I absolutely will not...
Started by Doula-2-OB
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Look, I already went further on this then I usually like to. (not to mention I try to quit internet arguments once their posts start being pages long) Arguing abortion on the internet and expected to convince anyone of anything is equivalent to me bashing my head against my histology book and expecting to do well on my test tommorow. Completely absurd and a terrible waste of time.
I made the book recommendation I like to make so I'm done. Its an interesting book and I recommend anyone who is prolife or prochoice read it - as I recall he does address non-religious prolifers - I forget how though its been awhile. Its a new perspective and he's very intelligent and covers the argument thoroughly.
I still can't find a point of disagreement. You keep repeating that condoms are more effective than circumcision, and I think that's probably true. You appear rather dismissive of circumcision, though, and that IMHO is a mistake. In 2005 the WHO estimated that promoting male circumcision would prevent 2 million cases of HIV over ten years. I can't sneeze at that figure.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Oh, I absolutely agree with you that the figure quoted by the WHO is probably accurate, and pretty impressive.
The only contention I'm making is that we have limited capital, and that capital shouldn't be spent on circumcision... it would be better spent on educating the people on condom use, providing condoms, and work towards a long-term solution to the problem.
Circumcision is an expensive way [compared to condom use, which would lower HIV-related medical costs even more] to curtail the HIV pandemic in Africa, but it is by no means the way to end it. I'm just saying that money could be better spent on other venues to try to help stop the pandemic. There are many proposed solutions to helping the situation in Africa and although circumcision has its merits, I do not believe it is the best solution worth pursuing.
Again, if I could magically circumcise infants in Africa for free, I probably would, as there it can be construed as a medical necessity (it cannot be construed as a medical necessity in the United States, but rather is a largely cosmetic procedure based on tradition and social norms). But I just don't think that for the money that you'd have to spend on millions of surgeries we would be getting our money's worth... capital could be better spent on education which again has the added bonus of being able to stymie other STIs, and unwanted pregnancy.
I recognize that there are barriers to implementing education, but all developing countries have had barriers to education. And breaking down those barriers is not only a chance to improve sexual practices, but education in general.
And when I say education on safe sex, I mean real education on safe sex.. not any of this abstinence-only crap that has been the norm in America. That viewpoint needs to shift here in the states as well, as it has been shown numerous times to be completely ineffective. People will have sex no matter what, but given education and resources (i.e. free condoms), many many people will choose to have safe sex instead of unprotected sex.
Thanks for your kind words. I went through a whole weird process at first - self-hating (how could I do this? I'm evil!) to God hates me and is punishing me (I got cancer a few years later) to sadness when I saw mommies and their cute little ones.
I got some counseling and sorted out my emotions and it's fine now. Sure I get a twinge of sadness every now and then, but I'm married to a great guy and we'll start a family soon enough.
I just want people to be aware that there is a deep emotional component to abortion, and it lingers for a long time. So not only is a baby not allowed to live, a piece of the mother dies as well. It's not "just" another medical procedure. Sad, really.
Perhaps, but the UN doesn't seem to think so. No offense, but for the time being I'll take their word over yours.
Additionally look at this little gem Study: Circumcision does not dull sensation
There goes that argument. 😉
Abortion: As a guy, I feel I have no right to legislate anyone's right to do with their body as they please. I consider myself pro-prevention and I would not be averse to performing abortions. I'd rather not have women getting illegal surgeries in back-alley offices.
Anyway, use condoms and pull out. Even when drunk.
Circumcision: I'm not in Africa, my kids aren't going to be born there, and it is an unnecessary procedure.
Too bad my girlfriend is Jewish. Doh.
Anyway, use condoms and pull out. Even when drunk.
Circumcision: I'm not in Africa, my kids aren't going to be born there, and it is an unnecessary procedure.
Too bad my girlfriend is Jewish. Doh.
Yes?
You surely didn't expect a serious study to say we're the end-all be-all word on this, yes, there is always more research to be conducted, but it you look at their paper, their parameters and methodology seems a pretty reasonable way of measuring something that most of us... can't.
"But circumcision should only be considered as part of a comprehensive prevention package that includes treatment for sexually transmitted infections, promotion of safer sex practices and provision and correct use of male and female condoms."
