieved by pain killers (needed only for one day), and all had returned to normal sexual relations within 2 weeks, with no decrease in sensitivity of the penis and claims of "better sex". (Badger's findings are, moreover, consistent with every discussion the author has ever had with men circumcised as adults, as well as an enormous number of email messages received from many such men. The only cases to the contrary were a testimonial in a letter sent to the author from a member of UNCIRC and a very brief email message that didn't say why.)
Women with circumcised lovers were more likely to reach a simultaneous climax - 29% vs. 17% of the study population grouped across the orgasmic spectrum of boxes for ticking labelled 'together', 'man first', 'man after' and 'never come'; some ticked more than one box. (Could this involve psychological factors? ... Could it be that more circumcised men have a better technique? ... Or could other factors be involved?)
Women who failed to reach an orgasm were 3 times more likely to have an uncircumcised lover. (These data could, however, possibly reflect behaviours of uncircumcised males that might belong to lower socio-economic classes and/or ethnic groups whose attitudes concerning sex and women may differ from the better-educated groups in whom circumcision is more common.)
A circumcised penis was favoured by women for appearance and hygiene. (Furthermore, some women were nauseated by the smell of the uncircumcised penis, where, as mentioned earlier, bacteria and other micro-organisms proliferate under the foreskin.)
An uncircumcised penis was found by women to be easier to elicit orgasm by hand.
A circumcised penis was favoured by women for oral sex (fellatio)--more blowjobs!


A survey of 5000 men aged 16-49 (78% circumcised, 19% not, 3% "don't know") was subsequently conducted by Badger. This was open to all, and so included men who were anti-circumcision activists and those who were not. Circumcision had been performed at birth in 72%, before puberty in 12% and after puberty in 16%. Of those who said someone else decided for them that they should be circumcised, only 16% said they were unhappy to be circumcised; 46% were happy and 38% didn't care. Overall only 11% said they would not circumcise any son(s).



These findings are consistent with later studies. In a survey of new mothers in the USA, hygiene and appearance were the two major reasons for choosing to have their newborn son circumcised. There was a strong correlation between their son's circumcision status and the woman's ideal male partner's circumcision status for intercourse. Thus by being circumcised they thought that their sons would likewise be more attractive to a future sexual partner (with the implication that they would be at an advantage in passing on their, and therefore the mother's, genes to the subsequent generation). Their own preference thus affected their choice for their sons. 92% said the circumcised penis was cleaner, 90% said it looked 'sexier', 85% it felt nicer to touch and 55% smelled more pleasant. Even women who had only ever had uncircumcised partners preferred the look of the circumcised penis. Only 2% preferred an uncircumcised penis for fellatio, with 82% preferring the circumcised variety. Preference for intercourse for circ. vs uncirc. was 71% vs 6%, respectively; manual stimulation, 75% vs 5%; visual appeal, 76% vs 4%. What then is sexier about a circumcised penis? Quite likely it is that the glans is exposed in both the erect and un-erect state.



In Africa, women preferred men who were circumcised because they considered they were at less risk of STI. The foreskin was also regarded as a source of a bad smell and men too thought it was cleaner. Increased sexual pleasure to both partners has also been stated. For example, women from tribes that do not practice circumcision report deriving greater sexual pleasure from circumcised men.



Many surveys have been carried out by women's and men's magazines over the years and all report a preference by women for a man with a circumcised penis. One in Sydney by 'Men's Health' (July 2001 issue) found that only 16% of women preferred the uncircumcised penis. 46% preferred the circumcised, 31% didn't care (6% had never seen an uncircumcised penis and 1% had not seen a circumcised penis).



A survey by anti-circ activists of female members of their anti-circumcision organization, not surprisingly, found the opposite. Moreover, apart from the fact that it was not published in a proper scientific journal, bias arising from the seriously flawed study design causes it to lack credibility.


In the visual arts, for scenes involving the naked male it is quite plausible that American producers of erotic films and publishers of photographic works choose circumcised men, or at least uncircumcised men whose foreskin is smooth and free from loose, wrinkled skin, as the latter lacks visual appeal, especially to those who are not used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. Societal attitudes, at least in the USA, are reflected in the entertainment industry, such as TV shows. With apologies for introducing anecdotal material, a few examples are nonetheless potentially illuminating. For example, the character 'Elaine', in an episode of the TV sitcom 'Seinfeld' stated that "[the uncircumcised penis] looks like an alien!" Similarly in an episode of 'Sex in the City', also set in New York, one character recoiled in shock on seeing her new boyfriend was uncircumcised. It was clear that the quite sexually experienced 30-something women in this show were unused to the foreskin, describing it as resembling a Shar Pei (a dog breed with excessive rolls of skin). The new boyfriend's status had been bothering him anyway so he got circumcised, and liked his new look and sex so much he dumped the new girlfriend so he "could take the doggy for a walk", i.e., to try it out on other women around town. The moral: "You can take the Shar Pei out of the penis, but you can't take the dog out of the man". In the TV cartoon series 'South Park' the boys were alarmed to hear a new baby was going to be circumcised, thinking the penis was going to be cut off. Later when told it made the penis bigger they all wanted it. (Being set in America's heartland it is certain they already were circumcised (and didn't know what it was) - that is if one can apply this kind of rationale to cartoon characters) These illustrations involve of course actors or characters who are following a script, and is therefore not scientific by any means, but do reflect thinking and behaviors in these US settings.


As far as performance during sex is concerned, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) of over 1400 men in the USA found that uncircumcised men were more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions. This was slight at younger ages, but became quite significant later in life and included finding it twice as difficult to achieve or maintain an erection. It was also discovered that circumcised men engaged in a more elaborate set of sexual practices, i.e., enjoyed a more elaborate sexual lifestyle, and their female partners were more pleased with the esthetics of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one. Not surprisingly, in view of the findings above, circumcised men received more fellatio. However, they also masturbated more, a finding that, ironically, contradicts the apparent wisdom in Victorian times that circumcision would reduce the urge to masturbate. (Contrary to anti-circ. propaganda, circumcision may not have been used so much to reduce masturbation in that era, but rather to prevent smegma and itching, so stopping males scratching their genitalia, which would have offended polite Victorian sensitivities, and where such genital touching sometimes led to arousal) As noted in other studies, circumcision rates were greatest among whites and those who were better educated, reflecting their exposure to and ability to evaluate and respond to scientific information about circumcision. There was little difference between different religious groups. The study also found that the men's female partners found the circumcised penis to have greater esthetic appeal.



Masters & Johnson undertook clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Sexual pleasure also appears to be about the same.



Two US studies published in 2002 both found similar or greater sexual satisfaction in men after circumcision as adults . The mean age of the men in each study was 37 and 42, respectively. In the smaller survey there was no difference in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, problem assessment or satisfaction compared with what the men recalled sex being like prior to foreskin removal. Penile sensitivity was the same. The Collins paper stated that their study was prompted by reports by proponents of "foreskin restoration", in particular the "disparity between the mythology and medical reality of circumcision regarding male sexuality". In the Fink study of 123 men, 62% said they were satisfied with having been circumcised (they liked their new look) and 50% reported benefits. There was no change in sexual activity. Penile sensitivity, although not tested directly, was thought by some of the men in this study to be slightly lower (but not statistically so), which may have contributed to their claims of better sex. Although there was no change in sexual activity, some of the men thought erectile function was slightly less (category scores: 12.3 vs 11.1, P = 0.05), which is the opposite of the very much larger National Health and Social Life Survey. The authors point out that this would, however, have to be confirmed by duplex Doppler ultrasound before a definitive conclusion could be made. Furthermore, the outcome of this study could have been affected by the fact that 93% of the men had been circumcised for a medical problem. Both the men and their partners preferred the appearance of the penis after it had been circumcised. As in other studies oral sex became more frequent, but there was no change in anal sex or masturbation. Their partners were also more likely to initiate sex with them.


A report in 2004 of men circumcised for non-medical reasons showed an increase in ejaculatory latency time, consistent with decreased sensitivity, but this was considered an advantage in that they could prolong intercourse.


The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis. There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. Uncircumcised men often complain that their penis is too sensitive, leading to pain, and seek circumcision to relieve this. Diminishing sensitivity is in fact desired by many men and women in order to prolong the sex act by preventing premature ejaculation. Orgasm, the culmination of the sex act, is not related to the foreskin. It should also be added that anecdote needs to be translated into science, however, which can only be clarified by further research. Fanciful speculation by anti-circ proponents must be disregarded.



