NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I found this extremely interesting, especially since there's an ongoing controversy of sorts about this topic within my own family. My take is that if it helps cut down on AIDS, I'm all for it.

Your thoughts?


Circumcision Studied in Africa as AIDS Preventive (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By SHARON LaFRANIERE
Published: April 28, 2006
JOHANNESBURG, April 27 — For well over a decade, southern Africans have battled the spread of H.I.V. with everything from condoms and abstinence campaigns to doses of antiretroviral drugs for pregnant women — and yet the epidemic continues unabated.

Now a growing number of clinicians and policy makers in the region are pointing to a simple and possibly potent weapon against new infections: circumcision for men.

Armed with new studies suggesting that male circumcision can reduce the chance of H.I.V. infection in men, and perhaps in women, health workers in two southern African nations are pressing to make circumcisions broadly available to meet what they call a burgeoning demand.

The validity of the approach is still being tested. But in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, surgeons at the University Teaching Hospital began offering circumcisions for about $3 some 18 months ago and are urging the government to expand the service nationwide. Dr. Kasonde Bowa, a urologist at the hospital, says about 400 patients a month request the procedure — eight times as many as the surgeons can accommodate.

"One reason we decided to set up this service was the increasing evidence in the research in relation to reducing H.I.V.," the virus that causes AIDS, he said. "The evidence is very strong."

In Swaziland, the Health Ministry backed a workshop in January to train 60 doctors in circumcision, responding to what it called a surge in demand. Studies indicate that circumcision may protect against H.I.V., the ministry said, adding that the service should be more available.

"I've lost a cousin and an aunt," Nokuthula Sibandze said as she waited nervously with her 16-year-old son and 10-year-old nephew at a Swazi clinic offering free circumcisions in February. "I am trying to do the best for my children, and I have heard that if a male is circumcised there is less risk of infection."

Other policy makers in the region are holding back, waiting for direction from the World Health Organization. Officials there say the evidence so far, while intriguing, is not definitive enough to call for a shift in strategy on H.I.V. prevention.

The most striking studies suggest that men can lower their own risk of infection by roughly two-thirds, and that infected men can reduce the odds of transmitting the virus to their partners by about 30 percent, simply by undergoing circumcision. Research suggests that the cells on the underside of the foreskin are prime targets for the virus and that tears and abrasions in the foreskin can invite the infection.

But World Health Organization experts say it would be premature to recommend circumcision until results come in from two randomized controlled trials involving nearly 8,000 people in Kenya and Uganda. Preliminary results could be released by late June.

Data from earlier studies is "excitingly tantalizing, and the potential effectiveness looks pretty good," said Kevin O'Reilly, who is in charge of H.I.V. prevention for the health organization. But it must be confirmed, he said, "before we officially declare that circumcision is a policy that should be adopted by countries."

"We don't want to steer countries wrong," he said.

So far, southern Africa's H.I.V. infection rate, the world's highest, has resisted efforts to lower it. Only three sub-Saharan countries — Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe — have shown declines in the prevalence of the virus among adults, according to Unaids, the United Nations agency devoted to curbing the epidemic.

Of the nearly 5 million people worldwide who became infected last year, 3.2 million live in sub-Saharan Africa, the agency said.

Daniel Halperin, an epidemiologist and H.I.V. specialist in Africa for the United States Agency for International Development, argues that low rates of circumcision and high rates of multiple, concurrent sexual partners are the main reasons that the AIDS epidemic has raged in southern Africa but left western Africa mostly unscathed.

According to a study Mr. Halperin published in 1999, seven southern African countries, where fewer than one in five men were circumcised, had H.I.V. prevalence rates in adults of 14 percent to 26 percent in 1998. In nine western African countries, where more than four in five men were circumcised, H.I.V. prevalence rates were below 5 percent.

Researchers have suspected since the 1980's that such patterns are more than coincidence, and while the topic has long been a controversial one, many experts say the bulk of studies suggest that circumcision has at least some protective effect.

