Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths-study

[Tinijocaro]

**************

Circ'd guys like the look of a cir'd pen*s better or they are more USED to the look? There, IMO, is nothing particularly attractive about either set of genitals, and don't even get into talking about the look of woman's genitals. I think we become accustomed to things being a certain way, and anything different than what we are used to is "ugly", "weird" or whatever. Think about how every time the look of this board is changed, people practially revolt! It's differnt from what we are used to. Besides, once erect, the vast majority of intact pen*ses looks just like circ'd ones. The skin stretches.

The process of growing a foreskin back is called foreskin restoration, a non-surgical method that uses stretching of the remaining skin. While sme men use weights, others just use tape. Here's some information: http://norm.org/whyrestore.html

When the foreskin is removed, the glans (head) is permanently exposed. It begins to develop layers of skin, and the nerves get buried beneith those layers, rather than being close to the surface. After years of being exposed, the nerves are quite deep. The normal surface of the glans is mucosal tissue, like the inside of your mouth, moist, and reddish-purplish. When the foreskin is removed, it dries out (like if you hung your head out of a car window with your mouth open, your mouth would dry out). This affects the sensations that a man feels. A man who was circ'd as a baby would have less sensation than a man who was circ'd as an adult, because the process of keritinization takes years for the full effect to occur. Also, the foreskin itself has thousands of feet of nerves that are lost to the cutting room floor- that HAS to affect sensation, less nerves = less sensation. The frenulum, which tethers the foreskin to the glans, is sited by most intact men as being the most sensitive part of their pen*s. this is usually cut out with circumcision. The ridged band is also a highly sensitive part of the foreskin which is removed.

I realize that you can't reverse this decision, but if you were to have more children, you might not get it done next time around. I have a friend who has three boys, the first one she regrettably circ'd, the next two are intact and none have ever commented on the difference. In fact, my own two sons have never noticed that their dad is circ'd- they did notice the size difference and that he has hair, but not the lack of a foreskin.


Yes, circ'd guys do get a lot of pleasure from their pen*ses. Since they don't have all the original equipment, they are receiving less pleasure than they should be.

 

[Tinijocaro]

We don't have routine tests over here in the UK apart from
- smear tests (for cervical cancer) after age 20-ish
- women at risk of breast cancer get mamograms (sp?) after a certain age
etc.

We don't have any unnecessary routine tests done in the UK.
And, like I said before, there's no such thing is anyone here being circumcised just for the sake of it (it's generally only done if the male is Jewish or it is medically necessary) - this part applies to Europe in general as well (not sure if they have routine/yearly tests though).

About the ear-piercing thing...
My mother pierced my ears when I was young, twice (once as a baby, and again at about 5yrs). I will not be doing that to any children I have - my mother is weird though (schizophrenogenic) and I have very different values to her.
I do think it's comparable to routine circumcision in the sense that both are truly unnecessary. If there is any medical benefit to being circ'd, I imagine that it is related to overall lifestyle factors (in the same way that red wine/green tea/dark chocolate/etc. have been shown to be beneficial - the people that are generally consuming those things are healthier overall).

And as far as boys making fun of eachother in the locker room - over here if any boy started making fun of another because of their 'private parts', it would be turned right around with the other boys asking, 'why were you looking at that?!'.

Since you are in the UK, I'm curious what the non-circumcising parts of the world think of a country such as ours who routinely circs. Have you heard anything? Are most people aware that it has been routinely done to most boys without a medical need? Perhaps you could poll some friends and family?? Thanks!

 

[VSL]

I'll have to ask

I don't know how many people over here are really aware of the routine circumcision performed in the US, although anyone who watched SATC will know (because of when Samantha didn't know what to do with 'it' when she came across an uncut *****).

I imagine that the general response would be, 'what's the point?'

 

[Tinijocaro]

Will anyone answer this question I asked earlier? Doctors are now leaving more foreskin on that they used to. Removing all foreskin was causing problems for grown men such as super tight erections with no mobile skin, causing tearing and bleeding, and scrotal hair being pulled up onto the shaft of the pen*s. So nowadays, most boys have a cuff of foreskin that parents have to be careful to pull back and clean to prevent adhesions (trade one set of problems for another.) So much for the maintainance-free pen*s. No such cleaning required of the intact ***** until at least several years when the foreskin naturally retracts on it's own. That remaining foreskin contains the same cells that supposedly are responsible for the increase in HIV rate of intact men.

Don't you think those medical benefits are now greatly reduced since these dangerous cells are present? Some boys have a small cuff, some don't even look circumcised and must have lots of these cells. How can you justify circumcising when there is already small benefit made smaller by leaving part of the foreskin on?

