Should Circumcision Be Banned?

[whatbout2morrow]

Yeah, I don't know what percentage of uncircumcised males contract STDs before the age of 18, but I'd much rather risk the male child being among that statistic rather than remove foreskin without consent. He can decide between the benefits and risks once he becomes an adult.

 

[Chemdude]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=3FE39EDC9DF206DD3414F653E89F7D74.d01t01

There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts.

Although there are many better STI prevention methods than circumcision, there's no harm in circumcising your child to give "added protection". There is no way to predict the sexual practices of your children. You're not going to be able to force your 15 yo boy into wearing a condom...

 

[BHaus9]

An anomaly is any deviation from a standard (or deviation from something that is expected). So yes, multiple sets of nipples or ambiguous genitalia are anomalies. Having foreskin at birth is NOT an anomaly.

Since when is something being a statistical anomaly the only criterion to consult when considering surgical intervention? Should my abnormally long, circumcised penis have been snipped in half when I was a toddler (jk... maybe...)? Conversely, my tonsils and adenoids are supposed to be there, but I got those suckers out the first chance I could.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah, I don't know what percentage of uncircumcised males contract STDs before the age of 18, but I'd much rather risk the male child being among that statistic rather than remove foreskin without consent. He can decide between the benefits and risks once he becomes an adult.

HIV is in the top 5 killers in the 18-25 age range. So obviously people are getting infected as early as they hit puberty or even before in some cases.
But regardless, your attitude would be negligent in the case of any other medical procedure. I think anything that can successfully reduce the spread of disease without causing major disruptions should be used.

 

[TipToad]

Since when is something being a statistical anomaly the only criterion to consult when considering surgical intervention? Should my abnormally long, circumcised penis have been snipped in half when I was a toddler (jk... maybe...)? Conversely, my tonsils and adenoids are supposed to be there, but I got those suckers out the first chance I could.

If you would read my previous posts, I'm indifferent to circumcision. I also believe that it's not necessary. I'm arguing AGAINST the person who is advocating circumcision in order to be more like peers. So ask him, not me.

Furthermore, I haven't advocated surgical intervention for anybody --not for the kids born with multiple nipples and not even for the children with ambiguous genitalia.

 

[plumazul]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=3FE39EDC9DF206DD3414F653E89F7D74.d01t01



Although there are many better STI prevention methods than circumcision, there's no harm in circumcising your child to give "added protection". There is no way to predict the sexual practices of your children. You're not going to be able to force your 15 yo boy into wearing a condom...

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/12/01/circumcision-is-africas-best-weapon-against-aids/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/h...-to-simplify-circumcision.html?pagewanted=all

a little more reading 🙂

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Let me change this up a little in regarding anomaly. Polydactyly, ie having a 6th digit is an extremely common occurrence. Should we wait for consent? Or go ahead and cut it off?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If you would read my previous posts, I'm indifferent to circumcision. I also believe that it's not necessary. I'm arguing AGAINST the person who is advocating circumcision in order to be more like peers. So ask him, not me.

Most people who feel the need to argue this topic are part of the ideology of, you're either with me or against me.

 

[Ellie Arroway]

Second ambiguous genitalia is harmful to the child. Socially we force people to choice one gender and prefer it to be natural and before birth. People that don't hold to this principle are subject to physical violence. Not safe.

Why arrest anyone for assault & battery when you can just tell people to stop being so assault-able?

 

[plumazul]

Secondly, I maintain that is is almost entirely aesthetic/cosmetic. When there is a much more effective method of STI prophylaxis, namely condoms, why would we do anything less than push for appropriate safe sex techniques as opposed to snipping off extra skin? Removing warm, moist skin folds is going to reduce safe havens for pathogens, but we don't go around the rest of the human body looking for bits of skin to snip off.
.

😕 I hope you realize that the foreskin being "warm, moist skin" is not the problem.

 

[Chemdude]

Most people who feel the need to argue this topic are part of the ideology of, you're either with me or against me.

Furthermore, a lot of people that are against circumcision are ethnocentric. The banning of circumcision in Germany has a lot to do with it being a predominately Jewish and immigrant practice. There's nothing wrong with not supporting circumcision, but why ban it if it's an integral part of many cultures?

 

[BHaus9]

If you would read my previous posts, I'm indifferent to circumcision. I also believe that it's not necessary. I'm arguing AGAINST the person who is advocating circumcision in order to be more like peers. So ask him, not me.