Again, as I said, it's not going to fix everything. I agree with the UN that it has benefits, as I have said over and over and over, but I don't see how anyone could advocate for circumcision over safe sex. Safe sex brings with it almost innumerable benefits that circumcision does not. I don't think either of us are going to budge on this, though.
"But counselling of men and their sexual partners is necessary to prevent them from developing a false sense of security and engaging in high-risk behaviours that could undermine the partial protection provided by circumcision, WHO stressed."
Well if you're going to already teach people to not engage in high-risk behaviors, why not give them some condoms while you're at it?
"Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners, she added."
So if you still have to use other forms of protection 100% of the time, why get a circumcision? If you use the condom correctly, you won't have any viral contact.
After reading a few pages of this thread, I'm amazed at the ******s they're accepting into medical school these days.
Anyway, even the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't advocate circumcision for baby boys anymore. The U.S. is the *only* developed, secular country where a majority of boys get circumcised, though the numbers are rapidly falling.
Anyway, even the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't advocate circumcision for baby boys anymore. The U.S. is the *only* developed, secular country where a majority of boys get circumcised, though the numbers are rapidly falling.
You get a neonatal circumcision because the procedure is quick, cheap, safe, effective and permanent. It requires no thought on the part of the user. Certain people cannot or will not use condoms reliably or at all, and it will significantly decrease transmission in this segment of the population.
Furthermore, even correct condom usage does not guarantee zero viral contact. They leak, break and slip off. Bearing all this in mind, why would you not get a circumcision?
Those studies apply in the context of places like sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV prevelance is approaching 30%. Condoms, even education, isn't widely available so something that is around like circumcision, which could reduce the HIV transmission rate, may be worth looking into. Circumcision BTW makes the head of the penis hard and leathery, which is why you also get the loss of sensation.
For the U.S. though, such a strategy would be completely ******ed. The HIV prevalence here is so low, especially amongst heterosexuals. Circumcising all boys would have a minimal impact on the future HIV prevelance, especially compared to strategies like education, condoms, abstinence, etc.
Llenroc said:
Funny that you bring this up.
American Academy Of Pediatrics To Review Policy On Male Circumcision After Studies Find Procedure Reduces Men's HIV Infection Risk
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
How cheap? Don't cite the "decreased medical costs" thing, because again condoms serve the same purpose of decreasing infection and thus medical costs. I want to know per procedure how much circumcision in Africa would cost. Any capital spent on circumcision (and I would gander that it is a lot of capital to circumcise every neonate) is capital that cannot be spent on education, supplies, and treatments for people who currently have sexually transmitted infections. In that article, they state that if circumcision was done, we would have to educate everyone since it is not a magical bullet. And then they say education and condom usage is the way to stop infection.
Those 'certain people' you refer to won't use condoms reliably or at all due to lack of sexual education; as I stated before, if each person were adequately educated and had easy access to condoms, very very few people would not use them. Correct condom usage does not guarantee zero viral contact, but it is unbelievably better than circumcision. Even the article you cited implies that condom usage and safe sex education is the path to complete control of the pandemic; why not spend capital on that instead?
Meh, there's always HPV.
Sorry, can't quote you an exact figure. Given that a typical procedure requires a sterile bell, a scalpel, some topical anesthetic and about 15 seconds, I'd venture it's not a huge investment.
RPedigo said:
How many times can I say this? Proper, reliable condom usage is superior to circumcision in preventing transmission of HIV. That said, without a highly effective vaccine, disease eradication efforts have to be fought on multiple fronts. Vaccine development is one avenue that will hopefully pan out, promotion of safe sex is another, antiretrovirals are a third weapon, and now circumcision has been demonstrated to be effective. As much as we would wish otherwise, there is no single approach that will take you the last mile.
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=jl-13-01
So that shows about $70 per circumcision, and an infection rate of 1 infection for every 19-58 surgeries which costs $1269-3911 per infection. So taking into account infection of one in every, 38.5 surgeries (for a probability of 0.026), and the average cost per infection to be $2590, that brings the cost to about $130 per circumcision.
This study says that disinhibition would make circumcision not lessen the risk, and with a lack of education that is precisely what would probably happen. And this brings us back into full circle, at how lack of sexual education has caused spreading of the epidemic. The only difference is, circumcision now takes away $130 per person that could otherwise be going towards a goal that would curtail more than the HIV pandemic.