An analysis of data in 2002 cited by the Agency for International Development found that 38 studies, mostly in Africa, appeared to show that uncircumcised men were more than twice as likely to be infected than circumcised men.

[ This article is two pages long. Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]

Well, yeah. If you don't clean "it", there's a good chance "it" will get infected. If they're too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to do that, then they don't deserve foreskin.

yeah, a real good argument.

Well, yeah. If you don't clean "it", there's a good chance "it" will get infected. If they're too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to do that, then they don't deserve foreskin.
ROFLMAO! Well, that's one veiwpoint I hadn't really considered. :D

ROFLMAO! Well, that's one veiwpoint I hadn't really considered. :D

Seriously. I doubt they clean the foreskin when they bathe (however often that may be), which is pretty much necessary.

Well I aint had one for 37 years and I'm fine with it. Ohh yeah and it's bigger too!:p

Well, yeah. If you don't clean "it", there's a good chance "it" will get infected. If they're too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to do that, then they don't deserve foreskin.

Hear, hear!

yeah, a real good argument.
I think I'll email this article to my younger son. He and his wife decided they didn't want their two boys circumcised. I mildly protested, but they're their children and it's their decision. I'd just like him to know that his old man always has reasons behind what he suggests. ;)

Foreskins are more fun. I love mine, and love playing with others'.

I won't cut a piece of my cock off to prevent HIV infection. I'll much rather wear condoms, thank you very much. They're much more effective.

Seriously. I doubt they clean the foreskin when they bathe (however often that may be), which is pretty much necessary.
No kidding! I have real trouble imagining why men wouldn't perform what I definitely consider basic hygine, but it is Africa after all. When so many are starving, I suspect it's hard for most to focus on much else ... except sex, obviously. :(

I agree. It annoys me to no end how little people know on the subject.

In a Human Sexuality class I took, it was the norm for girls to claim that it was indeed dirtier and that their child would undergo circumcision. If you wash yourself, you don't need to. And anyway, it's terribly horrific for the child, and you kill nerve endings in his wang. It should be his choice when he is older.. Even with that knowledge, some of the girls continued to tout the "benefits". If you don't bathe for months at a time in filthy conditions, maybe it is, but it is unnecessary now for developed countries.

No kidding! I have real trouble imagining why men wouldn't perform what I definitely consider basic hygine, but it is Africa after all. When so many are starving, I suspect it's hard for most to focus on much else ... except sex, obviously. :(

Ex africa semper aliquid novi, wot?

Been there? Africa is kinda complex.

Foreskins are more fun. I love mine, and love playing with others'.

I won't cut a piece of my cock off to prevent HIV infection. I'll much rather wear condoms, thank you very much. They're much more effective.
LOL! Yes they are, but thanks to the Fundamentalist lobby in Washington, there's not much money for condoms ( or any other birth/disease control device ) in Africa. Sigh. :(

Well I aint had one for 37 years and I'm fine with it. Ohh yeah and it's bigger too!:p

you do know it cuts down on the pleasures of sex...right?

anyhow yes my foreskin is one of the more fun parts of my penis so I intend to keep it just like I couldn't live without my penis its just not right having man pieces missing like a jigsaw I say!

Well I aint had one for 37 years and I'm fine with it. Ohh yeah and it's bigger too!:p
Heh! Got ya beat: I ain't had one for over 62 years! :p

Me thinks me seen this before, not here, but..well, you know where.. Good for the economy, good for you!

I'm for it too.

you do know it cuts down on the pleasures of sex...right?
A bit for the man, yes. But it also enables one to last longer, so ladies in the know prefer men who have no! :D

Foreskins are more fun. I love mine, and love playing with others'.

I won't cut a piece of my cock off to prevent HIV infection. I'll much rather wear condoms, thank you very much. They're much more effective.


I did laugh when I discovered what the practice of 'docking' entailed.