In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision. Circumcision traditionally indicated that a doctor had attended the birth (an indicator of family wealth) rather than a midwife (more likely to be used instead by poorer people) . The Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes less so. Queen Victoria believed her family descended from King David (of the Biblical Old Testament) and sanctioned circumcision. Prince Charles was circumcised by a mohel (a rabbi who specializes in circumcision). Princess Diana decided that Princes William and Harry would go uncircumcised. The NHSLS in the USA saw greatest rates among whites and the better educated. There was little difference between different religious groups. Some ancient cultures and some even today practice infibulation (drawing a ring or similar device through the prepuce or otherwise occluding it for the principal purpose of making coition impossible). This is the opposite of circumcision. It was, moreover, espoused in Europe and Britain in previous centuries as a way of reducing population growth amongst the poor and to prevent masturbation. Ancient Greece was similarly faced with severe overpopulation, putting pressure on food and other resources. Infibulation was one method used to address this. Not to circumcise then became embedded in Greek cultural practice.



One function of the foreskin was probably to protect the head of the penis from long grass, shrubbery, etc when humans wore no clothes, where evolutionarily our basic physiology and psychology are little different than our savannah-wandering or cave-dwelling ancestors tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Also, the moist tip would facilitate quick penetration of a female, where lengthy foreplay and intercourse would be a survival disadvantage, since the risk to the copulators from predators and human enemies would be greater the longer they were engaged in sex.


Dr Guy Cox from The University of Sydney has suggested that the foreskin could in fact be the male equivalent of the hymen, and served as an impediment to sexual intercourse in adolescent primeval humans before the advent in our species of civilization and cultures. Way back then Cox says the foreskin would have reduced 'successful' sexual acts in those too young to adequately care for any offspring that might arise. With civilization, control of the sexual behaviour of the young by society made the physical mechanism redundant and society introduced circumcision to free the individual from the impediment of having a foreskin.


Interestingly, the physical difficulties experienced by the uncircumcised may explain why the word for uncircumcised in Hebrew means 'obstruction' or 'to impede', so explaining the Biblical term 'uncircumcised heart' when referring to obstructionism.

There are several theories and each may have elements of truth. As mentioned above, according to Cox, the ritual removal of the foreskin in diverse human traditional cultures, ranging from Muslims to Aboriginal Australians could be a sign of civilization in that human society acquired the ability to control, through education and religion, the age at which sexual intercourse could begin.

Another compelling explanation involves the ritualization of circumcision's prophylactic effects, especially as many different human groups and cultures that live in desert or other hot environments have adopted it as part of their customs. Infections, initiated by the aggravation of dirt and sand, are not uncommon under such conditions and have even crippled whole armies, where it is difficult to achieve sanitation during prolonged battle. A US Army report stated that in World War II 150,000 soldiers were hospitalized for foreskin problems due to inadequate hygiene, leading to the statements: "Time and money could have been saved had prophylactic circumcision been performed before the men were shipped overseas" and "Because keeping the foreskin clean was very difficult in the field, many soldiers with only a minimal tendancy toward phimosis were likely to develop balanoposthitis". In the Vietnam War men requested circumcision to aviod "jungle rot". Similarly sand was a problem for uncircumcised men in the Gulf War. Thus, historically it was not uncommon for soldiers to be circumcised in preparation for active service. The Judeo-Muslim practice of circumcision quite likely had its origin in Egyptian civilization, where there is evidence of a circumcised mummy at the time the Hebrews inhabited Egypt, as well as illustrations of the operation itself and of circumcised Pharoahs, dating back to 3000 BC. One possible reason the Egyptians could have circumcised themselves and their slaves might have been to prevent schistosomal infection. Urinary tract obstruction and hematuria are common in localities such as the Nile Valley that are inhabited by the blood fluke, Schistosoma haematobium. The foreskin would undoubtedly possess the adverse ability of being able to hold water infected with the cercaria stage of the life cycle of this parasite and so facilitate its entry into the body. The perpetuation of the procedure by the Jews may have subsequently been driven by a desire to maintain cleanliness in an arid, sandy desert environment. Such considerations could also explain why it is practiced in multiple other cultures that live in such conditions. In each instance, the original practical reason became lost as the ritual persisted as a religious rite in many of the various cultures of the world. In the Muslim religion circumcision is performed over a wide range of ages in childhood.

Below is a photograph of a Masai boy in his early teens dressed in a dark circumcision robe, with white feathers as headwear, and white painted facial decoration that stands out against his very black skin. He wears a pendant that is the razor blade used in his circumcision. The ceremony that he had gone through is a special part of the tribal culture and is very important to him.



http://www.circinfo.net/image009.jpg

In other cultures circumcision is associated with preparation for marriage and as a sign of entry into manhood. Australian Aboriginals circumcise a boy when he reaches puberty in a ceremony that is part of 'men's business'. In Southern East Timor, men are traditionally circumcised at 20 or so years of age in preparation for marriage, but the man is then expected to have sex with at least 3 or 4 women before getting married. In Tonga, boys are circumcised at age 7-9 in hospital without anesthetic, pain being seen as part of transition to manhood. This is fully funded by the government of Tonga. Other Pacific Islands cultures traditionally practice circumcision. In some, such as the islands of New Caledonia, the ritual for the boy entering manhood also includes the 'bungee jump', and is where this 'sport' began. In the Philippines circumcision, generally carried out at age 12-14, is part of a coming-of-age ritual, again without anesthetic. In Madagasgar, where all men are circumcised regardless of religion, the reason is that women say that sex with a circumcised man is longer, stronger, better for them and cleaner, so the men are very much more likely to get sex by being circumcised. In China many men are circumcised as adults because of problems with their foreskin. In SE Asians such as Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese the foreskin tends to be short and the custom is to wear it pulled back after puberty. As a result the head is drier and less prone to problems in hot, humid conditions. This may explain why circumcision is not common. Other cultures living in a hot climate, including those of the the Incas and Aztecs of Central and South America, practiced circumcision. Because scar tissue is more visible on Asian skin than Caucasian, Chinese and Japanese doctors make a cut around the base of the penis rather than the foreskin itself. The skin is pulled back to expose the glans, then stitched into place.

Interestingly, in Japan, circumcision has become a fashion amongst young men. The procedure is promoted by way of articles and advertisements in the vast array of 'girlie', sex magazines read by young males. The message is that it improves hygiene and attractiveness to women.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

i wish you would condense the findings from those articles Xenon and just post a link

edit: it is informitive tho

[Prozerran]

People try not to be predictable.

I find Christians to be the most predictable of all. Unfortunately, the reasoning is the same diatribe everytime (In reverence to God, because the Bible says to, you cannot disprove God exists, God said so). Really, man. It's the most predictable argument (if you can call it an argument) anyone can make.

Like I said, here in the IR, stick to the facts. The hard evidence, not personal belief.

From a historic perspective, religion played a role in why men were circumcised. Today, though, it's an issue of health, not religion.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

From a historic perspective, religion played a role in why men were circumcised. Today, though, it's an issue of health, not religion.

that's why I mentioned circumcision not being necessary religiously anymore...

[frazz]

I find Christians to be the most predictable of all. Unfortunately, the reasoning is the same diatribe everytime (In reverence to God, because the Bible says to, you cannot disprove God exists, God said so). Really, man. It's the most predictable argument (if you can call it an argument) anyone can make.

Like I said, here in the IR, stick to the facts. The hard evidence, not personal belief.

From a historic perspective, religion played a role in why men were circumcised. Today, though, it's an issue of health, not religion.
I never even mentioned an argument toward God. I just stated one reason why some people(like myself) might choose circumsision. I never said you cannot disprove God exists. I also clearly stated that I was not telling everyone else to do so because of the Bible. YOU are being predictable with your short, poorly thought out arguments(if you can call it that;)). The facts are, that many people choose circumsision for the same reason I do. Also theres only about a 50% hard fact saturation in this thread, being that most of it is just opinion on what who thinks is better. Even about 25% of Xenon's post above is opinion's of other people.