Furthermore, I haven't advocated surgical intervention for anybody --not for the kids born with multiple nipples and not even for the children with ambiguous genitalia.

In a previous post you said this:

Wait, what? I don't even know where to start. There needs to be no "fixing" of the foreskin because it's a part of the body that is supposed to be there at birth. You're equating a foreskin to a birth anomaly when it is not, so no, the logic is not "easily" extended to circumcision.

I'm just trying to make the point that whether or not something is "supposed" to be present or not doesn't always make one lick of a difference. Sometimes we're better off without the things that are "supposed" to be there, and sometimes we're okay having things that aren't "supposed" to be there.

I do admit I misinterpreted your stance a bit, though. By saying that foreskin cannot be "fixed" because it is supposed to be present, it seemed like you were implicitly suggesting that anomalies CAN be fixed simply because they're not supposed to be there. That's a whole different can of worms, and I'm confused about why you would set up a contrast between foreskin and nipples if you're in favor of removing neither.

 

[Yonko Shanks]

For what it's worth, I'm a gay man, and I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Penises are pretty much all the same across the board --circumcised or uncircumcised.

 

[calvnandhobbs68]

For what it's worth, I'm a gay man, and I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Penises are pretty much all the same across the board --circumcised or uncircumcised.

Thread over this post wins.

 

[TipToad]

I'm just trying to make the point that whether or not something is "supposed" to be present or not doesn't always make one lick of a difference. Sometimes we're better off without the things that are "supposed" to be there, and sometimes we're okay having things that aren't "supposed" to be there.

I agree with that.

This thread is interesting and has given me a lot to think about. I've read most of the links that people have provided in support of circumcision, and interestingly, they've made me become more against the practice.

I'm looking at this topic from a gender perspective now. Yes, I do concede that circumcision reduces rates of STD transmission among men (most notably HIV) --and by a large percentage, at that. But at the same time female-to-male HIV transmission rates are extremely low, and so are receptive male-to-insertive male HIV transmission rates. Penile-vaginal intercourse has transmission rates (for men) of less than 1%. So when studies say that the rate is reduced by 30-60%, it's reducing an already SUPER LOW transmission rate. Rather negligible, in my opinion.

But what about the females? Circumcision protects men, yes, but it doesn't protect STD transmission rate in women. Men of either status can still infect women.

 

[BHaus9]

I agree with that.

This thread is interesting and has given me a lot to think about. I've read most of the links that people have provided in support of circumcision, and interestingly, they've made me become more against the practice.

I'm looking at this topic from a gender perspective now. Yes, I do concede that circumcision reduces rates of STD transmission among men (most notably HIV) --and by a large percentage, at that. But at the same time female-to-male HIV transmission rates are extremely low, and so are receptive male-to-insertive male HIV transmission rates. Penile-vaginal intercourse has transmission rates (for men) of less than 1%. So when studies say that the rate is reduced by 30-60%, it's reducing an already SUPER LOW transmission rate. Rather negligible, in my opinion.

But what about the females? Circumcision protects men, yes, but it doesn't protect STD transmission rate in women. Men of either status can still infect women.

If circumcision prevents your contracting of a disease, it also prevents your spreading it (typically).

 

[whatbout2morrow]

HIV is in the top 5 killers in the 18-25 age range. So obviously people are getting infected as early as they hit puberty or even before in some cases.
But regardless, your attitude would be negligent in the case of any other medical procedure. I think anything that can successfully reduce the spread of disease without causing major disruptions should be used.

Which is why I wasn't talking about any other medical procedure. When the use of another method (ie condom use) can much more effectively prevent the disease, I can't quite justify to myself continuing to perform the procedure on an individual who is unable to consent/refuse.

I will say this though. If, hypothetically, condoms were not as effective in preventing HIV as circumcision, and the percentage of reduced chance of HIV due to circumcision was somewhere along the lines of 95%, then PERHAPS my opinion would be different.

 

[ur2l8]

I like the idea.

Anteaters, covered wagons, come one come all,
UNITE!

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Which is why I wasn't talking about any other medical procedure. When the use of another method (ie condom use) can much more effectively prevent the disease, I can't quite justify to myself continuing to perform the procedure on an individual who is unable to consent/refuse.

