Is the circumcision of a boy sexual abuse? - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SpikeQX99 · 01-13-2006, 06:35 PM

How many children at birth are able to give consent? NONE of them are. Just the same as how many children have the ability to be fully functional at birth, by which I mean (feeding, changing, grooming, etc.)?? Again, none of them can.

So then would it be reasonable to think that there are a few things at birth that your parents should be able to make a decision for you on? Yes.

If the statistics were flip flopped and the un-cut were the majority, would this be an issue?? Would it be a "societal norm" ? Would people be called "sheeple" if they just followed along and left a child un circumsized??

Think about it from the other side of the fence.

Being of the "cut" demographic, I suffer not on sensitivity, arousal, lubrication, or any of the other symptoms described in detail here. I haven't had a foreskin so I cannot argue to the having one side, as those who do have one cannot make assumptions that I must be less sensitive, etc.
I do not have emotional issues, resentment to my parents for "mutilating" me. *mutilate being a bit of a strong word in my opinion* I see 'mutilate' and think of hitting your foot with a lawn mower, an injury that severly disfigures a limb or body part. Not the trimming of skin in a medical procedure.

To the poster that asked if it would be ok if they allowed their child's earlobes to be cut off.. I would say to you "go ahead". It is your child, and they do not have the ability to consent to what you do. Is it right? Who am I to say? I do not make laws, or judgements as to what is "morally and ethically" correct.

Seeing how I will not see the genitals of 99.9999999% of the world out there. I couldn't care less if someone is cut or un-cut.

As long as they are comfortable with their bodies, and are happy with themselves; who am I to really say anything? And who am I to say that someone is a "bad parent" or makes "bad choices"? So who are you to tell me that what I choose to do to MY child is a bad choice? Why do you feel it is your need to tell me what I am doing is wrong?

I don't know if any of this was particularly thrilling or not, but I felt compelled to respond with something. I just have issues with people in general thinking that they know what is 'right' or the 'best decision' for me and my life style.

Suave · 01-13-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

One of the benifits of being circumcised.

I've never had to use the word "smegma" in relation to my person.

Perhaps your lack of foreskin has also made you a grumpy, grumpy man. :P

Ustwo · 01-13-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Perhaps your lack of foreskin has also made you a grumpy, grumpy man. :P

I'm quite a happy guy really

On the other hand I am fighting off Clostridium difficiles right now, and if something is going to make you grumpy, it sure does.

Suave · 01-13-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

ig·no·rant Audio pronunciation of "ignorant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

I just want to throw this out there. I didn't realize that making a decision based on what you read or believe is ignorant.

Seriously, what's the big harm of circumsision?? Does it do permanant damage to the child. ( I don't want to hear yes because it takes off a little piece of skin.) Boo friggin hoo. If that's the case then please don't let your kid ride a bike or participate in sports because it could cause damage to that child. I have yet to meet a man who said that circumsision caused his problems in life or it had some profound effect on him. So unless someone can show me facts supporting long term problematic effects then it's simply a decision that is made by the parents. The parents are the care takers. The parents decide (until old enough) what is best for the child. If a parental unit decides circumsision is the right choice for their child.. then fine. If they don't .. then fine. It shouldn't really make a difference. A penis is a penis.

While we're at it, let's cut off the earlobes. They're just useless hanging skin. This way, it will be easier for children to keep clean behind their ears and prevent infection! Your hair is useless, so let's give you some electrolysis on your head, and you don't get a say in it. You only need one ball, so let's cut out your left one to reduce the risk of testicular cancer later in life too.

UsTwo: Well there goes my theory.

Charlatan · 01-14-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpikeQX99

If the statistics were flip flopped and the un-cut were the majority, would this be an issue?? Would it be a "societal norm" ? Would people be called "sheeple" if they just followed along and left a child un circumsized??

Think about it from the other side of the fence.

Using this logic, would you call those of us who do not circumcise our girls "sheeple"? It is the societal norm that we do not perform this procedure. Looking at it, as you suggest, "from the other side of the fence", perhaps it is just my socialization that tells me that female circumcision is wrong.

The point is, as always, the uncircumcised penis is the natural state of the penis. Altering it is uneccessary for the proper functioning of the penis. There is no truly sound reason for doing so.

Many pages in, noone has yet offered a sound reason for cutting their children.

PS: can we agree not to use the term "sheeple" anymore? It has to be one of the most ignorant terms I've herd in the past few months.

Prince · 01-14-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindalove

It's a lot more sanitary and reduces your risk of getting penile cancer greatly.

LOL. What a crock of shit.

The fact that it is common in America does nothing to suggest that it isn't abuse.

xepherys · 01-14-2006, 10:30 AM

Maybe we should define abuse a bit better. There are many that believe that a single, good swat on the ass is child abuse (and it's been held up in court that way), while other the age old approach of the belt across the ass and believe it is NOT abuse. There are a LOT of people on both sides of that. But wait, there's a third party that believes you should NEVER physically punish a child. Uh oh, no it's all murky and such. So who's right? Is anyone? Is anyone definitely wrong? Why? If you believe it is unnatural to lay a hand on your child for reasons of punishment, what about if your child is in danger and you have to PULL them out of the way of say... a moving car. What if, then, you dislocate their shoulder. The sad thing? If someone called child services on you, you'd be investigated for such a thing. That's how out of control "child abuse" advocates are.

Here's another one... nudist colonies. Is THAT child abuse? Nudity regulations and societal acceptances vary so much from place to place and person to person. If you live in the city, and someone comes over and you're sitting naked on the couch (as a dad) next to your 16-y/o daughter... you'd be in a heap of shit. In a nudist colony? Of course not. THIS is why parents have to be allowed to be parents again and make their own decisions for thei own kids. As a society, we can lay out basic laws of governance... we cannot and should not tell people how to live their lives, including how to raise their children. What if the family is just a bunhc of closet nudists? That's their right... but the dad would probably go to jail. Really...