[GenocideAlive]

The facts are, that many people choose circumsision for the same reason I do. Also theres only about a 50% hard fact saturation in this thread, being that most of it is just opinion on what who thinks is better. Even about 25% of Xenon's post above is opinion's of other people.
Sources, plz kthx.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

I never even mentioned an argument toward God. I just stated one reason why some people(like myself) might choose circumsision. I never said you cannot disprove God exists. I also clearly stated that I was not telling everyone else to do so because of the Bible. YOU are being predictable with your short, poorly thought out arguments(if you can call it that;)). The facts are, that many people choose circumsision for the same reason I do. Also theres only about a 50% hard fact saturation in this thread, being that most of it is just opinion on what who thinks is better. Even about 25% of Xenon's post above is opinion's of other people.

the point of the thread was to find modern day reasons to have it done and why it would be beneficial for your health - I'm christian and although the Bible says to do it there is no religious reason to have it done anymore (except as reverence to God - which, BTW, is the same reason my GF isn't allowed to cut her hair - but that's for another thread)

The religious aspect doesn't count because you can't provide it as evidence to ANYTHING in the scientific world - the only things that matter are cold hard facts and it's hard to get used to that in a scientific setting... It's like that scene in The Waterboy when he mentions that happiness comes from rainbows and that "alligators are ornry cuz they have all them teeth but no toothbrush..." it simply doesn't apply in this setting :(

[frazz]

Geez everybody, I was just sayin...

Sources, plz kthx.
You're being vague... Sources about what? About the 50% hard fact saturation? About some people being circumsised for religion? About Xenon's post?

[GenocideAlive]

You're being vague... Sources about what? About the 50% hard fact saturation? About some people being circumsised for religion? About Xenon's post?
AHAHAHAHHA. Yeah, I'm being vague. Give me the sources for your "facts" that you mentioned previously. If they're "facts", you have sources, right? Because otherwise they're your personal bias combined with your opinion, which makes them...opinion, not facts.

[Sgt.SlagRock]

wow, the asian method of circumsision sounds painfull.. exposing the glands??!!? Ow.... lol, random statement of the day. brought to you by JS. And for my opinion, I think that circumsision would be better because of the hygene issue. and purely that. Sorry for my breif input, i'm just not the debating type

[Xenon]

Like I said, here in the IR, stick to the facts. The hard evidence, not personal belief.

From a historic perspective, religion played a role in why men were circumcised. Today, though, it's an issue of health, not religion.
I guess you didn't read any of the information that I posted on how/why circumcision got started... there were many reasons, and none of the original reasons were related to religion. Maybe a bit of your own advice would be in order? :D

The anthropological and psychological theories on the origins of the practice of routine male circumcision, discuss if this began as a manifestation of cultural requirements (e.g. hygiene, initiation, fertility, tribal mark, sacrifice, sexual advantages); or the expression of unconscious tendencies (e.g. castration complex, menstruation envy, regression). (http://www.male-initiation.net/origins.html#start)

[frazz]

AHAHAHAHHA. Yeah, I'm being vague. Give me the sources for your "facts" that you mentioned previously. If they're "facts", you have sources, right? Because otherwise they're your personal bias combined with your opinion, which makes them...opinion, not facts.
Oh sorry that was a poorly constructed statement. I meant fact is, not facts are. So I only meant that to apply to the first statement which had the word fact(bolded) in it(the rest is opinion). So I apologize for the poor sentence structure.

[Neo]

Circumcision is nothing more then fashion related nowadays -- nothing more and nothing else.

Watching that Penn and Teller should've explained enough of it.

Uncircumsized does not mean that;

Your more likely to have a urinary tract infection (this is false, propanganda for pro-circumsicion people)
The foreskin does not tear during intercourse (what the fuck kind of intercourse are these people talking about?)
It also does not result in 'stagnate' anything.

If you 'rinse out' (For lack of a better term) your penis everytime you take a shower, you will never need to worry about infections, things being stuck underneath it, etc...

And doesn't the child go into some kind of neural shock because of the operation?

Aestetically is upto the individual person, but I think that in the US its the "standard" and damn anyone who is different.

Personally I will enjoy my fully intact, non-mutilated penis. If you feel that your mutilated penis is right, and feel that your children should have mutilated penis(es) as well then go for it.

meh...

How does having Foreskin effect getting an STD or not? Wouldn't the fact that your having unprotected sex/sex with an infected partner be enough of a risk? I mean seriously.

If its up to anyone, though, I believe it should be upto the individual. The "medical" reasons for Circumsizing anyone are pretty much wrong, or simply bullshit anyways.

-Neo

EDIT: IF YOU CAN'T DISCUSS THIS TOPIC IN A MATURE MANNER, THEN STAY OUT OF IR. The next bullshit one liner post will earn you a ban -- regardless of its content.

[frazz]

And doesn't the child go into some kind of neural shock because of the operation?
lol the baby cries, get over it.
If its up to anyone, though, I believe it should be upto the individual. The "medical" reasons for Circumsizing anyone are pretty much wrong, or simply bullshit anyways.
Geuss it should be, or the individuals parents, depending how old they are.
Circumcision is nothing more then fashion related nowadays -- nothing more and nothing else.
For most people, for me its... well, you read my earlier posts. But I don't care about the 'fashion' part much because I don't plan on publicly... erm.. 'doing' anything.

[GenocideAlive]

Your more likely to have a urinary tract infection (this is false, propanganda for pro-circumsicion people)

If you 'rinse out' (For lack of a better term) your penis everytime you take a shower, you will never need to worry about infections, things being stuck underneath it, etc...
Given that I'm a microbiology major and it was discussed in class, I'm afraid it would appear that indeed circumcision does increase risk of infection. You can always say "WASH IT BETTER", but that's more of a polemic designed to draw attention away from a simple fact: that without some kind of overly special treatment, it's more prone to infection. You can take antibiotics for your entire life to avoid that (not really, but work with me), but in the end you're going out of your way because you recognize that it's more prone to infection.

The folds in the skin coupled with any pathogenic S. aureus strain means you're in more danger than someone that is circumcised. It's not a giganto danger that's imminent doom, but it's a difference, and it's an increased risk. Just like getting circumcised at birth is increased risk of infection at the site of the incision.

[Neo]

Given that I'm a microbiology major and it was discussed in class, I'm afraid it would appear that indeed circumcision does increase risk of infection. You can always say "WASH IT BETTER", but that's more of a polemic designed to draw attention away from a simple fact: that without some kind of overly special treatment, it's more prone to infection. You can take antibiotics for your entire life to avoid that (not really, but work with me), but in the end you're going out of your way because you recognize that it's more prone to infection.

The folds in the skin coupled with any pathogenic S. aureus strain means you're in more danger than someone that is circumcised. It's not a giganto danger that's imminent doom, but it's a difference, and it's an increased risk. Just like getting circumcised at birth is increased risk of infection at the site of the incision.
The actual risk (increased from "uncut" boys) is very small.

A Japanese study of 603 boys who were not circumcised did not find one case of UTI

(16) Kayaba, H., Tamura, H., Kitajima, S., Fujiwara, Y., Kato, T., and Kato, T. "Analysis of Shape and Retractability of the Prepuce in 603 Japanese Boys." Journal of Urology 156 (1996): 1813-15.

SEXUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Advocates
In a national survey, circumcised men reported less sexual dysfunction than intact men [28]. Women prefer circumcised sexual partners [29]. Psychological effects are not recognized.

Critics
The difference in reported sexual dysfunction above is not statistically significant [30]. The Williamson study consists of young, Midwestern, 98% white mothers. They live in an area of the country with the highest circumcision rate, and 78% of the group had no experience with intact men.

In a more recent survey, women with longer dual experience preferred anatomically complete men overwhelmingly to circumcised men [31]. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in decreased vaginal secretions, more vaginal discomfort, harder and deeper thrusting of the partner, less chance of having an orgasm, less frequent orgasms, less frequent multiple orgasms, and shorter duration of coitus.

That was from here; http://www.circumcision.org/advocates.htm

It lists most major arguements regarding the issue and advocated/critics positions. Though critics positions are usually explianed more indepth (seems more as a response to advocates then an unbiased article, but i doubt its possible to find one of those anywhere =P)

My point still stands, circumcision is nothing more then an aesthetic choice and/or whats popular. My father was -- but he was adamant that niether I nor my brother be. Which I am grateful for.

UTI is easily treatable anyways. Its not as if its some deadly disease your kid is going to die from.