There may not be a one-pronged attack that will work, but I'm not suggesting one prong. I'm suggesting three. Condom availability. Sexual health awareness. Clinics to treat sexually transmitted infections.
The problem is that, of course the reports are anecdotal. Pleasure is measured relative to some null point. Let's take it to the extreme - if you cut off a baby's penis, there is a much greater reduced chance he'll transmit STIs, get genital infections/cancer and so on. It's just as "non-invasive" as circumcision (I'm not sure you know what that term means, by the way... I wasn't aware that surgery of any kind was ever "very non-invasive").
The baby won't even experience any sexual pleasure until after puberty, so how will he know that not have a penis has reduced his pleasure in any way?
In fact, from today onwards, I proclaim one should remove all body parts that, if removed, will reduce the incidence of disease - toes, hair, teeth and urinary tracts inclusive. Furthermore, I propose that everyone with genetic weaknesses to disease should be sterilized at birth (once again - safe, "noninvasive", they won't know what they're missing) so that only purebred men and women will survive. Oops, wrong speech.
Parental consent was designed to give parents power in making the best decision for the child, in respect of his or her wishes. Though I don't have any data to back this up, how many men do you know who would say "okay" if you said "hey we're gonna chop off the tip of your penis, it reduces infections and is totally safe with no loss in pleasure!"?
The best decision for the child, however, not necessarily the best decision for the child's parents (e.g. parents refusing blood transfusions for their sick children), nor the best decision for society as a whole (e.g. circumcision reduces STIs).
I was under the impression that female circumcision involved the removal of the entire clitoris, as well as other mutilation to the labia, rendering the female incapable of experiencing sexual pleasure, and causing major urogenital and reproductive issues later in life. I don't see how female circumcision as it's practiced (maybe not in the US, but elsewhere) compares to male circumcision.
I read the full paper, and the combined effect on both sexes (Table 3) predicts 19-27 surgeries per averted infection, with a cost of $1269-$1806 per averted infection. Given that each non-averted infection, on average, consumes much more that $1269-$1806 in treatment and lost productivity, circumcision is likely a very cost-effective option.
RPedigo said:
This is hardly unique to circumcision; it happens with every preventive measure once the incidence of the disease in question declines.
RPedigo said:
Sigh. As I alluded to above, circumcision costs money up front, but confers long-term savings by preventing cases of HIV. Being cost effective in areas with relatively high prevalence of the disease, it's both a net gain of resources and a means to prevent infection in groups that are recalcitrant to education and condom promotion campaigns (which have been going on in earnest for at least 16 years). From SFGate.com: "Reports of consistent condom use by men rose to more than 50 percent by 2002, compared with 10 percent a decade earlier. Among women, reports of condom use rose from virtually zero to 25 percent."
For the first point: Once educated and readily available, condom usage will likely not decline, for reasons I've pointed out earlier in the thread. Yes, HIV will decline with condom use, but other sexually transmitted infections will still be present-- and of course, you can always have unwanted pregnancies if you do not use condoms. Thus, once implemented, condoms are more likely to survive than other measures, as certain benefits will never go away.
For the second point: Circumcision is shown to help HIV infection and be cost effective through research studies, but so far education studies then have actually shown to be beneficial in implementation in Africa, as condom use is most assuredly rising from that quote you included. If that's the case, then we know that this particular venue is becoming successful-- why not pursue it? Why take capital that could be spent on something that we know is working to test something out where researchers say that you still have to use condoms and safe sex?
From the valid points you have made, I would concede that circumcision could be warranted as a stopgap measure in areas where safe sex education and condom availability have been tried in earnest, and have failed. I do not believe that it is a worthwhile goal to attempt mass circumcision when those same resources could be going towards a better goal.
I absolutely refuse to practice on animals (even under anesthesia). Killing an innocent and defenseless dog is absolutely sick/perverted.
Just as an added bonus...
Adopt a Clitoris
All jokes and humour (and there are SEVERAL) aside, this is completely cool.