LOL! Yes they are, but thanks to the Fundamentalist lobby in Washington, there's not much money for condoms ( or any other birth/disease control device ) in Africa. Sigh. :(

I doubt they would use condoms anyway, for the most part. The people spreading the diseases know little about them. Having sex with a virgin is believed to be a cure for the disease in some places, which just spreads it further.

When African government officials claim you can wash AIDS (Not HIV) off of your genitals with a hot shower, people are bound to be confused about the nature of what they face. How the hell can you wash a syndrome off?

To many of them, condoms would just be an annoyance, reduce the pleasure, and they will probably fail to see any real benefit. As long as they believe in common folktales about AIDS, they will continue risky behavior.

What's more important is hygenic education.

I think I'll email this article to my younger son. He and his wife decided they didn't want their two boys circumcised. I mildly protested, but they're their children and it's their decision. I'd just like him to know that his old man always has reasons behind what he suggests. ;)

Your son is a smart, considerate man and his sons will grow up to be very grateful to him and his wife.

Ex africa semper aliquid novi, wot?

Been there? Africa is kinda complex.
Nope. That's one of the few places I haven't been ... well, for any length of time that is. But from all I've read, it's indeed very complex.

Isn't this going to give them the impression to circumcised males that they no longer need to worry about safe sex?

it also enables one to last longer

I generally (one time) don’t have the problem of premature ejaculation...do you?

You son is a smart, considerate man and his sons will grow up to be very grateful to him and his wife.
Yes he is, but on this issue I differed with their decision, although only very mildly. The real question is, will the women his sons will eventually have sex with be as happy? I tend to think not, but meh.

I generally (one time) don’t have the problem of premature ejaculation...do you?
Never had that particular problem, although ( and this is NOT bragging! ), I have had just the opposite problem.

...will the women his sons will eventually have sex with be as happy? I tend to think not, but meh.

...America's just about the only developed country you'll find where women prefer guys who don't have foreskin. And that's mainly because almost every guy in this country is circumcised. People seem to feel more comfortable with the norms of society, however screwy they may be.

Yes he is, but on this issue I differed with their decision, although only very mildly. The real question is, will the women his sons will eventually have sex with be as happy? I tend to think not, but meh.

Actually, where it has been studied, women tend to prefer sex with uncut men (less friction)

The cultural aversion to foreskins among American women will pass with time.

If you're too stupid to use a condom, you don't deserve to have a dick.

And anyway, it's terribly horrific for the child, and you kill nerve endings in his wang. It should be his choice when he is older...
It's much more horrific (and painful) the older you get. If you're going to do it at all, do it when you're too young to remember later. I've talked to someone how was circumsized at age 8, and it was extremely painful and rather traumatic. This would have ben averted had his parents made the dicision at infancy.

Nope. That's one of the few places I haven't been ... well, for any length of time that is. But from all I've read, it's indeed very complex.

*nods*

No theory, regardless of complexity, that I've been able to come up with really explains Africa.

And simplification has never been simple enough to give us a grasp of the place.

So, to cut a long story short: in some cultures, then, docking takes the place of simple hygiene...
If we were to make a case for circumcission, we might as well make the case of delonging everyone to be rid of the evil of cigarettes.

Circumcission is, wherever the locals are competent and sophisticated enough to keep themselves clean, nothing but a dangerous and barbaric ritual.

Actually, where it has been studied, women tend to prefer sex with uncut men (less friction)

The cultural aversion to foreskins among American women will pass with time.
wait, less friction is a good thing!?

LOL! Yes they are, but thanks to the Fundamentalist lobby in Washington, there's not much money for condoms ( or any other birth/disease control device ) in Africa. Sigh. :(

Circumcision is not going to solve this problem. It's just going to give false security. Condoms used properly are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. This just gives a marginal lowering of the risk of infection, which may very well be effaced if they put too much faith in it.