-Neo

[Xenon]

The fact of the matter is that no person who has been circumcised will ever experience:





Phimosis
Paraphimosis
Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans
Injury to the prepuce
Those are all pretty good reasons to get circumcised.

Despite what you may believe NeoX, microtears to the prepuce (foreskin) from regular vaginal intercourse leaves intact males more subsceptible to infection from a number of STDs including Herpes and HIV/AIDS.

Most diseases of the prepuce, while not fatal diseases will nevertheless have you wishing you were dead.

Here are the FACTS:
Male Circumcision, Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical Cancer in Female Partners
Xavier Castellsagué, M.D., F. Xavier Bosch, M.D., Nubia Muñoz, M.D., Chris J.L.M. Meijer, Ph.D., Keerti V. Shah, Dr.P.H., Silvia de Sanjosé, M.D., José Eluf-Neto, M.D., Corazon A. Ngelangel, M.D., Saibua Chichareon, M.D., Jennifer S. Smith, Ph.D., Rolando Herrero, M.D., Victor Moreno, M.D., Silvia Franceschi, M.D., for the International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group
New England Journal of Medicine April 2002; 346: 1105

Methods
We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case–control studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries. Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9 percent).

Results
Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6 percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical examination.

Conclusions
Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners.

SOURCE (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_cancer.html)


More FACTS:

Circumcision and genital dermatoses
Mallon E, Hawkins D, Dinneen M, Francics N, Fearfield L, Newson R, Bunker C
Arch Dermatol 2000 Mar;136(3):350-4

CONTEXT: It is well recognized that the presence of a foreskin predisposes to penile carcinoma and sexually transmitted infections. We have investigated the relationship between the presence or absence of the foreskin and penile dermatoses.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association between circumcision and penile dermatoses.
DESIGN: A retrospective case control study of patients attending the department of dermatology with genital skin conditions.
SUBJECTS: The study population consisted of 357 male patients referred for diagnosis and management of genital skin disease. The control population consisted of 305 male patients without genital skin disease attending the general dermatology clinics over a 4-month period.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between circumcision and the presence or absence of skin disease involving the penis was investigated. The rate of circumcision in the general male dermatology population was determined.
RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were psoriasis (n = 94), penile infections (n = 58), lichen sclerosus (n = 52), lichen planus (n = 39), seborrheic dermatitis (n = 29), and Zoon balanitis (n = 27). Less common diagnoses included squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4), bowenoid papulosis (n = 3), and Bowen disease (n = 3). The age-adjusted odds ratio for all penile skin diseases associated with presence of the foreskin was 3.24 (95% confidence interval, 2.26-4.64). All patients with Zoon balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and nonspecific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised. Lichen sclerosus was diagnosed in only 1 circumcised patient. Most patients with psoriasis, lichen planus, and seborrheic eczema (72%, 69%, and 72%, respectively) were uncircumcised at presentation. The majority of men with penile infections (84%) were uncircumcised.
CONCLUSIONS: Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses were diagnosed in uncircumcised men, suggesting that circumcision protects against inflammatory dermatoses. The presence of the foreskin may promote inflammation by a koebnerization phenomenon, or the presence of infectious agents, as yet unidentified, may induce inflammation. The data suggest that circumcision prevents or protects against common infective penile dermatoses.
SOURCE (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_cancer.html)



Even More Facts:

The Relationship Between Circumcision And Cancer Of The Penis, Edgar J.Schoen, MD, Journal Of The American Cancer Society, September/October 1991, Vol.41, No.5; 306-309

"Undocumented policy statement, heated arguments, media interest, and trendy lay anticircumcsion groups have generated much heat and have confused issues that seemed clear prior to 1970."

"In a classic 1935 report and discussion Dean analyzed 120 cases of penile cancer from Memorial hospital in New York City. None were Jews, although more than one third of the cancer patients at the hospital were Jewish. Dean noted that circumcision later in life did not offer the complete protection against penile cancer that newborn circumcision did. In Dean's series, the average age of diagnosis of cancer of the penis was 50, with 22 percent before age 40.

"In the subsequent 56 years, published studies from other US medical centers have confirmed Dean's findings. There were reports of 139 penile cancers from Illinois in 1946; 100 from Rosewell Park, New York, in 1972; 156 cases from Michigan in 1973; and 77 from Cleveland in 1986. Of the resulting 592 penile cancer cases from five institutions around the US, not one of the men had been circumcised in infancy despite the fact that by the mid 1970's most males in the US had been circumcised as newborns."


Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade
Dahn R, Selzer HL, Lapides J, J Urol 1973; 110: 79-80

"During 25 years at the University of Michigan medical Center, we have been impressed by the mortality associated with carcinoma of the penis and the relationship of the prepuce to the disease." A high percentage of patients do not seek medical treatment until the disease is in an incurable state. "Our evidence leads us to believe that circumcision-- at any age will virtually prevent onset of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis if the neoplasm is not present at the time of circumcision and the prepuce is completely removed."


Cambells Urology, Vol2, 5th Ed, 1986, p. 1590

"Any argument against circumcision must take into account that the fact that penile carcinoma represents the only neoplasm for which there exists a predictable and simple means of prophylaxis that spares the organ at risk"

Urology Times, March 1987, p 11

Dr. Terrence Malloy noting the effectiveness of treating preinvasive carcinoma of the penis with a laser states further, "It avoids the disabling sexual and psychological trauma associated with partial penectomy." He concludes that although penile cancer has usually been restricted to the elderly in the United States, "in the future urologists will be seeing more penile cancer due to the reduction in routine circumcision."


Malignant melanoma of the penis and male urethra Oldbaing J, Mikulowski P Cancer 1987: 59; 581-587

The authors citing date from the Swedish Cancer Registry reported 1210 cases of carcinoma of the penis from 1958 to 1980. [Thus the average rate in Sweden is 55 cases/year versus the United States average of 748 cases/year. Since the Swedish population (Information Please Almanac, 1985) is 8.330 million versus a U.S.A. of 233.70 million, the U.S.A. is 28.05 times greater in population. Therefore, a rate of 55x28.05=1543 penile cancer cases might be expected in the United States whereas onlt 748 were seen. this 2 times graeter rate of penile cancer in Sweden where newborn circumcision is not practiced undercuts statement by anti-circumcision activists who continually use the Nordic societies as samples of good hygiene thereby able to prevent cancer of the penis equally as well without circumcision.-AJF, Circumcision: A Parent's Decision for Life]


Circumcision and penile carcinoma Leiter E, Lefkovits A NY St J Med August 1975: 1520-1522 "Circumcision at birth virtually prevents the later development of penile cancer."

Penile carcinoma in circumcised males Boczko S, Freed S NY St J Med November 1979: 1903-1904

Incidence is so rare that only nine cases have been reported in the world literature to date.


Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis Hosze K, Mcurdy S Am J Dis Child 1980: 134; 484-486

"The lifetime risk for cancer of the penis in uncircumcised males is one in 600.


-------------------------------SOURCE (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_cancer.html)----------------------------------

So. You NeoX, have a 1 in 600 chance of getting this:

The following links contain images of the following diseases of the foreskin and penis. They are quite disturbing, but will leave little doubt in your mind that cicumcision is better than having a dog-like bubblegum dick.


Please note that ALL of the following images are of uncircumcised penises. If you circumcise, this will not happen to you.


PENILE CANCER

Cancerous Penis No.1 (http://www.circinfo.net/penile_cancer.jpg)

Cancerous Penis No.2 (http://www.circs.org/reviews/penile_cancer/photos/PenileCancer03.jpg)

PHIMOSIS

Phimosis No.1 (http://www.midori-clinic.or.jp/phimosis/palaphi.jpg)

Phimosis No.2 (http://www3.dermis.net/bilder/CD063/550px/img0070.jpg)

BALANITIS

Balanitis (http://www3.dermis.net/bilder/CD016/550px/img0036.jpg)
(http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_cancer.html)

[GenocideAlive]

My point still stands, circumcision is nothing more then an aesthetic choice and/or whats popular. My father was -- but he was adamant that niether I nor my brother be. Which I am grateful for.

UTI is easily treatable anyways. Its not as if its some deadly disease your kid is going to die from.
You seem pretty grossly uninformed about what "infection" everybody is talking about. Urinary tract infections aren't skin infections...but at least your uninformed bias is explained. It's too bad that you are more concerned with protecting your silly opinion than you are learning some truth.