Adopt a Clitoris
All jokes and humour (and there are SEVERAL) aside, this is completely cool.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If education and condom promotion could eradicate HIV, I'd venture that after 25 years of domestic education and condom promotion we would have eradicated HIV in this country. Clearly we haven't. Any approach that relies on day-to-day behavioral modification will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. A "stopgap measure" will abosolutely be needed to drive transmission below the magic threshold. I don't know if circumcision will be the answer, but I can wage no rational opposition to a properly coordinated effort to increase circumcision rates in countries where HIV is rampant.
Use condoms AND pull out? Seems like overkill.
But definitely use condoms. Just pulling out --> how I was conceived. 😀
A stopgap measure will not necessarily be needed, but rather a look at our current educational efforts and what is missing and what isn't. All of these studies say that you need complete condom use anyway, and I just believe that our efforts should be focused on that goal instead. The proof is in the pudding-- condom use has increased dramatically. There's still a long way to go.
Keep in mind that routine infant circumcision would have a very much delayed effect, just as revamping education would. It's just a difference in opinion on where funds should be spent and how implementation should work. I believe that circumcision would take away from capital that could be used towards a better goal, and you do not. Both education and circumcision are economically viable, since both prevent HIV infection and thus safe money. We both agree that condom use and safe sex education is what will eventually eradicate the pandemic, but I just believe that we should go directly for that goal with any available resources, and not use that money on something that requires condom use to be effective in the first place. I am also taking into account the side-benefits of condoms and the side-benefits of education, that I have outlined previously.
This isn't a bleeding-heart save the foreskin tirade, it's just a matter of how I think funds should be appropriated for the greatest benefit in all regards, not just HIV.
I would never perform a sex change.
Then one would also have to consider the apparent concomitant benefit of reducing HPV infection/transmission. This would be of particular benefit in underdeveloped nations which have low rates of Pap screening and therefore relatively high rates of cervical cancer.
Frankly, I find your attitude regarding the efficacy of education to be overly optimistic to the point of naivete. It's the cornerstone, the foundation, the alpha, but not the omega. If you can point to a successful major disease eradication effort using only education, I would like to see it.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Given the emerging data on circumcision's effect on HIV transmission, the higher rates of domestic circumcision in the past may have played a significant role in containing HIV prevalence in this country. Alas, there are few things less dramatic than a crisis unrealized.
Again, that benefit pales in comparison to condom usage.
It is most assuredly the omega-- because it is the eventual answer to the HIV pandemic, among other things. I don't have an example about disease eradication using only education, but I would claim that with the SFGate statistics you quoted, I don't have to. Condom usage is increasing in Africa, and you can either use a huge amount of capital up front to try to circumcise every newborn, or you can stick with what's already working, and focus on increasing the efficacy of that.
I think we should spend our money where we get the most benefit (in all aspects, not just HIV prevention). My goal focuses on that, and is a goal that is focused on something that's already shown to be improving over the years, yours does not.
I remember this one MCAT about removing sexual organs on newborn rats and stitching them onto rats of the opposite gender. I was so disgusted that I got every question wrong. That said, I refuse to get into the practicing on animals thing. I'm no Steve Irwin, I just can't kill animals.
Also, for all of you nuts out there that don't understand the medical benefits of circumcision, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published the results of a great study on how cleanly-done procedures reduce the shedding of HIV. Small abrasions between the foreskin and the penis are very quick to pick up the virus, so if we can reduce the number of infected African truck drivers who pay extra for sex without a condom that's got to be good.
Also, for all of you nuts out there that don't understand the medical benefits of circumcision, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published the results of a great study on how cleanly-done procedures reduce the shedding of HIV. Small abrasions between the foreskin and the penis are very quick to pick up the virus, so if we can reduce the number of infected African truck drivers who pay extra for sex without a condom that's got to be good.
"if we can reduce the number of infected African truck drivers who pay extra for sex without a condom..."
In sub-Saharan Africa alone there are about 24.7 million people living with HIV. It's not a problem confined to "African truck drivers". It's a problem for everybody living there.
"for all of you nuts out there that don't understand the medical benefits of circumcision"
We understand the medical benefits of circumcision in areas of high risk of infection, but some of us do not believe that our money is best spent on circumcision. Instead, some of us think that there are better ways to stymie the pandemic there, and those efforts also have other far-reaching benefits that circumcision does not.
I will not do anything which will get me in trouble or tarnish my reputation.