Johnny Pyro · 01-14-2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

LOL. What a crock of shit.

The fact that it is common in America does nothing to suggest that it isn't abuse.

"Of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer reported since the 1930's, fewer than 10 occurred in circumcised men. The risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men is 1 case per 380-600 men; in circumcised men it is 1 case per 75,000 to 8."

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

ASU2003 · 01-14-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Pyro

"Of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer reported since the 1930's, fewer than 10 occurred in circumcised men. The risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men is 1 case per 380-600 men; in circumcised men it is 1 case per 75,000 to 8."

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Let's say it is 1 in 400. That means out of 24,000,000 men, 23,940,000 will not get cancer to get your 60,000 number. And that is in a group that have lived since 1930. Should we circumcised all 24 million as invents just to prevent 60,000 circumcisions to remove the cancer when the guys are 50+ years old.

There really should be much better statistics out there. There are millions of guys in Europe living very similar lives to Americans. What are the cancer rates currently? What about STD rates? The problem is if you sleep with an uninfected partner, you aren't going to get an STD regardless of if you are circumcised or not.

SecretMethod70 · 01-14-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Pyro

"Of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer reported since the 1930's, fewer than 10 occurred in circumcised men. The risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men is 1 case per 380-600 men; in circumcised men it is 1 case per 75,000 to 8."

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

With the exception of the UK, circumcision is quite rare in Europe...I don't see them getting penile cancer left and right (nor do I see Australians having huge penile cancer issues, where neonatal circumcision runs at about 10%, like much of Europe). First, correlation != causation, second, I'm curious to know where you got that from, and third, if the evidence were that clear, respected medical organizations wouldn't be saying things like:
(emphasis mine)

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Academy of Pediatrics (1999)

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision

Funny, even the American Academy of Pediatrics - based in the ONLY country in the world that routinely circumcises children for non-therapeutic (meaning there is no present *need* for it) and non-religious reasons - can't bring itself to say routine neonatal circumcision is a good thing.
Elsewhere, the criticism is more harsh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (2002)

There is no medical indication for routine male circumcision.... The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Funny, even the American Academy of Pediatrics - based in the ONLY country in the world that routinely circumcises children for non-therapeutic (meaning there is no present *need* for it) and non-religious reasons - can't bring itself to say routine neonatal circumcision is a good thing.
Elsewhere, the criticism is more harsh:

They used to be harsher in the past, but when some studies came out showing it DID in fact lower disease potential they changed their language to less harsh. Their current philosophy is that while it does show SOME benifit, its not enough to recomend the procedure be done routinely.

xepherys · 01-14-2006, 02:39 PM

Note that the lack of a recommendation of routine neonatal circumcision is NOT the same as a recommendation against it. Don't read more into the AAPs statement than there is.

Charlatan · 01-14-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Note that the lack of a recommendation of routine neonatal circumcision is NOT the same as a recommendation against it. Don't read more into the AAPs statement than there is.

The lack of position on their part can be just as easily written off as politics. Why make millions of parents feel bad about their decision to cut their baby boys. The evidence isn't conclusive enough to suggest they are harming the children so why rock the boat too much.

You will notice though that the Australians, where circumcision is not prevalent, take a more decisive tone.

papermachesatan · 01-14-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

i]Originally Posted by guccilvr:[/i] Seriously, what's the big harm of circumsision?? Does it do permanant damage to the child. ( I don't want to hear yes because it takes off a little piece of skin.) Boo friggin hoo.

Here are the consequences of removing that little piece of skin:

Quote:

Source: The Case Against Circumcision
* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skit cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

* Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

* Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

* Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.[32]

Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.[33] The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.[34]

* Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.[35] This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

* Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has longlasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,[36] adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.[37] Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well. [38, 39]

* Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped protomucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.

Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

Quote:

If that's the case then please don't let your kid ride a bike or participate in sports because it could cause damage to that child.

There is a difference between engaging in something that contains consequences and actually forcing the consequences to occur.

Quote:

I have yet to meet a man who said that circumsision caused his problems in life or it had some profound effect on him. So unless someone can show me facts supporting long term problematic effects then it's simply a decision that is made by the parents.

Thats because the majority of circumsized men never knew what it was like being uncircumsized in the first place. How are you supposed to know what you've lost when you never knew what it was like to have what you orginially had in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr: The parents are the care takers. The parents decide (until old enough) what is best for the child. If a parental unit decides circumsision is the right choice for their child.. then fine. If they don't .. then fine. It shouldn't really make a difference. A penis is a penis.

Actually, given that circumcision is a operation with permanent effects and given the fact that the said child is free to be circumcized at ANY point in their life, it is a decision that the parent SHOULD NOT be able to make. Removing a part of someone's anatomy is something that should be left up to the person who is losing part of their body. Especially when there is no reason why a circumcision must be done while the to-be-circumsized is incapable of giving consent.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skit cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

No wonder all the ladies call him 'Mr. Stubby'

Quote:

* Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

Holy crap, you mean I could cum even faster! Those same ladies will love that from 'Mr. Stubby'

Quote:

* Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

Let me check....

I seem to have some hair at least 1/2 way up the shaft, damn circumcision! As for the bleeding I thought that was due to herpies, my bad!

[quote] * Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.[32]

Wow I didn't know they did cicumcisions with dull scissors!

Quote:

Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.[33] The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.[34]

THATS where Mr. Stubby went!

Quote:

* Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.[35] This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

Work of those dull scissors no doubt!

Quote:

Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

As someone somewhat familiar with human physiology I have to say

Quote:

* Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has longlasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,[36] adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.[37] Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well. [38, 39]

And here I thought I was a wuss due to an over protective mother!