And I'd advise you check out medical websites, instead of websites entitled "circumcision". Much like if you want to know about science, you'd go to studies and reports, not truthingenesis.com to have bullshit fed to you.

[Neo]

Worldwide prevalence: The U.S. is the only country in the world that routinely circumcises most of its male infants for non-religious reasons. Over 80% of the world's males are intact (*).

Pain: According to a comprehensive study, newborn responses to pain are "similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects." Some infants do not cry because they go into traumatic shock from the overwhelming pain of the surgery. No experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in infants (*). (See Infant Responses During and Following Circumcision.)

Behavioral response: Various studies have found that short-term effects of circumcision include changed sleep patterns, activity level, and mother-infant interaction, more irritability, and disruptions in feeding and bonding. Changes in pain response have been demonstrated at six months of age. (*). (See Infant Responses During and Following Circumcision.)

Circumcision risks: The rate of complications occurring in the hospital and during the first year has been documented as high as 38% and includes hemorrhage, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death (*).

Cleanliness: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene." "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. . . . Caring for your son's uncircumcised penis requires no special action. . . . Foreskin retraction should never be forced." (*)

Infections: The incidence of urinary tract infection among intact males is about 1 in 1000, and it is treatable with antibiotics. According to the AAP, studies claiming potential benefits are inconclusive because of several "confounding variables." (*).
(See Explaining Claims of Medical Benefits.)

Cancer: The incidence of penile cancer among intact males is about 1 in 100,000. According to the AAP, the effect of circumcision status on the risk of developing penile cancer is "difficult to estimate accurately." (*) (See Explaining Claims of Medical Benefits.)

Sexually transmitted diseases: According to the AAP, "Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to sexually transmitted diseases in general is complex and conflicting. . . . Behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors." (*) (See Explaining Claims of Medical Benefits.)

Matching friends: The national circumcision rate is 60%, less than 40% in some states. Though past circumcision rates were higher, there is no documented emotional harm to intact boys. To the contrary, there are growing reports from men who have disliked being circumcised since they were boys, even though they were in the majority (*). (See Circumcision to Look Like Others.)

Adult circumcision: The medical need for circumcision in adults is as low as 6 in 100,000. Adults, unlike infants, receive anesthetics (*). (See Men Circumcised as Adults.)

Foreskin function and size: The foreskin protects the head of the penis, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse. Men circumcised as adults report a significant loss of sensitivity. Men who have restored their foreskin report much increased sensitivity and sexual pleasure. The foreskin on the average adult male is about 12 sq.in. of highly erogenous tissue (*). (See Functions of the Foreskin.)

Jewish circumcision: A growing number of American Jews are not circumcising their sons. Circumcision among Jews in Europe, South America, and Israel also is not universal (*). (See Jewish Circumcision Resource Center

American origin: Routine infant circumcision started in the U.S. in the 1870s when it was promoted as a preventive cure for masturbation (*).

Male attitude: Male satisfaction with circumcision depends on knowledge about circumcision. The more men know, the more likely they are to be dissatisfied. They wish they had a choice (*). (See Why Most Circumcised Men Seem Satisfied, Psychological Impact of Circumcision on Men, and Discovering Circumcision Feelings.)

Who decides: The circumcision decision is made by parents and implemented by doctors who are often unaware of important facts (*).

Professional Protest: Some aware doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations (*). (See Circumcision, Ethics, and Medicine.)


http://www.circumcision.org/information.htm

So yeah. My chance at penile cancer is much lower then 1 in 600. And even, god forbid, that it did happen, I doubt that it would be because I have a penis that has not been mutilated

What gets me is that there are many doctors out there who don't know enough about intact penises -- and so if a parent chooses not to circumcise their boy, the doctor won't know what to tell them to do to care for it. (Though it doesn't take much...)

Its the same deal with cults or religions or beliefs. If you grow up believing one thing and one way, chances are your not going to want to change, so you’ll pass that along to your kids, but unfortunately in the case of males, they pass on a mutilated penis.

Oh, and isn't one of those pictures you posted of a circumcised penis Xenon?

As for STDS and shit -- first off, if your having unprotected sex, I think that accounts for a larger risk for STDS then whether your unprotected with a natural penis or a cut penis. If your stupid enough to go bang the local whore, then don't be surprised if you end up with HIV regardless of the state of your penis.

Being circumcised or uncircumcised doesn't really matter -- each carry their own "risks" -- but it should be up to the individual. Not their misinformed parents. Not their uneducated Doctors.

And it should certainly never be done to infants without anesthetics! Adult circumcision operations use general anesthesia (sp I know) but they can't give GA to infants -- so they are left there to feel the pain of have one of the most sensitive parts of their bodies cut off.

You seem pretty grossly uninformed about what "infection" everybody is talking about. Urinary tract infections aren't skin infections...but at least your uninformed bias is explained. It's too bad that you are more concerned with protecting your silly opinion than you are learning some truth.
GA I know what URT is. My point was more that "if you know you have it... its not that hard to get treated" Now if you wait until its infected everything then yeah, say hello to some complications.

Phimosis and Paraphimosis
(For those who don't know, the inability to retract the foreskin completely // Inability for the foreskin to cover the glans after being pulled back behind the base -- i.e.: you can't recover your penis)

The first, Phimosis, happens in about 1 or 2 percent of uncir'd males.

EDIT: I thought I would add something here, realized I didn't talk about Phimosis at all past the statistics for it; In younger kids/infants this isnt to big of a problem (unless its associated with pain or indicative of something more severe) and will usually 'work itself out' but may take as long as adolosence to fully retract (its not uncommon from what I understand, I think my brother might have had relative phimosis in fact (from when he was younger, hes 16 now so I assume that hes fine)). More severe cases, where the skin cannot retract at all, maybe fixed with a topical treatment, or with circumsicion (though that is not the recommended treatment anymore). Some men who have Phimosis (full) don't even consider it a problem and don't even "Treat" it (so its not deadly or anything). Only when it is associated with BXO or similar (see below) would it become a problem.

Though never suffering from it myself (I don't remember my penis from when I was really young or as an infant, and starting up a conversion with "hey mom! Do you remember if my penis was fully retractable when I was an infant?" just doesn't seem to be that great of an idea) I can't tell you how it would feel. (Though as a rule, how often does one retract thier foreskin anyways? I don't retract it that often unless I am rinsing stuff out down there).

Paraphicosis is a big word for a small problem (ok not really, since it can result in serious problems if not treated...) but all that has to be done is to force the foreskin back over the head of the penis -- if this cannot be done, a medical procedure is performed (Read: foreskin is slit without removing any tissue) to correct the problem.

Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans

(Basically, a skin problem on the glans or foreskin, resulting in white patches of hardened skin // may cause retraction to be impossible, etc...)

This condition is mostly a result of poor hygiene more then anything.

"Uncircumcised men with poor personal hygiene are most affected by balanitis. Lack of aeration and irritation because of smegma and discharge surrounding the glans penis causes inflammation and edema. Adherence of the foreskin to the inflamed and edematous glans penis causes phimosis."

Basically, it would be like not cleaning your teeth and then complaining of a cavity (ok not exactly the same deal -- but it shouldn't be that hard to figure out) Keep your penis clean and your OK! (Though problems may arise if the male's parents weren't informed that their son needs to keep his penis clean -- or for that matter his doctor may not have known enough to tell the parents to tell the boy) Though if its an adult male case then that’s just wrong. If your an adult and can't figure out that all parts of your body should be cleaned (or at least rinsed out for Christ’s sake) occasionally then your a moron and disserve it (that’s mean I know).

.007% to .6% (if anyone is interested)

Injury to the prepuce

(Injury to the foreskin)

Well duh. Natural Penises have foreskin. While Cut penises do not. That would be like me saying that my bird has a higher risk at catching the bird flu then my dog does. If you have it there’s a risk its going to be injured. That’s not a surprise.

I have a greater risk to injure my arm over a person who was amputated!!!1 omg i should get amputated to!!!1

ADD: If anyone would like to read up on this topic, http://www.cirp.org/ is the best place to do so. Huge collection of resources regarding the topic.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Well duh. Natural Penises have foreskin. While Cut penises do not. That would be like me saying that my bird has a higher risk at catching the bird flu then my dog does. If you have it there’s a risk its going to be injured. That’s not a surprise.
Which is what I was trying to explain to you earlier.