You're naively assuming that everyone gets to negotiate the terms of their sexual encounters, and that people aren't using condoms because they aren't educated about them. Go to any college campus and you'll find people who don't use condoms, not for lack of education, money or convenience, but because they don't feel good or because they don't think they're at risk.
Turning to the third world, no matter how much you educate a sex worker in Africa, or the wife of said truck driver, these women do not get to decide whether a condom is used or not. Women who suggest that are often beaten or socially ostracized. At the root of good HIV prevention is behavior change, but people have to negotiate those changes based on where they are at. Condoms will never be an end-all solution because there will always be individuals who refuse to use them, just like there are people who refuse to designate a driver when they drink, or who insist on keeping loaded weapons in a house where children live. Any time risk reduction is based on the choices of free individuals, there will always be people who choose to put themselves and others at risk.
"Women who suggest that are often beaten or socially ostracized."
Yes, but I would claim that's due to lack of education. As knowledge increases, social outlook changes; this has happened numerous times throughout history. The alienation stems from ignorance, and as the ignorance is eliminated, so will alienation. They go hand in hand. Also, people with HIV are socially ostracized, and proposed plans to circumcise all current non-infected adults would bring unfathomable alienation to those who are already infected.
"Condoms will never be an end-all solution because there will always be individuals who refuse to use them..."
Yes, there will be, but even if the proportion of people in Africa who used condoms was on par with your college kids example, then the current HIV crisis wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. This is also to say that we don't have real sex education in the United States, as it is abstinence-only which has been shown numerous times through numerous studies to be completely ineffective. An effective safe sex education program would increase the frequency in which people used condoms. I never said that every single person would use a condom all the time-- but I am saying that the benefits of condom usage are greater than the benefits of circumcision, and I believe that making condom usage common is attainable.
Yes, but I would claim that's due to lack of education. As knowledge increases, social outlook changes; this has happened numerous times throughout history. The alienation stems from ignorance, and as the ignorance is eliminated, so will alienation. They go hand in hand. Also, people with HIV are socially ostracized, and proposed plans to circumcise all current non-infected adults would bring unfathomable alienation to those who are already infected.
"Condoms will never be an end-all solution because there will always be individuals who refuse to use them..."
Yes, there will be, but even if the proportion of people in Africa who used condoms was on par with your college kids example, then the current HIV crisis wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. This is also to say that we don't have real sex education in the United States, as it is abstinence-only which has been shown numerous times through numerous studies to be completely ineffective. An effective safe sex education program would increase the frequency in which people used condoms. I never said that every single person would use a condom all the time-- but I am saying that the benefits of condom usage are greater than the benefits of circumcision, and I believe that making condom usage common is attainable.
Again, we've been throwing condoms at HIV for a quarter century and it's still with us.
RPedigo said:
You keep parroting this line, but I have yet to see you offer any solid evidence of it. In fact, the experience of the past 25 years is that condom use can decrease HIV incidence to a certain point, but has never proven to be capable of finishing the job. You may consider spending money on adjunctive solutions to be a waste, but I don't, and the epidemiologists involved in addressing the African HIV epidemic apparently don't. Perhaps you should take it up with them: http://www.who.int/en
RPedigo said:
Like most statistics, the increased condom use in Uganda is in the eye of the beholder. You look at it and say "Yay! Self-reported reliable condom use in males has increased from 10 to 50 percent over a decade!" Someone else might look at it and say "Ten years and all that effort and only half the men say they use condoms consistently." A real cynic might seriously question that self-reporting is in any way reliable. He/she might also point out that N=2 does not indicate a trajectory.
P.S. I'm still waiting for an example of a successful disease eradication effort based on education alone.
Thank you. I was starting to feel lonely.
That's funny, from their most recent report:
"WHO and UNAIDS do not currently recommend male circumcision as a public health intervention against HIV, but will review this policy and provide appropriate guidance when the results of these trials become available."
So apparently those epidemiologists in the WHO and UNAIDS aren't as strongly supporting it (yet) as you seem to be. (page 12, here)
What does the WHO say in that report?
"Furthermore, stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV and most at-risk groups, including in health-care settings, continue to prevent people accessing the services they need." (page 9)
Seems that's exactly what I was advocating in a prior post. Stigma reduction is a byproduct of education.
What does the WHO say about preventing sexual transmission?