 

[Tinijocaro]

I'll have to ask

I don't know how many people over here are really aware of the routine circumcision performed in the US, although anyone who watched SATC will know (because of when Samantha didn't know what to do with 'it' when she came across an uncut *****).

I imagine that the general response would be, 'what's the point?'

I'd also love to hear what the men think of their foreskins, and what they think life would be like without it. I know, kind of personal but if you are close enough with some guys and could ask.....I'd love to hear. Tell them to come register so we can talk- wouldn't that be great??

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

Circumstitions is definitely an anti-circ site. I don't deny that, but his poems were published in the American Journal of Diseases in Children.

I guess I shouldn't throw your whole site out because of two looney birds, but it certainly makes it a bit less credible in my eyes. I don't think just because a site claims to be non-biased, that it IS non-biased. I think they would like unassuming parents to believe that's what it is, but they are clearly pro-circ. Just look a bit more closely at their 'anti-circ' page". It's pro-circ. There is nothing anti-circ about it. They want you to believe they are giving you both sides. If it were truly non-biased, there would be articles on complications of circumcision, and on the benefits of having a foreskin. There are no such articles. They fooled you by saying they are non-biased, when in fact, they are very pro-circ. I didn't read the whole site, so if I missed a section that is truly anti-circ, let me know.

Fooled? Hardly. I read medical journals every day. The website provides a section on complications, ethics, etc. http://www.circs.org/library/index.html I believe the precieved conclusion that there is more support for circumcision vs. uncircumcision is because there is more medical data that supports that there are benefits to being circumcised rather than not.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Fooled? Hardly. I read medical journals every day. The website provides a section on complications, ethics, etc. http://www.circs.org/library/index.html I believe the precieved conclusion that there is more support for circumcision vs. uncircumcision is because there is more medical data that supports that there are benefits to being circumcised rather than not.

Help me out here, have you found ANYTHING on that site in support of intactness? I found nothing. For a site that claims to be unbiased, there is PLENTY of research out there on the benefits of having a foreskin that they could have included, but for whatever reason, they didn't include any of it. How can they call themselves an un-biased site, and you being in the medical profession, how can you go along with it? Where's the unbiased stuff, cause I certainly haven't found any.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

There are anti-circ. articles in the sexual function section, reasons not to circ. in the complications articles, etc.
From what I've read, not only from this site but from other sites, I believe (as in MY personal conclusion) that there are more benefits to circ. vs. non-circ. and that is why there is a precieved imbalance.
If you can find an unbiased website that fits your criteria, let's see it.
The sources sited for these articles: JAMA, International AIDS Conference, Pediatrics, etc. are very credible sources and I support their findings.

 

[Tinijocaro]

All articles you pointed out were slanted towards circumcision. How can this site call itself un-biased? I don't care that it IS un-biased, it just bothers me that it calls itself un-biased/

www.cirp.org is an anti-circ site that houses hundreds of peer-reviewed research articles, so although the site that houses the articles is anti-circ, the reaserch is valid and anti-circ. Pretty much similar to your site- a pro-circ site that houses research articles slanted towards circ.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

As you noted about mine, I'm seeing nowhere that recommends circumcision for medical reasons, only alternatives to circumcision. It discusses urinary tract infections, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis xerotica obliterans etc. and ways to treat it when it happens. Why use a laundry list of treatments for each condition when one procedure will eliminate the condition alltogether?

 

[Tinijocaro]

Usually, when a problem occurs, it's best to use the least invasive treatment. When a girl gets a UTI, she gets an antibiotic. When a boy does, well, we should have him circumcised. Makes no sense. Why would you go for the most drastic treatment for something that is easily fixed other ways, that also spares the foreskin, a valuable part of the male genitals. Circumcision for a problem should be a last resort after all more conservative treatments have been tried.

 

[BuckNaked]

Why would you go for the most drastic treatment for something that is easily fixed other ways, that also spares the foreskin, a valuable part of the male genitals.

Sorry, the mental picture just cracks me up...sparing the foreskin...like the foreskin is a death row inmate, just about to go under the knife, waiting for that phone call from the governnor.

Tinijocaro, the bottom line is this - you are free to do what you want with your sons re: circumcision, and others are free to do what they choose. Your choice doesn't make you a better parent than those that chose differently and we aren't better parents than you because of our choices.

You don't like that we had our sons circumcised? Tough, it wasn't your decision to make.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that anyone that would spend so much time and effort trying to tell other people what bad parents they are because of a circumcision might be trying to justify their own decision not to circ. Why you would want to do that, I have no idea - your son, your decision.