And I find it difficult to believe that you're buying into that website, which is pretty obviously biased towards "intact" males. truthingenesis FTW. :rolleyes:

[Xenon]

In all of your arguments NeoX, you're giving us some numbers and alleged "facts" without sources. Note that the 1 in 600 chance is a direct quote of a medical doctor from a 1980's report on penile cancer.

Your source is a single website biased towards uncircumcision. My sources are multiple websites with quotes from the New England Journal of Medicine, and other prestigious medical journals. I fail to see how all of these medical experts are "uninformed doctors".

You're happy you have a foreskin. Whoopdy doo! I am happy that I am unable to suffer from any of the above mentioned diseases, discomforts, and ills associated with dirty, smelly smegma filled foreskins.

You've conveniently ignored the facts which show a preponderance of evidence that circumcision is a beneficial medical act.

I have a step-brother who was uncircumcised and developed a mix of Phimosis with Blanitis. He was neither unhygienic nor was he engaged in risky sexual behaviour. His penis swelled up 3 times it's reqular size, and the pain was so intense he passed out on more than one occasion. Eventually, he had to be circumcised anyway, and put on an extensive antibiotics plan to get the infection under control. Not something I would wish on anyone.

Don't worry son. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's. I like getting all the blowjobs you're missing.

[Neo]

In all of your arguments NeoX, you're giving us some numbers and alleged "facts" without sources. Note that the 1 in 600 chance is a direct quote of a medical doctor from a 1980's report on penile cancer.

Your source is a single website biased towards uncircumcision. My sources are multiple websites with quotes from the New England Journal of Medicine, and other prestigious medical journals. I fail to see how all of these medical experts are "uninformed doctors".
Actually my sources (past that first listing) are from a multitude of places, circ.org, wikipedia for a few small things, etc...

You're happy you have a foreskin. Whoopdy doo! I am happy that I am unable to suffer from any of the above mentioned diseases, discomforts, and ills associated with dirty, smelly smegma filled foreskins.

You've conveniently ignored the facts which show a preponderance of evidence that circumcision is a beneficial medical act.
Didnt I address the last half of my post in response to something at the beggining of yours? (read: ills caused by having a natural penis)

Oh and as an addition, from my understanding, people who have problems with thier penis (read: something like your brother) end up having major problems becuase they wait to long to get it checked and/or diagnosed (which isn't surprising, after all how many men want to make a hospital appointment to get thier penis checked? -- "John, come to examination room one for a penile diagnoses!")

I have a half-brother who was uncircumcised and developed a mix of Phimosis with Blanitis. He was neither unhygienic nor was he engaged in risky sexual behaviour. His penis swelled up 3 times it's reqular size, and the pain was so intense he passed out on more than one occasion. Eventually, he had to be circumcised anyway, and put on an extensive antibiotics plan to get the infection under control. Not something I would wish on anyone.
Thats beside the point though, The "facts" as they are so called (even from your sources) show barely a 1% increased chance in most 'ills' (1 in 600 for penile cancer for instance). There is still no valid reason for having a kid circumcised -- although I think your missing my point (or at least I am not explaining myself).

I personally feel that children (read: infants) should not be circumcised -- rather it should be a decision that an individual makes on his own after reaching a certain age and/or maturity.

Don't worry son. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's. I like getting all the blowjobs you're missing.
I've heard that blowjobs feel much better on uncircumcised males -- especially with the foreskin retracted (greater sensitivitiy/errogenous area). So you enjoy the quantity and I will enjoy the quality =)

Besides if your going to post stuff thats pro circumcision then I have to find a conflicting viewpoint don't I? Otherwise what kind of debate would it be "i agree with you" -- That still doesnt change the fact that the AAP has said multiple times (what, once in the 80s, then again in 99) that amounts to "There is no valid medical reasons to Circumcise..."

Besides, I think causing an infant pain is a bit much. At least when the male is older they get to anesthesized (spelling ftw).

GA if your not going to offer anything more substantial to this thread then sniping at me, just don't post. You bitched about wanted IR to be moderated more heavily/better and then you end up posting shit that barely passes.

-Neo

[Xenon]

Actually, it's a step brother... but whatever...

1 in 600 is a pretty good chance at getting penile cancer if you're uncircumcised compared to a 0 chance if you're circumcised. In all of recorded history there have only been 9 cases of penile cancer in circumcised men, vs 764 cases per year reported in the USA alone for uncircumcised males. You know they have to amputate your penis when it gets cancer right? That is an unacceptable risk right there. :rolleyes:

[GenocideAlive]

GA if your not going to offer anything more substantial to this thread then sniping at me, just don't post. You bitched about wanted IR to be moderated more heavily/better and then you end up posting shit that barely passes.
You're posting bullshit references to prop up a strawman. What am I supposed to do, make a three-page long post about how to debate something? I'm trying to keep my posts succinct to avoid humiliating you and your baseless argument.

Uncircumcised males are at risk for more diseases, period. You can quote all the online bullshit (Wikipedia for facts? ahahahah. circ.org? equivalent to truthingenesis. REAL SOURCES PLZ) you want, but the fact of the matter according to health professionals is that circumcision removes a health risks over the course of a lifetime. You're obviously arguing on the basis that you're not circumcised and you were taught it's superior.

And you want to lecture me because I'm "posting shit that barely passes". What do we do when the mods become involved in "NOT IR MATERIAL"?
Besides if your going to post stuff thats pro circumcision then I have to find a conflicting viewpoint don't I?
Intellectually bankrupt bullshit. "Hello, since I disagree I have to find any source that will agree with me, no matter their credibility." I'm sure you'll find some "sources" sitting under bridges that you can quote as anti-circumcision advocates that you can buy off with half-eaten cheeseburgers.

NOT IR MATERIAL.
Oh and as an addition, from my understanding, people who have problems with thier penis (read: something like your brother) end up having major problems becuase they wait to long to get it checked and/or diagnosed
Does "your understanding" qualify as an understanding of a qualified medical professional? No, it doesn't.

NOT IR MATERIAL.
Worldwide prevalence: The U.S. is the only country in the world that routinely circumcises most of its male infants for non-religious reasons. Over 80% of the world's males are intact Jewish circumcision: A growing number of American Jews are not circumcising their sons. Circumcision among Jews in Europe, South America, and Israel also is not universal Matching friends: The national circumcision rate is 60%, less than 40% in some states. Though past circumcision rates were higher, there is no documented emotional harm to intact boys. To the contrary, there are growing reports from men who have disliked being circumcised since they were boys, even though they were in the majority
Does the number of males circumcised or satisfied with their circumcision have anything to do with its medical relevance? NO. Polemic.

NOT IR MATERIAL.
Who decides: The circumcision decision is made by parents and implemented by doctors who are often unaware of important facts (*). Professional Protest: Some aware doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations (*). (See Circumcision, Ethics, and Medicine.)
They have no model or tests to determine doctor / nurse information levels or relative knowledge against anti-circumcision doctors or nurses. "Aware" is now being defined as "anti-circumcision". Strawman.

NOT IR MATERIAL.
Behavioral response: Various studies have found that short-term effects of circumcision include changed sleep patterns, activity level, and mother-infant interaction, more irritability, and disruptions in feeding and bonding. Changes in pain response have been demonstrated at six months of age.
Coincidentally, the "symptoms" from being given an immunization shot are near identical. Gee, I wonder if we should stop giving infants immunizations because it hurts. Polemic.

NOT IR MATERIAL.
Cleanliness: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene." "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. . . . Caring for your son's uncircumcised penis requires no special action. . . . Foreskin retraction should never be forced
If you get an STD, do you go see a pediatrician? Why are you quoting a bunch of baby doctors for purposes of adult medicine? From what I can see, the problems that develop with uncircumcised males don't occur until adulthood (which is often because damage / exposure is associated with intercourse). The AAP doesn't address circumcision in adults for good reason--they aren't fucking sources. You might as well ask a geriatrics doctor if he considers breastfeeding to be beneficial.

NOT IR MATERIAL.

I could keep going, but I'm getting bored and I think I've proven that you're a hypocritical crybaby.