Quote:

* Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

I had this problem when I used to go swimming in swamps naked.

Quote:

The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped protomucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.

Yea my son had horrible infections after cicumcision last year...oh wait he didn't.

Quote:

Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

Yea cause its so much better having to pull back the forskin to get the baby crap out. You would think upon reading this that the forskin was a magical shield

Who writes this stuff anyways, its like PETA does anti-circumcision.

Charlatan · 01-14-2006, 03:37 PM

You really are an ass...

spindles · 01-14-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea cause its so much better having to pull back the forskin to get the baby crap out. You would think upon reading this that the forskin was a magical shield

Laugh all you want - the foreskin in a baby is literally stuck to the penis - you can't get under it to clean it - there is no under to get at.

It is actually recommended that you just leave his willy alone until it actually detaches itself, at which point you can clean undeneath it - my boy is not 2 yet and I've never had to clean his willy.

SecretMethod70 · 01-14-2006, 03:41 PM

This thread has been relatively civil so far, let's not change that.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

You really are an ass...

I'm still waiting for that 'a lot' of people you talked about, until then begone.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindles

Laugh all you want - the foreskin in a baby is literally stuck to the penis - you can't get under it to clean it - there is no under to get at.

It is actually recommended that you just leave his willy alone until it actually detaches itself, at which point you can clean undeneath it - my boy is not 2 yet and I've never had to clean his willy.

I assume you mean you never had to clean under his foreskin and not Mr. Happy in general.

In most boys you need to start cleaning under after about age 2, some will take longer.

Charlatan · 01-14-2006, 04:14 PM

I retract my "a lot" and ask all to re-read posts 150 and 151.

I stand by my assesment of you. If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, I suggest you "begone".

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I retract my "a lot" and ask all to re-read posts 150 and 151.

I stand by my assesment of you. If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, I suggest you "begone".

You can retract your a lot and replace it with 'none'.

As for being constructive, when someone posts a rather amusingly one sided article making circumcision seem like a great evil plague upon man I reserve the right to make fun of it.

Lighten up, you will enjoy life more.

xepherys · 01-14-2006, 06:15 PM

Quote:

* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skit cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

* Circumcision desensitizes: Circumcision desensitizes the penis radically. Foreskin amputation means severing the rich nerve network and all the nerve receptors in the foreskin itself Circumcision almost always damages or destroys the frenulum. The loss of the protective foreskin desensitizes the glans. Because the membrane covering the permanently externalized glans is now subjected to constant abrasion and irritation, it keratinizes, becoming dry and tough. The nerve endings in the glans, which in the intact penis are just beneath the surface of the mucous membrane, are now buried by successive layers of keratinization. The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance.

* Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

* Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.[32]

Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.[33] The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.[34]

* Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.[35] This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

* Circumcision harms the developing brain: Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has longlasting detrimental effects on the developing brain,[36] adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys.[37] Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well. [38, 39]

* Circumcision is unhygienic and unhealthy: One of the most common myths about circumcision is that it makes the penis cleaner and easier to take care of. This is not true. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner; neither would a penis without its foreskin. The artificially externalized glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis, in fact, more unclean. The loss of the protective foreskin leaves the urinary tract vulnerable to invasion by bacterial and viral pathogens.

The circumcision wound is larger than most people imagine. It is not just the circular point of union between the outer and inner layers of the remaining skin. Before a baby is circumcised, his foreskin must be torn from his glans, literally skinning it alive. This creates a large open area of raw, bleeding flesh, covered at best with a layer of undeveloped protomucosa. Germs can easily enter the damaged tissue and bloodstream through the raw glans and, even more easily, through the incision itself.

Even after the wound has healed, the externalized glans and meatus are still forced into constant unnatural contact with urine, feces, chemically treated diapers, and other contaminants.

First, I'm not convinced the source you quoted is very valid. It's a roughly 2.5 page report that lists 67 references. It sounds to me like a lot of pulling at strings to make a specific point. It's easy to move sentences out of context to have them say whatever you'd like. If you wrote a 2-3 page report for a class and had 67 references, you'd either get a 4.0 because your professor was a dumbass, or a gooseegg because you didn't actually do any STUDYING. And sorry, just having MD after his name doesn't make him qualified. There are a lot of practicing doctors who I would not visit as well. School != smart.

Now let's look at those points. First of all, they are all very definitive and absolute. Circumcision denudes (not sometimes, but apparently always). "The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance," again, not sometimes but always. I'm looking at my penis right this very second. It is noit "dull", "gray" or "sclerotic" in any sense. Sclerosis generally has to do with a hardening of tissue, which I've not known to occur in cut men at all. Also, keratin seems to have been throw around a lot here. Keratinous tissue is generally thought of as being hair and nails. Do I have a tusk for a penis? Hmmm, nope! Both arguments here and elsewhere in this thread have no real bearing in reality.

80% or more of your penile skin? Is that so? Oh yeah, because it loops back. No, still not really 80%. I'd imagine 50%... but it only covers 25% or less of the actual LENGTH of the penile shaft. Okay, maybe 33%. Certainly not 40%.

Again with the desensitization... I guess that whole 3-minute man is a bigger myth than we're led to believe. Us cut men must be STALLIONS in bed since we're so desensitized. I can go about... maybe 15-20 minutes if I really put some effort into it. Maybe 25-30 minutes the second time around. I could go for an hour if we took breaks to do other things. If I was more sensitive, I think my wife would be sad.

Question for the cut men here... has your penis EVER just cracked and bled? Don't be shy... I really, truly want to know. Send me a PM even... I'll list the number of responses here. WTF?

"Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin." Are you KIDDING me? What kind of butcher doctors perform the surgery in these cases? Was this study done in a hosptial with a high malpractice occurance? If I had a pitted, cracked bleeding penis with skin tags and dangling bridges... I'd never get laid. I mean, are there pictures in any medical books or magazines or journals of this occurance? If it's noted, it must happen at least now and then. No, I don't buy it. It might happen as a freak thing in 0.001% of cases... maybe.

Also, uncut men can have "curved" penises. Curving of a penis can happen do to any number of things. This, again, may be the cause in SOME cases... but I doubt it's the norm.

Well, I'm kinda of tired of this argument for now. But again, I just don't see a good argument against it. Really I don't. Even when sources are quoted specifically, they are easy to refute. Come back when you have better evidence. Thanks!

1010011010 · 01-14-2006, 06:41 PM

Weird, I just had a discussion on this elsewhere.

It seems like many of the crusaders on this particular front are using circumcision as a scapegoat for their own sexual dysfunction. Which is ironic, since the only interesting new tidbit I picked up in that above-linked discussion was that premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction are more common in uncircumcised men.

SecretMethod70 · 01-14-2006, 06:47 PM

See, for me it doesn't even matter how valid that source is (and, by the way, I agree - it's suspicious). What it all comes down to - setting all the possible negatives aside (and there have been more valid sources showing negatives, albeit less sensational as some other sources might have you believe) - is that it is the permanent removal of a body part, without the person's consent, for absolutely no necessary medical reason. If there WERE a significant medical reason, penile problems would abound in Europe, Australia, South America, etc - all places where circumcision is quite rare. I mentioned earlier, the circumcision rate in Australia is about 10%, and it's not dissimilar throughout most of Europe.

Surprisingly to me, someone actually responded that they'd be fine with me having my child's earlobes removed after birth. I'm not sure if that person was serious, but I'm pretty sure that person is in an extreme minority if they were. The best any medical organization is willing to say is that circumcision maybe, potentially might have slight medical benefits. And, by no surprise at all, that's from an American source - again, the ONLY country in the world that regularly performs non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. It is a cure in search of a disease.

The point is, it doesn't even really matter if circumcision isn't BAD. The point is, it's not really even GOOD. It just IS. And when we're talking the permanent removal of a body part on a helpless child who has no ability to consent, that's simply not a good enough reason.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

The point is, it doesn't even really matter if circumcision isn't BAD. The point is, it's not really even GOOD. It just IS. And when we're talking the permanent removal of a body part on a helpless child who has no ability to consent, that's simply not a good enough reason.

I really do agree with you here in terms of its not really good or bad, its sort of a meh.

From my selfish standpoint (as in what I like about it myself).

#1 It IS culturaly acceptable and expected, there are fights worth fighting, this doesn't seem to be one of them.

#2 I'm always BJ ready and the women in the US expect it.

#3 I'm glad it was done when I was a wee-one so I don't recall it.

It doesn't seem to really hurt anyone so I don't understand the frothing at the mouth some people have about it. My evolutionary biology take on this is the foreskin became obsolete once we started to wear clothes, and while I've never experianced it first hand the fun descriptions I read while researching this make me glad I am since there are obvious hygine issues and I like to keep'em clean (see #2).

blahblah454 · 01-14-2006, 07:39 PM

For the life of my I can not understand why people would want to remove it... it is something we are born with and have had ever since humans were humans. And for those of you who say it doesnt change anything, yes it does. The amount of feeling you would loose would be insane. Having your penis constantly rub against your pants must kill so much feeling, essentialy creating a calluse over the most sensative part of the males body.

Anyways when the time comes for me to have children there is NO WAY that I would ever have this sugury done to them.

xepherys · 01-14-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblah454

For the life of my I can not understand why people would want to remove it... it is something we are born with and have had ever since humans were humans. And for those of you who say it doesnt change anything, yes it does. The amount of feeling you would loose would be insane. Having your penis constantly rub against your pants must kill so much feeling, essentialy creating a calluse over the most sensative part of the males body.

Anyways when the time comes for me to have children there is NO WAY that I would ever have this sugury done to them.

Did you actually READ this thread? First you say, definitively, that is does change things. Then you say very uncertainly that is "must kill so much feeling". This shows that you don't know. Are you cut? If so, were you at birth? If you are uncut, you don't know. If you are cut, and were so at birth, you don't know. If you were uncut and became cut in life after you began having sex, you may know, but that is also questionable, as my previous posts have stated. If I lost my right hand, I'd start masturbating with my left. It wouldn't be as good. I can therefore say that left-handed people must not enjoy masturbation as much. Conclusively, this makes no sense.

Someone PROVE that cut men enjoy sex less than uncut men. Loss of nerves? Maybe some are lost, more likely the body adapts and developing nerves develop elsewhere. Keratination, callous and other similar terms? I don't experience that. Other cut men here don't seem to. Are there pictures? Case studies? Can anyone show me PROOF of this occuring? I'm happy to post a medical study picture of my penis. It's fine. It's not scared, abnormal, curved, inverted, calloused, cracked and bleeding, keratinized (beyond what any exposed flesh is). It's soft, sensitive skin that reacts favorably during sexual situations. My wife likes it. My previous partners have enjoyed it. Why is this SUCH a problem to some people. It's not a limb. It's skin. Sheesh!

ASU2003 · 01-14-2006, 08:05 PM

It looks like more states are not having Medicaid fund this surgery. In the future, it could be just as culturally unacceptable to be circumcised. Or the younger circumcised guys are the different ones just like they are in Europe. The Internet is allowing a lot of people to see for themselves what goes on, and why it isn't necessary to remove the foreskin.

Quote:

The estimated savings from discontinuing this procedure are $172,800 from the General Fund. Major private insurers in Idaho have discontinued this procedure based upon the newest evidence that it is medically unnecessary."