 

[Tinijocaro]

I hope I can respond within your quotes.

Sorry, the mental picture just cracks me up...sparing the foreskin...like the foreskin is a death row inmate, just about to go under the knife, waiting for that phone call from the governnor.

Yes, that is pretty funny!

Tinijocaro, the bottom line is this - you are free to do what you want with your sons re: circumcision, and others are free to do what they choose. Your choice doesn't make you a better parent than those that chose differently and we aren't better parents than you because of our choices.

Did I ever say I was a better parent because of choices I've made? You're the only one who has mentioned anything along those lines. We've already established that we are each free to do as we please with our sons, several times, not sure why you keep bringing that up. I'm getting the impression that you haven't done much debating. Saying 'It's my choice, leave me alone" is not particularly good debate style. I'm not attaacking you, or anybody who has circumcised their child. I think no less of anybody who circumcises. I am discussing/debating circumcison with whoever cares to debate. All I've said is that I don't think parents should have the choice to circumcise a child without medical indication- I haven't slammed or insulted you. I wish we could discuss this without you getting all defensive.

Since we've already established that it is your choice to make or not make, we need to move on. Either continue to debate or bow out. Some people just get too emotional to discuss this topic, and I can understand that.

You don't like that we had our sons circumcised? Tough, it wasn't your decision to make.

I don't disagree with you.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that anyone that would spend so much time and effort trying to tell other people what bad parents they are because of a circumcision might be trying to justify their own decision not to circ. Why you would want to do that, I have no idea - your son, your decision.

Show me where I said or even inferred that you are a bad parent.

I didn't do anything to my son, so it really was a non-decision. Same as my daughters- I kept them the way they were born. There is nothing to justify when you leave a healthy person as they are born. My son=his decision.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I'm getting the impression that you haven't done much debating.

Buck Debates all the time,and even when she's on the opposite side of a debate,she usually debates pretty reasonably

 

[dcentity2000]

Many of the health issues that surround circumcision are strongly associated with a particular climate (a hot and dusty one I believe); has anyone researched into the impact in different atmospheres?



Rich::

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

Usually, when a problem occurs, it's best to use the least invasive treatment. When a girl gets a UTI, she gets an antibiotic. When a boy does, well, we should have him circumcised. Makes no sense. Why would you go for the most drastic treatment for something that is easily fixed other ways, that also spares the foreskin, a valuable part of the male genitals. Circumcision for a problem should be a last resort after all more conservative treatments have been tried.

But if a boy is circumcised, it greatly decreases the chances of him ever having such problems. Why not prevent something rather than treat it when a problem arrives? An ounce of prevention... In my practice for example, would rather prevent Parvo rather than treat it, by a long shot.
Also, I would rather have an infant circumcised rather than an older child. A co-worker of mine had to have her son circumcised at 6 years old because of serious UTI's (which was curative, btw), and that poor kid went through hell afterwards. My little infant nephews were nursing and drifting off to sleep within a few minutes of their procedures.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Then her responses surprise me even more.

 

[BuckNaked]

I'm getting the impression that you haven't done much debating.

Buck Debates all the time,and even when she's on the opposte side of adebate,she usually debates pretty reasonably

Thanks Jenny!!

 

[Lanshark]

Well...We've managed to get the games and exchanges off of page one and replace it with the never ending debate on circumcision.

I'd say we've come up in the world

 

[ChrisnSteph]

Sorry, the mental picture just cracks me up...sparing the foreskin...like the foreskin is a death row inmate, just about to go under the knife, waiting for that phone call from the governnor. Tinijocaro, the bottom line is this - you are free to do what you want with your sons re: circumcision, and others are free to do what they choose. Your choice doesn't make you a better parent than those that chose differently and we aren't better parents than you because of our choices.

You don't like that we had our sons circumcised? Tough, it wasn't your decision to make.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that anyone that would spend so much time and effort trying to tell other people what bad parents they are because of a circumcision might be trying to justify their own decision not to circ. Why you would want to do that, I have no idea - your son, your decision.

OMG Buck, I'm just dying! I can't believe that this has turned into such a circ-us. Ok, that was really bad.

I agree 100% with everything you just said. We chose to circumcise two of our sons. The son we didn't circumcise had a genetic condition and an unusually small ***** so we chose not to have it done in his case. I left the decision to circumcise our boys up to my dh, and he wanted them to have it done for hygiene and asthetic reasons. I don't know if there's any truth to the hygiene thing or not, but I dated a guy who wasn't circumcised, and I constantly had UTI's. I have not had that problem with my dh. Anyhow, my boys won't ever remember being circumcised, and I'm pretty confident that when they are older they'll be glad that it was done.