[frazz]

Wow GA:o
that has got to be the most spammrific post I have ever seen. Anyway, back to my contribution to the topic.
It would seem that circumsision has the advantage that you won't get any diseases related to the foreskin. It seems uncircumsision has minor advantages, and carrys pretty great risk. But if you don't have proper sterilization, etc., I don't think it would be worth it for risk of immediate infection. Well, I think I am happy with my current standing, and I don't have to worry about all those unfavorable diseases mentioned above.

[Neo]

You're posting bullshit references to prop up a strawman. What am I supposed to do, make a three-page long post about how to debate something? I'm trying to keep my posts succinct to avoid humiliating you and your baseless argument.

Uncircumcised males are at risk for more diseases, period. You can quote all the online bullshit (Wikipedia for facts? ahahahah. circ.org? equivalent to truthingenesis. REAL SOURCES PLZ) you want, but the fact of the matter according to health professionals is that circumcision removes a health risks over the course of a lifetime. You're obviously arguing on the basis that you're not circumcised and you were taught it's superior.
I went through the 4 things that Xenon posted (said "diseases, first 2 were not even that big of a problem, the 3rd is the result of poor hygiene -- or in rare cases worse things-- and the 4th was a duh thing)

Or do you think that Phimosis is some uber deadly disease?

Oh, and Xenon has been using circ.org for a few things. By your standards we should both stop posting then? Or should we go find some doctors to do it for us? Have you even been to circ.org? Your telling me that a site that lists perhaps thousands of different articles on circumcision (Regardless of thier bias) is a bullshit source?

Please.

And you want to lecture me because I'm "posting shit that barely passes". What do we do when the mods become involved in "NOT IR MATERIAL"?
Sadly for you, I am a mod, and therefore, can post whatever the fuck I want to.

Intellectually bankrupt bullshit. "Hello, since I disagree I have to find any source that will agree with me, no matter their credibility." I'm sure you'll find some "sources" sitting under bridges that you can quote as anti-circumcision advocates that you can buy off with half-eaten cheeseburgers.

NOT IR MATERIAL.
Omg I took an opposite viewpoint and used sources that supported my opinions!!1 WITCH R ME!!!1

Does "your understanding" qualify as an understanding of a qualified medical professional? No, it doesn't.

NOT IR MATERIAL.

Does the number of males circumcised or satisfied with their circumcision have anything to do with its medical relevance? NO. Polemic.
Actually should have some bearing, since time and again the AAP have been saying for a long while now that there is no real positive medical reasons to be circumcised.

So whats left are those males who like being circumcised or like not being circumcised.

They have no model or tests to determine doctor / nurse information levels or relative knowledge against anti-circumcision doctors or nurses. "Aware" is now being defined as "anti-circumcision". Strawman.
Missed my point, if a doctor wasn't even taught about uncirumcised penises, then they aren't going to be able to inform the parents are they? Granted I doubt thats a problem nowadays, but still.

Coincidentally, the "symptoms" from being given an immunization shot are near identical. Gee, I wonder if we should stop giving infants immunizations because it hurts. Polemic.
Giving a shot is a far cry from GETTING PART OF YOUR FUCKING BODY CHOPPED OFF WITH NO ANESTHESIA.

If you get an STD, do you go see a pediatrician? Why are you quoting a bunch of baby doctors for purposes of adult medicine? From what I can see, the problems that develop with uncircumcised males don't occur until adulthood (which is often because damage / exposure is associated with intercourse). The AAP doesn't address circumcision in adults for good reason--they aren't fucking sources. You might as well ask a geriatrics doctor if he considers breastfeeding to be beneficial.
Becuase, moron, infants are circumcised routinely in the US. Circumcision is usually decided after birth by the parents. Are you that dim? Or did the whole thread topic just kind of go over your head?

Circumcision is the topic. This happens in infants. The AAP releases statements claiming that Circumcision is no longer viable. Is this to much for you?

It would be retarded to talk about circumcision in adults since those are made at n individuals request or medical need. There is no medical reason to circumcise infants.

Oh, as a bonus, the midwest where I live has something like an 86% circumcision rate. Talk about being in a minority.

Problems can arise for uncircumcised males anywhere from infancy to adulthood. Wheres your source? "Most problems arise in adulthood..."

NOT IR MATERIAL.

I could keep going, but I'm getting bored and I think I've proven that you're a hypocritical crybaby.
You've proven nothing except that your enjoy trolling.

-Neo

Wow GA:o
that has got to be the most spammrific post I have ever seen. Anyway, back to my contribution to the topic.
It would seem that circumsision has the advantage that you won't get any diseases related to the foreskin. It seems uncircumsision has minor advantages, and carrys pretty great risk. But if you don't have proper sterilization, etc., I don't think it would be worth it for risk of immediate infection. Well, I think I am happy with my current standing, and I don't have to worry about all those unfavorable diseases mentioned above.
The only real dissease (ie: BXO) listed from Xenon can happen to uncircumcised penises as well (at least from what I understand). So its not like your immune to them.

The first 2 (if you had read my post) Phimosis and Para are fancy terms for small problems -- one is you cant fully retract the foreskin, the other is you can't return the forskin to cover the head of the penis Both are minor problems at best.

Circumcision has very minor advantages, and is done to infants without numbing that part of thier body. Would you like to have part of your penis chopped off today without being put under?

If your going to post, thats fine, but don't make statements like "all those undesirable diseases..." Anything I can get (disease wise) you can get, regardless that our penises are different.

-Neo

[frazz]

Would you like to have part of your penis chopped off today without being put under?
Well, no, but I also would rather have it done to me when I won't have even the slightest conciense memory of it a few years later.
1 in 600 is a pretty good chance at getting penile cancer if you're uncircumcised compared to a 0 chance if you're circumcised.
And that I am happy for.
In all of recorded history there have only been 9 cases of penile cancer in circumcised men, vs 764 cases per year reported in the USA alone for uncircumcised males.
And that I am also happy for.

[Xenon]

I guess you didn't look at the pictures of phimosis if you think it's a "minor problem". Sure, it may be minor if you catch it when it begins, but since you can't clean your penis properly if you have it, it eventually becomes a big problem. Go look at the pictures again.

Also, on your love afair with the AAP: They've flip-flopped on this issue for decades, going first one way and then another. They currently offer information about the pro's and con's only, and don't have an actual policy. Please do your research more thoroughly NeoX.

Saying that the AAP releases statements that circumcision is unviable is pure fantasy. The AAP has not released any such statements, and the AAP policy on circumcision has been removed while they review new evidence showing that circumcision should be recommended for all boys.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.

As noted above, research studies suggest that there may be some medical benefits to circumcision. These include the following:

* A lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.

* A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.

* A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, the AIDS virus.

* Prevention of foreskin infections.

* Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.

* Easier genital hygiene.

Just as there are reasons parents may choose circumcision, they are reasons why parents may choose not to have their son circumcised:

* Possible risks. As with any surgery, circumcision has some risks. Complications from circumcision are rare and usually minor. They may include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing.

* The belief that the foreskin is necessary to protect the tip of the penis. When removed, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. Rarely, this can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.

* Some people believe that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life. This has not been proven by any medical or psychological study.

SOURCE: http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/stages.cfm#inf

[boudicca]

I personally believe that it should be a choice made by the person getting the "trim". I have 2 boys and neither of them were circumcised and they're just fine. I've talked with them about it and they seemed pretty glad I didn't have their stuff cut on. They might change their minds later, but it's their mind and their penis and who am I to decide what stays on or comes off of their body? It's like cutting the tail and ears off a dog to make it look tougher.

[GenocideAlive]

I personally believe that it should be a choice made by the person getting the "trim". I have 2 boys and neither of them were circumcised and they're just fine. I've talked with them about it and they seemed pretty glad I didn't have their stuff cut on. They might change their minds later, but it's their mind and their penis and who am I to decide what stays on or comes off of their body? It's like cutting the tail and ears off a dog to make it look tougher.
It's more like cutting the umbilical cord to a certain length to avoid infection.

[Neo]

Intro somewhat: After this I think I will concede to whatever, this is a very strange topic, and its invariably just ended up with Xenon and I debating each other, and as much as I love doing that, I would rather see more participation from other members on a topic. Not that I can currently think of any to start in IR... >_<! What this all comes down to those is that both outcomes (being circumcised or uncircumcised) have very little benefits or risks and it doesn't actually matter which you are in the long run. At least, thats how I see it. You can argue specifics all you want, but if you've never experiences an intact penis then how would you know? And by the same token, I can't claim to know all about circumcised penises becuase I don't have one unles (god forbid) I would need to get a circumcision later in life. So this is just one of those time I am going to assume an "agree to disagree" stance.