Currently 14 states have ended Medicaid funding of non-therapeutic circumcision: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

I don't want my tax dollars to fund this, and I have made the choice to have a health insurance plan that doesn't cover it. So, the question is, if you had to pay ~$200 out of your pocket, would you still do it?

ASU2003 · 01-14-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

My wife likes it. My previous partners have enjoyed it. Why is this SUCH a problem to some people. It's not a limb. It's skin.

Do you still have part of your frenulum? That is the part on the bottom of the penis right behind the glans. Could you see that if someone had a circumcision where all or most of the inner skin was removed, it would reduce sensations? Yes, the glans would still work, and allow orgasms, but what if your shaft skin could have the same feelings? You aren't going to orgasm quicker, it would just be more intense. For girls, it would be like having an orgasm by simulating her clit only vs. both the clit and her vagina.

We get worked up about it because it is sensitive, erogenous skin that was removed because our parents thought since everybody else is doing it, he'll get it done also. Without doing any research or knowing anything about the foreskin. Or that they have been conditioned to think uncircumcised penises are different or unclean.

xepherys · 01-14-2006, 09:40 PM

I do have sensation along my shaft. Maybe I'm missing something... I just don't see what it is I'm missing... and I don't mean that in a speculative fashion. I know about the foreskin. I have done research. I still circumcised my sons. *shrug* It CAN be unclean, but I don't think it normally is. I do believe there are potential health benefits. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot be accused of not looking into it.

papermachesatan · 01-14-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

First, I'm not convinced the source you quoted is very valid. It's a roughly 2.5 page report that lists 67 references. It sounds to me like a lot of pulling at strings to make a specific point. It's easy to move sentences out of context to have them say whatever you'd like. If you wrote a 2-3 page report for a class and had 67 references, you'd either get a 4.0 because your professor was a dumbass, or a gooseegg because you didn't actually do any STUDYING. And sorry, just having MD after his name doesn't make him qualified. There are a lot of practicing doctors who I would not visit as well. School != smart.

Now let's look at those points. First of all, they are all very definitive and absolute. Circumcision denudes (not sometimes, but apparently always). "The denuded glans takes on a dull, grayish, sclerotic appearance," again, not sometimes but always. I'm looking at my penis right this very second. It is noit "dull", "gray" or "sclerotic" in any sense. Sclerosis generally has to do with a hardening of tissue, which I've not known to occur in cut men at all. Also, keratin seems to have been throw around a lot here. Keratinous tissue is generally thought of as being hair and nails. Do I have a tusk for a penis? Hmmm, nope! Both arguments here and elsewhere in this thread have no real bearing in reality.

80% or more of your penile skin? Is that so? Oh yeah, because it loops back. No, still not really 80%. I'd imagine 50%... but it only covers 25% or less of the actual LENGTH of the penile shaft. Okay, maybe 33%. Certainly not 40%.

Again with the desensitization... I guess that whole 3-minute man is a bigger myth than we're led to believe. Us cut men must be STALLIONS in bed since we're so desensitized. I can go about... maybe 15-20 minutes if I really put some effort into it. Maybe 25-30 minutes the second time around. I could go for an hour if we took breaks to do other things. If I was more sensitive, I think my wife would be sad.

Question for the cut men here... has your penis EVER just cracked and bled? Don't be shy... I really, truly want to know. Send me a PM even... I'll list the number of responses here. WTF?

"Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin." Are you KIDDING me? What kind of butcher doctors perform the surgery in these cases? Was this study done in a hosptial with a high malpractice occurance? If I had a pitted, cracked bleeding penis with skin tags and dangling bridges... I'd never get laid. I mean, are there pictures in any medical books or magazines or journals of this occurance? If it's noted, it must happen at least now and then. No, I don't buy it. It might happen as a freak thing in 0.001% of cases... maybe.

Also, uncut men can have "curved" penises. Curving of a penis can happen do to any number of things. This, again, may be the cause in SOME cases... but I doubt it's the norm. While my penis isn't huge, it's about 5.5" erect (just plenty thank you) and straight as an arrow. If I were uncut, I'd imaigne it'd be about the same... but with a hood. I'm happier this way.

Well, I'm kinda of tired of this argument for now. But again, I just don't see a good argument against it. Really I don't. Even when sources are quoted specifically, they are easy to refute. Come back when you have better evidence. Thanks!

The point of posting the source that I did was to create a listing of the increased risks that you take when you recieve a circumcision. The problem is that you're permanently removing a part of a child that increases infection risks due to surgery and the removal of a protective flap of skin, and decreased sensitivity (read: pleasure) with very little gains. You're trying to tell me you need to hear a good argument agaisnt; the fact that the benefits are not really there when compared with the increased risks and losses in sensitivity should suffice as an argument agaisnt.

The bottom line is that you must produce a good argument FOR because you are taking a course of action that will effect your child permanently without their ability to consent to the changes.

papermachesatan · 01-14-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

I do have sensation along my shaft. Maybe I'm missing something... I just don't see what it is I'm missing... and I don't mean that in a speculative fashion. I know about the foreskin. I have done research. I still circumcised my sons. *shrug* It CAN be unclean, but I don't think it normally is. I do believe there are potential health benefits. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot be accused of not looking into it.

You are missing increased sensitivity and pleasure; you would not know this though because you would not have any memory of having it. The fact is that there are greater risks than the benefits of getting circumcision.

ASU2003 · 01-14-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

I do have sensation along my shaft. Maybe I'm missing something...

You are one of the lucky ones. Some guys don't have that sensation left. Not all circumcisions leave the same amount of inner foreskin or frenulum.

Cynthetiq · 01-14-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

#3 I'm glad it was done when I was a wee-one so I don't recall it.

