Circumcision these days?

[briansd1]

I heard that there is much more sexual pleasure from being uncircumcised. Is there any truth to that?

[scaredyclassic]

Absolutely. I am circumcised and feel nothing.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]I have a friend who summed it up best when deciding to put his son under the knife:

“It’s hard enough to get a blow job without being different from everyone else. I’m not going to make it more difficult for him … “[/quote]

Haven’t had to deal with this because we had girls, but decided before they were born that if they were boys we would NOT circumcise. We haven’t pierced our girls’ ears for the same reason — it is not our right to do things to their bodies that they might not want for themselves. We feel that they are the only ones who should decide what to do with their bodies.

From the female perspective, I can say my female friends and I never cared much about whether or not a guy was circumcised. We were all pretty neutral about it. Personally, I think that uncircumsized men tend to be more sensitive — a definite plus. Never heard a woman complain that her partner wasn’t circumcised, and never knew one who wouldn’t perform oral sex because of it. Just anecdotal, but I really don’t think that uncircumcised males need to worry about it. If a girl won’t do it because of that, it’s probably not a big loss if she doesn’t stick around.

[ocrenter]

prevalence of balanitis (inflammation of head of penis): 12% of uncircumcised males, 2% of circumcised males.

[all]

The benefit in AIDS prevention is established in a study (three simultaneous studies run at the same time by the same people using same methodology) that has some flaws:

– The circumcised group was told not to have sex for a month after circumcision.
– Both groups received safe sex counseling and condoms, but the intact group had fewer sessions.
– The benefit was the greatest during the first few months of the experiment and the difference shrunk later in the experiment (makes some sense since the circumcised group did not start when the intact group did).
– The experiment was cut short – the researchers stopped it two months early and circumcised the intact group.
– The observed (shrinking) difference was projected into the future for the length of active sexual life without accounting for the trend (shrinking). Since the intact group was destroyed it is not possible to validate the assumption.
– The experiment with ‘female circumcision’ ran at the same time showed similar benefits, but in that case the researchers discounted the benefits as the result of late start, physical discomfort and more frequent counseling for the circumcised group (same factors were ignored with the male population).
– The experiment ran in a part of the world where soap, running water, warm water and education are luxury.

Might be a case of getting a grant and bending the procedure to meet the desired outcome.

[briansd1]

[quote=craptcha]
– The experiment ran in a part of the world where soap, running water, warm water and education are luxury.

Might be a case of getting a grant and bending the procedure to meet the desired outcome.[/quote]

Even in America, education and hygiene are often luxuries.

It’s true that it’s easier to keep a circumcised penis clean and infection free. But assuming good hygiene is available, I would rather be uncircumcised.

[desmond]

Looks like I was right, each person presents their view, which they think is the correct one. Back and forth with congratulations to some and not to others, “I did this and I did that”. Technical commentary follows, etc. Everybody has a opinion and if you don’t follow theirs, your wrong. Keep it simple, don’t involve others, stand firm and do what you think is right. Looks like surfer went surfing anyway……………….

[Fearful]

[quote=Navydoc]Your Data for 0.0 heterosexual transmission? Because here’s mine:
[/quote]
Those stats actually support my “0.0” number. Given that heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by 10:1, you have to divide the heterosexual numbers by 10 to even get close to a transmission rate.

Further, those stats do not isolate the F-M transmission rate, which you talked about separately in an earlier post.

Circumcised or not, the F-M transmission rate is low. But even so, if I had an HIV+ wife, I would be an idiot to trust my circumcision to protect me! And if my partner has an unknown health history, I again would be an idiot to trust my circumcision to protect me.

Furthermore, from a public health perspective, where are the dollars best spent? Cutting up babies, or disseminating condoms fifteen years later?

Want to protect against HPV? The vaccines are far more effective.

From an ethical perspective, doing an irreversible surgery on a baby that may never be even at risk … this needs to be a choice the person makes at or near adulthood.

There almost is, paradoxically, a misogynistic aspect to protecting the boys. Reducing the incidence of disease in boys ignores the more likely recipient. A boy could be bisexual, get HIV from receiving anal sex, then go around infecting girls. He might even argue to them that he isn’t likely to have HIV because he was circumcised!

The money would be far better spent training girls to demand their partners use condoms.

It really is patronizing to argue that Africans should be circumcised because they are too poor, dumb, or amoral to prevent HIV transmission any other way.

In the final analysis, the ethical issues can only be defeated by turning to tradition and religion. Case in point: The Wall Street Journal regularly publishes Jewish-written editorials on the topic. This really is a close cousin to female genital mutilation, and there are compelling tradition and religion arguments that support that lovely surgery.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=desmond]Everybody has a opinion and if you don’t follow theirs, your wrong.[/quote]
Your wrong what? Hey, don’t leave us hanging!

[NotCranky]

I agree with Desmond.

[svelte]

[quote=desmond]Looks like I was right, each person presents their view, which they think is the correct one…Keep it simple, don’t involve others, stand firm and do what you think is right. [/quote]

Looks like you presented your view, which you think is the correct one. You kept it simple, didn’t involve others, stood firm and did what you thought was right.

[svelte]

[quote=Navydoc][quote=svelte]The argument that male circumcision is A-OK because it reduced disease is oh so wrong.

It’s like saying we can cut down on breast cancer by cutting off all women’s breasts.[/quote]

That will, in fact, dramatically reduce the amount of breast cancer. BRCA patients decide to do this often.

All kidding aside, this is how many public health decisions are made. In the absence of a percieved detriment to circumcision, the benefits may be considered to outweigh the risks. Not saying I agree with this, just what happens from a public health perspective. I’m not sure circumcision is quite comparable to bilateral radical mastectomy.[/quote]

No, it is not exactly equivalent. Very rarely are two situations equivalent.

But breasts really only serve a useful purpose when breastfeeding, right? So why not cut off female breasts when a woman has her tubes tied. Uses the same sort of logic.

My point is that you can cut off ANY part of your body and, by golly, you’ll never get a desease or illness from that body part again. Guaranteed.

(We should all shave our heads to eliminate hair mites…the list goes on…)

[svelte]

[quote=sdduuuude]I have a friend who summed it up best when deciding to put his son under the knife:

“It’s hard enough to get a blow job without being different from everyone else. I’m not going to make it more difficult for him … “[/quote]

Actually, this logic is backwards.

Fewer than half the males born in the US now are circumsized! So by circumsizing your kid, he’ll be the one that is different!

Both my boys are not circumsized. And they have both always had a very pretty girlfriend by their side who don’t seem to mind, it hasn’t hampered them in the least. One son has even thanked us several times for not having it done, saying that he appreciates the extra length and girth.

[scaredyclassic]

it does seem unlikely that at any time in history men have complained about having too much penis.

lugging this big heavy thing around. ugh. what a chore.

imagine the first jews, how alarmed they must have been when the main guy said, comehere. bring your kid. ok, heres the plan. to be with us, we’re gonna cut off a piece of your kids penis. you in?

until it got established, i’m guessing it seemed a little radical at the time…

[scaredyclassic]

it is difficult for me to trust the medical establishment on this one. they have a bad record…

[Author]

Posts