I will say this though. If, hypothetically, condoms were not as effective in preventing HIV as circumcision, and the percentage of reduced chance of HIV due to circumcision was somewhere along the lines of 95%, then PERHAPS my opinion would be different.

Again, your attitude is negligent. You'd rather someone retain their foreskin than be part of a statistical population that gets HIV.
I think that says a lot about your group as a whole. You guys are really need to stop putting so much emphasis into the significance of a flap of skin.

 

[WorldChanger36]

Why arrest anyone for assault & battery when you can just tell people to stop being so assault-able?

Not sure what your point is here. Mine was just to point out it is common in our culture to attack persons that have those gender issues that don't correct them in approved methods. Was not indicating that such attacks on said persons is okay.

It is not just a flap of skin here guys it is a functional part of the organ. Many men notice a loss in sensitivity when they get old that uncircumcised men don't get until they are much older.

 

[gettheleadout]

It is not just a flap of skin here guys it is a functional part of the organ. Many men notice a loss in sensitivity when they get old that uncircumcised men don't get until they are much older.

Source?

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[WorldChanger36]

Ppppphhhhhhhhbbbbbbbtttt... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Is this a joke? If you take a look at the populations likely to be circumcised and their birthrates, I don't think you'll find any harm to their...ah...sexual response.

If you only determine sexual response based on birth rates, you must leave women very unsatisfied.

Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review Does circumcision affect male's perception of sexual satisfaction?

Good point until you are in that one percent that was harmed by this surgery then the other 99 percent doesn't matter. The benefit isn't enough to need intervention.

 

[WorldChanger36]

Source?

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

If I get a chance to dig it up I will. Right now I just got busy. It isn't a study of any significance just a survey, but when I get a chance I will post it.

 

[45408]

Well, I take it you have no first-hand experience in orthodontics, because there are risks and complications associated with any dental procedure or orthodontic appliance. Yes, that includes braces.

No ****, Sherlock. I also wasn't claiming that "no one had mustered an example of injury from orthodontia" the way you had about circumcision. Of course there are risks and benefits with any medical/dental intervention, which should be obvious, but you said there weren't any examples mentioned for circumcision, so I mentioned some.

This can be something as simple as tooth discoloration or being uncomfortable with the final appearance. But it can be as serious as loss/destruction of a tooth or infection. It probably depends who you talk to, but I've definitely heard more people bemoan having had braces than having had a circumcision.

And what of the other examples? Should cosmetic procedures in infants or young children should be universally banned?

Most people don't remember being circumcised, so obviously the procedure doesn't bother them. I also haven't heard anyone complain about having braces since they were a teenager, and I know a number of adults who have gone out and gotten them because they wished they had gotten them when they were younger. This is not a valid comparison, since circumcision is infrequently indicated and may have a prophylactic benefit that could easily be superseded by simple standard barrier precautions for safe sex.

And yes, I think it's unethical and would be fine with banning other cosmetic procedures in infants. If a child is old enough to say "Yes, I want pierced ears," then I'm okay with them getting earrings.

 

[whatbout2morrow]

Again, your attitude is negligent. You'd rather someone retain their foreskin than be part of a statistical population that gets HIV.
I think that says a lot about your group as a whole. You guys are really need to stop putting so much emphasis into the significance of a flap of skin.

For me atleast, it's not about the flap of skin, it's about forcing a procedure on someone who does not have the ability to consent.

When there is a more effective method of controlling the spread of HIV (ie condoms), it is not justifiable to continue with such a procedure on an individual who does not have the ability to consent on the presumption that the individual will be sexually irresponsible and will not make use of the more effective method. In the presence of the more effective method, I will venture to say that circumcision is a violation of the infant's rights, even if it is just a flap of skin.

Show me a method of controlling infectious diseases which is more effective than vaccinations and does not involve injecting the child or violating the child's rights in other ways, and I will tell you that vaccinations should not be done in the absence of the ability to consent as well.

 

[WorldChanger36]

Source?

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract

Here is a new survey that cites the older one... still trying to find that older survey.

http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Senkul

This one is in adult patients, so people that have reference to both.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/

Most of these surveys and studies seem to suggest that the loss of sensitivity over time is more psychosomatic then anything. Of course if you start to lose sexual sensitivity and enjoyment due to a surgery I doubt you really care if its in your head or an actual problem with the tube steak, you blame the surgery.