It doesn't seem to really hurt anyone so I don't understand the frothing at the mouth some people have about it. My evolutionary biology take on this is the foreskin became obsolete once we started to wear clothes, and while I've never experianced it first hand the fun descriptions I read while researching this make me glad I am since there are obvious hygine issues and I like to keep'em clean (see #2).

yeah in the Philippines in some villages boys don't get it done until they are like 12, and it is done with a large knife or machete... (well that's what my cousins scared me with...) the 12 is true, the knife or machete... dunno. but by 12 I'd know if I wanted it done or not, and at 12, not would be my choice.

But one of my relatives did get it done late in life like that, and he got a different cut where there is some tissue at the bottom like a "waddle" supposedly it's for the woman's pleasure. Again, i don't know if it's true or if he's just making it up but I did see it and it is different.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

It looks like more states are not having Medicaid fund this surgery. In the future, it could be just as culturally unacceptable to be circumcised. Or the younger circumcised guys are the different ones just like they are in Europe. The Internet is allowing a lot of people to see for themselves what goes on, and why it isn't necessary to remove the foreskin.

That or it will come to show you come from a poor backround.

Cynthetiq · 01-14-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

That or it will come to show you come from a poor backround.

interesting point.

kids use and think of different ways to class themselves as the same...

I recall some uncuts that were "ashamed" to shower in gym because they were different. I didn't shower in gym because I couldn't shower and get dressed in the short 10 min timeframe. I tried a couple times, but there weren't enough stalls for everyone all at once.

ASU2003 · 01-14-2006, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

That or it will come to show you come from a poor backround.

I'm sure people will know by the car you are driving and the clothes you wear much more than, his parents didn't have the money to get him circumcised, therefore he must be poor.

Maybe it means that his parents didn't want to perform surgery on him right after he was born. Most people could find some way to spend $200, even if they are rich.

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

yeah in the Philippines in some villages boys don't get it done until they are like 12, and it is done with a large knife or machete... (well that's what my cousins scared me with...) the 12 is true, the knife or machete... dunno. but by 12 I'd know if I wanted it done or not, and at 12, not would be my choice.

But one of my relatives did get it done late in life like that, and he got a different cut where there is some tissue at the bottom like a "waddle" supposedly it's for the woman's pleasure. Again, i don't know if it's true or if he's just making it up but I did see it and it is different.

This is part of why I think the claims of sexual pleasure being decreased don't measure up. If you had it done late in life, I would expect you to know if there was a major difference in what you got out of sex. Its not like adults haven't done this.

For fun I've decided to look beyond the circumcision of children and lets look at adults. The children literature is swamped with those fighting the good fight, but I figured that the adult literature should be free of this.

This is from the american academy of family physicians

Quote:

It is important to provide the patient with adequate information about the procedure ahead of time. Specifically, the patient should be told about the risks of bleeding, hematoma formation, infection, inadvertent damage to the glans, removal of too much or too little skin, aesthetically unpleasing results and a change of sensation during intercourse. The patient should also be informed that, during the postoperative period, erections can cause pain and disruption of the suture line that may require replacement of the sutures. Full recovery following circumcision generally requires four to six weeks of abstinence from all genital stimulation and sexual activity.

The patient should also be reminded about the benefits of circumcision. If he has the procedure, hygiene will be simpler and may result in fewer local infections, resolution of phimosis and paraphimosis, and less risk of frenular tears and bleeding during intercourse.

Alternatively, if the patient elects not to have the procedure, he should be treated with conservative measures for these conditions (e.g., either oral or topical antibiotics, training in meticulous hygiene for patients with balanitis). Patients having a circumcision for recurrent balanitis should be free from infection before the procedure.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1514.html

Just a warning, the link above has pictures, enough said. Of the negative effects of circumcision they neglect to mention any change in sexual sensations (beyond those 4-6 weeks of recovery)

From the mayo clinic

Quote:

Q. Is it true that circumcision increases sexual pleasure?
No name / No state
A.

Circumcision is a surgical procedure that involves removing the skin (foreskin) covering the head of the penis. There is much debate about whether circumcision enhances or diminishes sexual pleasure in adult males. Some experts believe that circumcision reduces sensitivity of the tip of the penis and, as a result, decreases sexual pleasure. Others believe it has no effect on sexual sensation or satisfaction.

This is also from the mayo clinic.

Quote:

Potential benefits of circumcision

Some research suggests that circumcision has health benefits, including:

* Decreased risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). Although the risk of UTIs in the first year is low, various studies suggest that UTIs may be as much as 10 times more common in uncircumcised baby boys than in those who are circumcised. Uncircumcised boys are also more likely to be admitted to the hospital for a severe UTI during the first three months of life. Severe UTIs early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.

* Decreased risk of cancer of the penis. Although this type of cancer is very rare, circumcised men show a lower incidence of cancer of the penis than do uncircumcised men.
* Slightly decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Some studies have shown a lower risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in circumcised men. Still, safe sexual practices are much more important in the prevention of STDs than is circumcision.

* Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may narrow to the point where it's difficult or impossible to retract, a condition called phimosis. Circumcision may then be needed to treat the problem. A narrowed foreskin can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis (balanitis).

* Ease of hygiene. Circumcision makes it easier to wash the penis. An intact foreskin, however, isn't really an obstacle to cleanliness. Normally the foreskin adheres to the end of the penis in a newborn, then gradually stretches back during early childhood. Until the foreskin retracts, all you have to do is wash your baby's genital area gently with soap and water. Later, your son can learn to gently pull the foreskin back and cleanse the tip of the penis with soap and water.