"The health sector needs to play a stronger role in preventing sexual transmission of HIV. It can do so by incorporating prevention initiatives into HIV/AIDS treatment and care services, increasing access to good-quality, affordable condoms and supporting 100% condom-use programmes; expanding services to treat sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and incorporating HIV/AIDS information and counselling into STI and reproductive health programmes as well as primary health-care services. The health sector has had limited success in addressing the needs of the most at-risk groups, and needs to make significant effort to ensure that services are accessible by and acceptable to them, including by strengthening links with community-based services."
So, currently, which standpoint does the WHO support, yours or mine?
Please don't presume to speak for all women on this.
Abortion is not always this traumatic experience in which "a piece of the mother dies." That was your experience. Sample size = 1. Thanks for sharing, but sometimes the emotion felt by the women is relief, in not having to carry an unwanted child to term.
Your callousness is disturbing. Even if you have not experienced emotional trauma following abortion, it is not very compassionate to belittle someone else's experience. The psychological effect of abortion is widely ignored and it would be foolish to say that it is not detrimental to a great deal of women. I would like to avoid personal attacks, so I'll just say think before you post.
Heated debates on abortion...understandable; heated debate on circumcision...awesome.
I had both my boys circumcised, couldn't stand to watch it though. Medically necessary or not I couldn't have them be the ones with the "funny" looking wankers in gym class when they got older.
They have both forgiven me for the temporary pain.
I had both my boys circumcised, couldn't stand to watch it though. Medically necessary or not I couldn't have them be the ones with the "funny" looking wankers in gym class when they got older.
They have both forgiven me for the temporary pain.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I said "adjunctive solutions," not "circumcision" (although circumcision may emerge as one). The WHO seems to agree with me that education and condoms are not enough.
Incidentally, the statement in your link appears to precede much of the hubub about circumcision, such as what you find in the BBC's WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan:
Honestly. You'd think that half of the guys on here are incapable of reaching orgasm because they had their foreskins removed as neonates.
More sensation in my willie is about the last thing I need. Bald is beautiful!
I second that.
If you look at the WHO proposed list by 2010 in the report I linked, that is a significant amount of resources required. They even mention potential problems with financing. I still do not believe that the large up-front cost for routine male circumcision is going to see the same benefit that other methods will; male circumcision will have to battle disinhibition, and it will not prevent any individual who practices continually unsafe sex from contracting HIV over a lifetime. I understand that since they will contract it much later in life they will infect less people and a subsequent decline in overall HIV transmission will occur, but again do not believe that people will get their money's worth.
I suppose the only way we'll settle that is to see how it works in practice, and it looks like at the current rate of support, we just might see that. The only claim I want to make is that education and safe sex, by virtue of their additional benefits, is a more worthwhile place to put funding than routine male circumcision. There are other complimentary venues to stymieing the HIV pandemic, but as far as circumcision's role in aiding that, I don't think it's an optimal venue.
Again, if we had unlimited capital, I would be promoting routine infant circumcision in Africa, but that is most assuredly not the case.
I don't think there's a sensitivity difference; both penises have more or less complete functionality. In America there is an aesthetic difference, as circumcision among my current age group is the social norm, but the only argument I'm making is that it doesn't change the fact that in America, it is a largely cosmetic procedure.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2003/
Considering that by most current estimates, the US circumcision rate is less than 50%, I personally wouldn't have been too worried about that, but it's obviously your decision.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/
In North Carolina, your current state, you can see the trend on that website for newborn circumcision rates:
2004: 58%
2003: 61%
2002: 74%
2001: 75%
2000: 77%
At least a few of us DO have difficulty with it, at least with conventional intercourse as opposed to masturbation.
Well, anyone left intact as an infant has the choice to get cut as an adult; the converse is not true.
Temporary pain, irrelevant... loss of functional tissue, well, a lot of guys don't care. Hopefully they'll stay that way.
As for looking in the locker room, hopefully you won't ever live in an area with a lot of immigrants... lest they be the ones with the funny looking ones. It's probably going to be a non-issue anyway: increased respect for privacy and decreased school funding mean that communal gym showers seem to be going the way of the dodo.
(Heck, I went to a good public high school in the early 90s and our gym locker rooms didn't have functioning showers *THEN*.)