 

[WorldChanger36]

No ****, Sherlock. I also wasn't claiming that "no one had mustered an example of injury from orthodontia" the way you had about circumcision. Of course there are risks and benefits with any medical/dental intervention, which should be obvious, but you said there weren't any examples mentioned for circumcision, so I mentioned some.


Most people don't remember being circumcised, so obviously the procedure doesn't bother them. I also haven't heard anyone complain about having braces since they were a teenager, and I know a number of adults who have gone out and gotten them because they wished they had gotten them when they were younger. This is not a valid comparison, since circumcision is infrequently indicated and may have a prophylactic benefit that could easily be superseded by simple standard barrier precautions for safe sex.

And yes, I think it's unethical and would be fine with banning other cosmetic procedures in infants. If a child is old enough to say "Yes, I want pierced ears," then I'm okay with them getting earrings.

👍.

 

[nysegop]

We should also add a poll:
Who's circumcised, who's not?
It'd be interesting to see.

 

[45408]

We should also add a poll:
Who's circumcised, who's not?
It'd be interesting to see.

I was, and I don't really blame my parents because it was by far the prevailing trend at the time, but neither of my sons are. There's no good reason to do it.

Saying that it prevents certain STDs is not the point. We have more effective ways to prevent STDs, so performing a non-beneficial procedure on a non-consenting individual is unethical.

 

[NickNaylor]

It astounds me that people care so much about what other people do to their kid's penis. Amazing.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

 

[theseeker4]

it astounds me that people care so much about what other people do to their kid's penis. Amazing.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

+ 1

 

[whatbout2morrow]

It astounds me that people care so much about what other people do to their kid's penis. Amazing.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

If not for the occasional discussion involving what people do with their kid's penes, what females do with their uteri, how admissions committees factor race into admission, etc, would SDN be the same?

 

[SpecterGT260]

What about "forcing" vaccinations on babies?

This also relates to the OP so...

There arent really any proven medical benefits to circumcision (at least none that Ive seen). There are some intuitive speculations concerning hygiene and such, but I am not aware of any data. However there are oodles of data to support vaccinations and many children will have suffered illness by the time they are old enough to make a decision on vaccination.

Therefore these are quite different. "forcing" vaccines = good. "forcing" the "snip" = gray area. Honestly I have not been aware of too many men who care much either way as it happens long before they can even remember. The most vocal in my experience are mothers who, due to a hormone induces lunacy, fear some phantom "harm" for their precious perfect little angel and decide to advocate something they have multiple levels of lack of understanding about.

 

[NickNaylor]

If not for the occasional discussion involving what people do with their kid's penes, what females do with their uteri, how admissions committees factor race into admission, etc, would SDN be the same?

Haha - almost certainly not. I think these discussions are interesting, but not in the form they inevitably devolve to on SDN (or when talking with anyone unwilling to learn about the topic, really).

 

[plumazul]

This also relates to the OP so...

There arent really any proven medical benefits to circumcision (at least none that Ive seen). There are some intuitive speculations concerning hygiene and such, but I am not aware of any data. However there are oodles of data to support vaccinations and many children will have suffered illness by the time they are old enough to make a decision on vaccination.

Therefore these are quite different. "forcing" vaccines = good. "forcing" the "snip" = gray area. Honestly I have not been aware of too many men who care much either way as it happens long before they can even remember. The most vocal in my experience are mothers who, due to a hormone induces lunacy, fear some phantom "harm" for their precious perfect little angel and decide to advocate something they have multiple levels of lack of understanding about.

I suppose that puts you and these hypothetical mothers in the same boat.

Did you know that NIH has a website? Really, they do.

Here's a little something to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321868

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20370483

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618520

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/

 

[drorthoman]

I often lay awake at night crying in agony over the absence of my foreskin.

What a cruel, cruel world, where a baby departs from his foreskin before he really gets a chance to decide if he wants it or not.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Damn, that was so freaking funny. Thanks man, you made my day. LOL.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I suppose that puts you and these hypothetical mothers in the same boat.

Did you know that NIH has a website? Really, they do.

Here's a little something to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321868

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20370483

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618520

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/

nice try kid.

Those are questionable benefits given a surgical procedure. Compounded with the fact that ALL of them are completely moot points given safe sex practices (which trump a weewee snip any day)

I understand you're all gung-ho with your extensive pre-med knowledge, but the fact of the matter is that the procedure is done almost exclusively for aesthetics with a smaller yet not insignificant population doing so for religious reasons.