Potential risks of circumcision

In general, circumcision is considered to be a safe procedure, and the risks related to it are minor. Several studies found the overall complication rate of circumcision to be around 0.2 percent. Circumcision does have some risks and possible drawbacks, including:

* Bleeding and infection. All surgical procedures, including circumcision, carry certain risks, such as excessive bleeding and infection. There's also a possibility that the foreskin may be cut too short or too long, or that it won't heal properly. If the remaining foreskin reattaches to the end of the penis, another minor operation may be needed to correct it. These occurrences are uncommon.
* Pain. Circumcision does cause pain. Typically a local anesthetic is used to block the nerve sensations. Talk to your doctor about what type of anesthesia might be used.
* Permanence. Following most circumcisions, it would be difficult to make the penis look uncircumcised.
* Cost. Some insurance companies don't cover the cost of circumcision. If you're considering circumcision, find out whether your insurance company will cover it.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm

Damn now this one says something, not something some of you will agree with, but something...

Quote:

Sexual effects of circumcision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

The sexual effects of circumcision, if any, are controversial and poorly understood. The reader may wish to read the summary below in conjunction with the original studies, to which links can be found in the references.
[edit]

Summary of research findings
Study Design Peer reviewed Sample size (c, uc)1 Finding Significant2
Sexual drive
Collins (2002) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 15 No difference No; p>0.68
Senkul (2004) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 42 No difference No; p=0.32
Erectile function
Fink (2002) Cross-sectional; adult circumcision patients Yes 40 Favours non-circumcision Yes; p=0.01
Collins (2002) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 15 No difference No; p>0.96
Senkul (2004) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 42 No difference No; p=0.89
Masood (2005) Not stated; adult circumcision patients Yes 88 No difference No; p=0.40
Shen (2004) Not stated; adult circumcision patients Yes 95 Favours non-circumcision Yes; p=0.001
Laumann (1997) National probability study Yes 1410 Favours circumcision Yes; p<0.10
Ejaculation
Collins (2002) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 15 No difference No; p>0.48
Senkul (2004) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 42 No difference in BMSFI (Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory)
Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision No; p=0.85
Yes; p=0.02
Shen (2004) Not stated; adult circumcision patients Yes 95 Greater time to ejaculate after circumcision Yes; p=0.04
Laumann (1997) National probability study Yes 1410 Circumcised men less likely to ejaculate prematurely Yes; p<0.10
Waldinger (2005) Multinational, stopwatch assessment Yes 500 No difference No
Penile sensation
Fink (2002) Cross-sectional, adult circumcision patients Yes 40 Favours non-circumcision Almost; p=0.08
Masood (2005) Not stated; adult circumcision patients Yes 88 Favours circumcision in 38%, non-circumcision in 18% Yes; p=0.01
Denniston (2004), cited by Denniston (2004) Not stated; survey of males circumcised in adulthood No 38 Favours non-circumcision in 58%, circumcision in 34% Not stated
Masters (1966) Neurologic testing; subjects matched for age No 70 (35, 35) No difference Not stated
Bleustein (2003) Quantitative somatosensory testing No 79 (36, 43) No difference when controlled for other variables No; p=0.08
Bleustein (2005) Quantitative somatosensory testing Yes 125 (63, 62) No difference when controlled for other variables No
Overall satisfaction
Fink (2002) Cross-sectional; adult circumcision patients Yes 40 Favours circumcision Yes; p=0.04
Collins (2002) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 15 No difference No; p>0.72
Senkul (2004) Prospective; adult circumcision patients Yes 42 No difference No; p=0.46
Masood (2005) Not stated; adult circumcision patients Yes 88 Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction) Not stated
Shen (2004) Not stated; adult circumcision patients Yes 95 Favours circumcision Yes; p=0.04

1 c = circumcised; uc = uncircumcised.

2 If stated, author's analysis is used. Otherwise, significance is considered to be p <= 0.05.

Ok now odds are that didn't format right so here is the link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...f_circumcision

But let me break it down....

For adult circumcision....

Sex drive: 2 studies, sex drive was unchanged.

Erectile function: 6 studies, 2 in favor of non-circumcision, one in favor of circumcision, and 3 showing no effect. The study in favor OF circumcision was larger in sample size by a factor of 15 to any other study done.

Ejaculation: 5 studies. 3 no difference, 2 say circumised men take longer to ejaculate, including the very large study above, it also claims circumcised men are LESS likely to prematurely ejaculate.

Penile Sensation: (note just what you can feel where) 6 studies. Two in favor of noncircumsision one in favor of circumcision, 3 no difference.

Overall satisfaction 5 studies, 3 favor circumsision, two no difference.

Now its been a LONG LONG time since I did a meta analysis of like studies, but it seems to me that over all there is a benifit to circumsision over being non-circumcised.

Cynthetiq I'd like to thank you for pointing me in this direction, if anything it makes me more confident I made the right decision for my son. Its late, I'm tired, I'm just getting over being sick and I can see typos all over so I'll ask you all to forgive me there

Ustwo · 01-14-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I'm sure people will know by the car you are driving and the clothes you wear much more than, his parents didn't have the money to get him circumcised, therefore he must be poor.

Maybe it means that his parents didn't want to perform surgery on him right after he was born. Most people could find some way to spend $200, even if they are rich.

If this is how you feel then why did you bring up medicade?