Well, no, but I also would rather have it done to me when I won't have even the slightest conciense memory of it a few years later.

And that I am happy for.

And that I am also happy for.
First off, you have a chance to get Penile cancer REGARDLESS of the state of your penis. Whever you pulled that "0 out of 600 chance" is bullshit.

I would be more interested in a world wide report of uncircumcised males vs circumcised males for rates of cancer.

Lol. And yall realize that something like 80% or more of the male population of the world are uncircumcised right?

I guess you didn't look at the pictures of phimosis if you think it's a "minor problem". Sure, it may be minor if you catch it when it begins, but since you can't clean your penis properly if you have it, it eventually becomes a big problem. Go look at the pictures again.
There is a different in phimosis from BXO causing it (ie obstructions and such -- poor hygiene -- infections) and the skin still being attached to the glans of the penis. When my brother was younger (3 or 4? I don't remember specifically) I remember an incident where he was all upset that his "pepe didnt work right" (in this case, he couldnt pull his foreskin back all the way -- the skin was still "fused" for lack of a better term -- ie: if by some wierd chance it was forced back, it would have caused injury).

I don't know if that came out right. Phimosis in cases where its developed later in live are most likely bigger problems, but males who've never been able to pull thier foreskin back since birth wouldn't have that big of a problem with it.

Also, on your love afair with the AAP: They've flip-flopped on this issue for decades, going first one way and then another. They currently offer information about the pro's and con's only, and don't have an actual policy. Please do your research more thoroughly NeoX.

Saying that the AAP releases statements that circumcision is unviable is pure fantasy. The AAP has not released any such statements, and the AAP policy on circumcision has been removed while they review new evidence showing that circumcision should be recommended for all boys.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.

As noted above, research studies suggest that there may be some medical benefits to circumcision. These include the following:

* A lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
This may be a legitimate concern, but if the parents of the infant took the time to make sure the penis was clean then this would likely be less of a concern.

* A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males.
This seems more like a nonissue. A point zero some percent less of a chance at getting something I have a point zero something chance at getting anyways.... (ok those percents aren't right, but still)

* A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, the AIDS virus.
This one doesn't make any sense. It seems to be a standard amoung the advocates of circumcision, but the truth is that this issue is more related to an individuals practices -- an uncircumcised male has the same chance at getting HIV if he has unprotected sex all over town then a circumcised male who does the same.

This issue is hard to prove -- and the articles I have read most mention that although the studies say one thing (it does lower the chance, it doesnt, etc...) its way more dependent on the individual themselves, rather then being circumcised or not.

* Prevention of foreskin infections.
Well if I don't have my left hand, then it would prevent infections of my left hand as well.

* Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
above

* Easier genital hygiene.
Ok, seriously. Easier in the sense that your saving a whole maybe 5 seconds tops in the shower. Its like telling a kid to wash behind thier ears. Tell them to rinse out thier penis, and to make sure its clean after using the toilet. Its not that hard -- people may think it is, but its like washing your hands. Its a habit you get.

Just as there are reasons parents may choose circumcision, they are reasons why parents may choose not to have their son circumcised:

* Possible risks. As with any surgery, circumcision has some risks. Complications from circumcision are rare and usually minor. They may include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing.
Besides the point. A boy should not be becuase he should be the one to choose. Not because theres a risk his penis will get messed up.

* The belief that the foreskin is necessary to protect the tip of the penis. When removed, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. Rarely, this can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.
What an odd thing to say for uncircumcision. Does this really become a problem in circumcised males?

* Some people believe that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life. This has not been proven by any medical or psychological study.
Thats bullshit. This is truth. Besides men claiming that it makes it so sensitve that sex becomes painful (I claim wimps -- but what do I know) its just... Duh. If your penis does not have foreskin and is forever rubbing up against fabric then your going to lose some sensitivity. (Besides the fact that, the foreskin keeps the glans/tip of the penis somewhat... I dont want to say damp or moist, but its not dry -- what was that word, mucosal or something?)

Besides all that, if your circumcised how do you masturbate yourself? (Or have in the past if you have a current sexual partner) My understanding is that you "pump" your hand up and down the shaft of your penis.

Whereas those of us with an intact penis can actually masturbate by simply massaging the foreskin on the tip of the penis -- never even touching the shaft (personally I find the shaft to be less sensitive at any rate).

Besides that I have never needed lubrication to masturbate. Can you say the same?

What a wierd post. Never thought I would be posting something like this...

Anyways, besides all that, from the few blog-like entires I have found from males who've been circumcised later in life all claim that after the operation the tip of thier penis invariably becomes less sensitive due to the fact that it rubs against the underwear constantly (in some cases casing embarrasing situations) until it just "isnt the same".

(Uhm, I just googled again, heres one of them, I remember seeing a few others... hmm. Its kind of hard to google penis topics and find something serious; http://iomfats.org/resources/health/penis/circumcision/againstcutting.html )

Oh well. believe what you wish.



It's more like cutting the umbilical cord to a certain length to avoid infection.
The Umbilical cord eventually falls off, The forskin does not.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

The Umbilical cord eventually falls off, The forskin does not.
I'm going to avoid commenting on the rest of your post, because like Christians, you've formed a bias that you refuse to overcome. You're a horse, and I don't care if you die of thirst; I'm not going to break my neck trying to get you to drink.

This particular bit, however, needs clarification. Yes, the umbilical cord eventually falls off--however, during the period in which it's still attached, it's an infection risk.

[TinyDancer]

As in, the establishment of the New Testament has about as much to do with circumcision as music has to do with science.

Alright, this had to be said. It's been proven in many studies that students that are profecient at a musical instrument tend to be better at math and science also, I can find sources for that if needed.

As for circumcision, I think that should be the choice of the person involved. Some people enjoy their foreskin, others don't. Of course your foreskin won't get infected if you don't have it. You won't get heart disease if you cut your heart out, now will you? Your hair won't fall out if you shave your head. Your toenail won't get ingrown if you cut your toe off. Some people consider having their foreskin to be a bigger advantage than a lack of diseases of the foreskin. I still think that it should be up to the person involved.

[GenocideAlive]

Alright, blah blah blah blah a lack of diseases of the foreskin. I still think that it should be up to the person involved.
I knew that if TinyDancer had committed a post to a topic on circumcision, it had to be good. Unfortunately, I was dead wrong. How could you go from "sights up sarah's skirt" to that boring drivel? :cry:

[TinyDancer]

I knew that if TinyDancer had committed a post to a topic on circumcision, it had to be good. Unfortunately, I was dead wrong. How could you go from "sights up sarah's skirt" to that boring drivel? :cry:

Sights-up-Sarah's-Skirt was something my friend said. ;)

I apologize, I was trying to take the topic at least somewhat seriously. What do you expect? "OMGZLOLZ0RZ!! Thurs a thred abut penissses!! *giggles* EWW 4skin???! No wai am i sucking on that!!!Leeve it to da hoochie mamas!!"

I think not. Considering my experience (or lack thereof rather) I can't really say what my personal preference is. Maybe I'll necro this thread in a couple of years, and update on that.

[LinkTheGameFreak]

"OMGZLOLZ0RZ!! Thurs a thred abut penissses!! *giggles* EWW 4skin???! No wai am i sucking on that!!!Leeve it to da hoochie mamas!!"
haha, when did you become PC99? ;) :P

Besides that I have never needed lubrication to masturbate. Can you say the same?
I never before used lubrication to masturbate until this year when I decided to give it a shot and it's, uhm... too easy to cum with a constant lubrication like that. I know that you had said in one of your posts that with foreskin you have a constant mucous at the tip and considering too that I know how much my penis moves in my briefs I've come to a conclusion (and I want to know if this has ever happened):

constant lubrication + foreskin that can move at any time + erection or semi-hard penis = unexpected ejaculation in your underwear?

just curious because I don't have this problem and since with lubrication during masturbation it's easier to achieve ejaculation, would that mean if (I had foreskin) I saw a girl that made me semi-hard and I started to walk and my foreskin began to move too, would it make me ejaculate in my pan