But good attempt at a call out by arrogantly citing 4 papers which are all just repetitions of the same thing and do literally nothing to disprove the fact that circ or uncirc, the decisions is essentially a wash 👍

and before you get all self righteous or butthurt or whatever it is that you do, please take a moment to understand the definition of benefit. Castration also prevents all the things you are citing. Do you consider that a benefit? It is all about weighing the pros vs the cons and in this case it really doesnt matter which way you decide to go.

effin pre meds, srrsly.... 🙄

 

[SpecterGT260]

also, keep in mind the context of the OP rather than trying to address everything said as a universal blanket statement

A German court ruled that circumcision can cause "serious bodily harm" today. I'm not an expert on the medical effects of circumcision, but I always thought that circumcision was becoming a universal practice due to its many medical benefits. Wasn't there a study a couple years ago that suggested that circumcision reduced the chance of HIV transmission?

😉

 

[TheNewDocToBe]

Circumcision is a religious obligation for Jewish and Muslim males. It has nothing to do with the cosmetics surgery, at all. It's a must.. period. Parents are responsible about it for their sons. If parents give their consents for the procedure, what's the issue?

Germany, and sometimes France, have been subjects to these controversial decisions, time after time. IMHO, it's all about politics. They use it, dirty politics. But, I guess they'll have to recall this law, soon.

There're millions of Jews and Muslims living in those countries as citizens, paying tax, as is the same case here in the States. So, instead of criticizing their religions, how about to try to understand and help them live their religions (with their kids)?

Just my understanding...

 

[45408]

It astounds me that people care so much about what other people do to their kid's penis. Amazing.

Trust me, I have no fascination with the infant penis, but a great deal of concern for the rights of the individual, especially with regard to a non-indicated cosmetic procedure on a baby with little or no benefits to a baby and a very small but very real risk for serious harm.

I suppose that puts you and these hypothetical mothers in the same boat.

Did you know that NIH has a website? Really, they do.

Here's a little something to get you started:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321868

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20370483

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618520

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/

It's worth noting that these studies were all done in Africa, where the prevalence of HIV is MUCH MUCH HIGHER than in the US, and availability and usage of condoms is MUCH MUCH LOWER.

If a man decides that condoms are too much to bear, and he'd rather be circumcised and still risk all the other things that go along with not wearing appropriate prophylaxis, well, I can't really say much. At least it would be a consenting adult making the decision.

 

[Stumpyman]

It astounds me that people care so much about what other people do to their kid's penis. Amazing.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos)

Exactly. I never realized this was a "hot" issue before joining SDN. I truly don't care at all, and often enjoy reading how heated people get on this topic.

 

[Cozell]

Yeah, I don't know what percentage of uncircumcised males contract STDs before the age of 18, but I'd much rather risk the male child being among that statistic rather than remove foreskin without consent. He can decide between the benefits and risks once he becomes an adult.

Bad Idea

 

[nysegop]

There's also a whole legal debate over whether banning circumcision would be in violation of the freedom of religion.

 

[gettheleadout]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract

Here is a new survey that cites the older one... still trying to find that older survey.

http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Senkul

This one is in adult patients, so people that have reference to both.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/

Most of these surveys and studies seem to suggest that the loss of sensitivity over time is more psychosomatic then anything. Of course if you start to lose sexual sensitivity and enjoyment due to a surgery I doubt you really care if its in your head or an actual problem with the tube steak, you blame the surgery.

Your sources contradict each other, one uses what appears to be a horrible two-choice survey format (when gauging perceived satisfaction or loss of such at least give me a Likert-type scale), and other studies specifically looking at sensitivity of the glans he found no change. (see the AAP's 1999 statement on circumcision under the sexual health effects category.) In any case, no reputable body acknowledges a demonstrated loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision, so unless you think you have a larger body of research reviewed than the AAP and others, I would say your opinion is in the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

to be fair, I think a reduction in sensitivity would do many guys a lot of good

 

[gettheleadout]

nice try kid.

Those are questionable benefits given a surgical procedure. Compounded with the fact that ALL of them are completely moot points given safe sex practices (which trump a weewee snip any day)

I understand you're all gung-ho with your extensive pre-med knowledge, but the fact of the matter is that the procedure is done almost exclusively for aesthetics with a smaller yet not insignificant population doing so for religious reasons.