01-13-2006, 06:35 PM	#161 (permalink)
SpikeQX99 The Best thing that never happened to you Location: Silverdale, WA	How many children at birth are able to give consent? NONE of them are. Just the same as how many children have the ability to be fully functional at birth, by which I mean (feeding, changing, grooming, etc.)?? Again, none of them can. So then would it be reasonable to think that there are a few things at birth that your parents should be able to make a decision for you on? Yes. If the statistics were flip flopped and the un-cut were the majority, would this be an issue?? Would it be a "societal norm" ? Would people be called "sheeple" if they just followed along and left a child un circumsized?? Think about it from the other side of the fence. Being of the "cut" demographic, I suffer not on sensitivity, arousal, lubrication, or any of the other symptoms described in detail here. I haven't had a foreskin so I cannot argue to the having one side, as those who do have one cannot make assumptions that I must be less sensitive, etc. I do not have emotional issues, resentment to my parents for "mutilating" me. mutilate being a bit of a strong word in my opinion I see 'mutilate' and think of hitting your foot with a lawn mower, an injury that severly disfigures a limb or body part. Not the trimming of skin in a medical procedure. To the poster that asked if it would be ok if they allowed their child's earlobes to be cut off.. I would say to you "go ahead". It is your child, and they do not have the ability to consent to what you do. Is it right? Who am I to say? I do not make laws, or judgements as to what is "morally and ethically" correct. Seeing how I will not see the genitals of 99.9999999% of the world out there. I couldn't care less if someone is cut or un-cut. As long as they are comfortable with their bodies, and are happy with themselves; who am I to really say anything? And who am I to say that someone is a "bad parent" or makes "bad choices"? So who are you to tell me that what I choose to do to MY child is a bad choice? Why do you feel it is your need to tell me what I am doing is wrong? I don't know if any of this was particularly thrilling or not, but I felt compelled to respond with something. I just have issues with people in general thinking that they know what is 'right' or the 'best decision' for me and my life style. __________________ I'm so in love with a girl... she is my everything

01-14-2006, 03:37 PM	#176 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	You really are an ass... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-14-2006, 03:41 PM	#178 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	This thread has been relatively civil so far, let's not change that. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-14-2006, 04:14 PM	#181 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I retract my "a lot" and ask all to re-read posts 150 and 151. I stand by my assesment of you. If you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, I suggest you "begone". __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-14-2006, 06:41 PM	#184 (permalink)
1010011010 Psycho Location: Virginia Beach, VA	Weird, I just had a discussion on this elsewhere. It seems like many of the crusaders on this particular front are using circumcision as a scapegoat for their own sexual dysfunction. Which is ironic, since the only interesting new tidbit I picked up in that above-linked discussion was that premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction are more common in uncircumcised men. __________________ *Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions*

01-14-2006, 10:30 AM	#167 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Maybe we should define abuse a bit better. There are many that believe that a single, good swat on the ass is child abuse (and it's been held up in court that way), while other the age old approach of the belt across the ass and believe it is NOT abuse. There are a LOT of people on both sides of that. But wait, there's a third party that believes you should NEVER physically punish a child. Uh oh, no it's all murky and such. So who's right? Is anyone? Is anyone definitely wrong? Why? If you believe it is unnatural to lay a hand on your child for reasons of punishment, what about if your child is in danger and you have to PULL them out of the way of say... a moving car. What if, then, you dislocate their shoulder. The sad thing? If someone called child services on you, you'd be investigated for such a thing. That's how out of control "child abuse" advocates are. Here's another one... nudist colonies. Is THAT child abuse? Nudity regulations and societal acceptances vary so much from place to place and person to person. If you live in the city, and someone comes over and you're sitting naked on the couch (as a dad) next to your 16-y/o daughter... you'd be in a heap of shit. In a nudist colony? Of course not. THIS is why parents have to be allowed to be parents again and make their own decisions for thei own kids. As a society, we can lay out basic laws of governance... we cannot and should not tell people how to live their lives, including how to raise their children. What if the family is just a bunhc of closet nudists? That's their right... but the dad would probably go to jail. Really...

01-14-2006, 02:39 PM	#172 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Note that the lack of a recommendation of routine neonatal circumcision is NOT the same as a recommendation against it. Don't read more into the AAPs statement than there is.

01-14-2006, 06:47 PM	#185 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	See, for me it doesn't even matter how valid that source is (and, by the way, I agree - it's suspicious). What it all comes down to - setting all the possible negatives aside (and there have been more valid sources showing negatives, albeit less sensational as some other sources might have you believe) - is that it is the permanent removal of a body part, without the person's consent, for absolutely no necessary medical reason. If there WERE a significant medical reason, penile problems would abound in Europe, Australia, South America, etc - all places where circumcision is quite rare. I mentioned earlier, the circumcision rate in Australia is about 10%, and it's not dissimilar throughout most of Europe. Surprisingly to me, someone actually responded that they'd be fine with me having my child's earlobes removed after birth. I'm not sure if that person was serious, but I'm pretty sure that person is in an extreme minority if they were. The best any medical organization is willing to say is that circumcision maybe, potentially might have slight medical benefits. And, by no surprise at all, that's from an American source - again, the ONLY country in the world that regularly performs non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. It is a cure in search of a disease. The point is, it doesn't even really matter if circumcision isn't BAD. The point is, it's not really even GOOD. It just IS. And when we're talking the permanent removal of a body part on a helpless child who has no ability to consent, that's simply not a good enough reason. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-14-2006, 07:39 PM	#187 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	For the life of my I can not understand why people would want to remove it... it is something we are born with and have had ever since humans were humans. And for those of you who say it doesnt change anything, yes it does. The amount of feeling you would loose would be insane. Having your penis constantly rub against your pants must kill so much feeling, essentialy creating a calluse over the most sensative part of the males body. Anyways when the time comes for me to have children there is NO WAY that I would ever have this sugury done to them.

01-14-2006, 09:40 PM	#191 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I do have sensation along my shaft. Maybe I'm missing something... I just don't see what it is I'm missing... and I don't mean that in a speculative fashion. I know about the foreskin. I have done research. I still circumcised my sons. shrug It CAN be unclean, but I don't think it normally is. I do believe there are potential health benefits. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot be accused of not looking into it.