But good attempt at a call out by arrogantly citing 4 papers which are all just repetitions of the same thing and do literally nothing to disprove the fact that circ or uncirc, the decisions is essentially a wash 👍

and before you get all self righteous or butthurt or whatever it is that you do, please take a moment to understand the definition of benefit. Castration also prevents all the things you are citing. Do you consider that a benefit? It is all about weighing the pros vs the cons and in this case it really doesnt matter which way you decide to go.

effin pre meds, srrsly.... 🙄

Can't we have a discussion without ad hominems?

I don't understand your definition of benefit. I would definitely recognize significantly (100%) reduced risk of testicular cancer or torsion as a benefit of castration. Of course, loss of testicular function is also a result, and is significant enough that we deem castration a procedure which is not overall beneficial. It seems you're a procedure having a benefit with being beneficial overall. There are proven benefits to circumcision which are recognized by the AAP (http://www.healthychildren.org/engl...000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token) but yet they do not claim that the procedure is demonstrably beneficial enough overall to recommend routine use. Neither does this mean the procedure lacks any benefits, as the enumerated risks would then by default make the procedure overall harmful and it would be explicitly recommended against.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[illegallysmooth]

The medical benefits of circumcision are slight, and almost erased with proper hygiene. It's done for aesthetic and cultural reasons. The glans is a highly sensitive organ which is meant to be protected, not exposed. I don't see circumcision as much different from female genital mutilation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLGcqPE7xu0

 

[SpecterGT260]

I suppose that puts you and these hypothetical mothers in the same boat.

Did you know that NIH has a website? Really, they do.

Here's a little something to get you started:

Can't we have a discussion without ad hominems?

I don't understand your definition of benefit. I would definitely recognize significantly (100%) reduced risk of testicular cancer or torsion as a benefit of castration. Of course, loss of testicular function is also a result, and is significant enough that we deem castration a procedure which is not overall beneficial. It seems you're a procedure having a benefit with being beneficial overall. There are proven benefits to circumcision which are recognized by the AAP (http://www.healthychildren.org/engl...000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR:+No+local+token) but yet they do not claim that the procedure is demonstrably beneficial enough overall to recommend routine use. Neither does this mean the procedure lacks any benefits, as the enumerated risks would then by default make the procedure overall harmful and it would be explicitly recommended against.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

1) kudos for typing all that out on your phone
2) I was merely matching tone 😉
3) You seem to understand just fine. "overall beneficial". My earlier post did not mean to say that I am completely unaware of any positive aspects of circumcision. However in reference to the OP's "many medical benefits", this still remains to be seen. While mechanistically it may help reduce the odds of contracting an STD, in absolute terms the value is basically nill. I personally do not care and think it is somewhat of a silly topic. Basically to defend it on the medical benefit basis is about as silly as opposing it on the "trauma to my baby's willie" basis.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The medical benefits of circumcision are slight, and almost erased with proper hygiene. It's done for aesthetic and cultural reasons. The glans is a highly sensitive organ which is meant to be protected, not exposed. I don't see circumcision as much different from female genital mutilation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLGcqPE7xu0

basically this is all I was getting at. 👍

 

[WorldChanger36]

Your sources contradict each other, one uses what appears to be a horrible two-choice survey format (when gauging perceived satisfaction or loss of such at least give me a Likert-type scale), and other studies specifically looking at sensitivity of the glans he found no change. (see the AAP's 1991 statement on circumcision under the sexual health effects category.) In any case, no reputable body acknowledges a demonstrated loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision, so unless you think you have a larger body of research reviewed than the AAP and others, I would say your opinion is in the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

Yes ... all true. Here is the problem we don't really have a study that test complete sexual feeling in adult circumcision patients over time. This would be the best way to understand it. We only have well the glans sensitivity doesn't seem to change... yeah and I wouldn't expect it to. Where I would expect a change is in the perspective of sexual feeling in adult patients. Can't use infant circumcision children because they were cut to early to know the difference. In most adult circumcision surveys and studies men report a loss of "feeling" while this maybe psychosomatic, to all of us it is very real. I really wish I had better evidence to give you, but I guess we are just going to have to be the minor opinion for the time being.

Also it seems these studies are not very common, I guess there are not too many people out there that care to study this stuff. Really need a study with two hundred men half cut the other uncut in recent years to have sex with prostitutes and then report if they can tell a difference in feeling and if this feeling is less then what they expected.... Come on University of Amsterdam... don't let us down.