Isn't this going to give them the impression to circumcised males that they no longer need to worry about safe sex?
Perhaps to a few, but the overall benefits appear to far outweigh any prospective negative impact.

It's much more horrific (and painful) the older you get. If you're going to do it at all, do it when you're too young to remember later. I've talked to someone how was circumsized at age 8, and it was extremely painful and rather traumatic. This would have ben averted had his parents made the dicision at infancy.

It could've also been averted if there was anesthesia. Why the hell would a doctor NOT sedate an older patient before a circumcision?

It could've also been averted if there was anisthesia. Why the hell would a doctor NOT sedate an older patient before a circumcision?
there was anesthesia. The healing process is painful - I mean, it's surgery in a very sensetive area. salt water baths and whatnot.

( and this is NOT bragging! ), I have had just the opposite problem.

I don't think ejaculating too late would be something to brag about but anyhow you would of had beautiful sex if it wasn't for a doctor and his instrument (also more pleasurable for the man and if the woman gives a damm about you her as well)

there was anesthesia. The healing process is painful - I mean, it's surgery in a very sensetive area. salt water baths and whatnot.

Ahh... Well, that's different. I can definitely see how that sort of thing would be painful.

Yes he is, but on this issue I differed with their decision, although only very mildly. The real question is, will the women his sons will eventually have sex with be as happy? I tend to think not, but meh.

You assume they'll be having sex with women. As someone who has sex with men, I'll tell you foreskins are a lot more fun. And, I don't hear Swedish women complain at all, as a matter of fact, about their uncut boyfriends. It's all cultural - the more common it becomes in the US that boys are not cut, the less of a curiosity, and thing of unfounded prejudice and fear, it will be.

Circumcision is not going to solve this problem. It's just going to give false security. Condoms used properly are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. This just gives a marginal lowering of the risk of infection, which may very well be effaced if they put too much faith in it.


Hear, hear!

I have a foreskin. It's cool.

I have a foreskin. It's cool.

Same here.

You know what's a better way to prevent contracting HIV?

Wear a condom and ask your sexual partners about their history before getting it on.

Circumcision is not going to solve this problem. It's just going to give false security. Condoms used properly are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. This just gives a marginal lowering of the risk of infection, which may very well be effaced if they put too much faith in it.Well, they said in the article that it lowers chances of infection by half (in africa, of course) - so its not marginal. Obviously circumcision isn't a replacement for condoms and no-one is saying it should be. As condom use increases, the significance of whether you're cut or not will decrease. In the meantime though, I don't see why it shouldn't be encouraged in places where HIV rates are high, and condom use/sanitation is low.

I did laugh when I discovered what the practice of 'docking' entailed.

Laugh? I moaned...

A bit for the man, yes. But it also enables one to last longer, so ladies in the know prefer men who have no! :D
Actually, the length of time a man lasts in bed has much more to do with his level of experience, self control and when he'd last gotten off than whether he's cut or not.

And I much prefer uncut penises to cut ones. They're much nicer to fellate, the skin on the head is softer and I like it when my men are more sensitive.

Get your hands off my foreskin!


Oh, wait... on second thought... :p

Well, they said in the article that it lowers chances of infection by half (in africa, of course) - so its not marginal. Obviously circumcision isn't a replacement for condoms and no-one is saying it should be. As condom use increases, the significance of whether you're cut or not will decrease. In the meantime though, I don't see why it shouldn't be encouraged in places where HIV rates are high, and condom use/sanitation is low.

The thing is, the article says nothing about how studies were performed. Some of the figures might sound impressive, but we know nothing about the promiscuity of the persons studied, and thus if the rate is cumulative or serial. Nor do we know if circumcision increased promiscuity and risk behaviour.

Yes he is, but on this issue I differed with their decision, although only very mildly. The real question is, will the women his sons will eventually have sex with be as happy? I tend to think not, but meh.
If your grandsons look for women anywhere but the states, they'll find women who are more than happy with their foreskin.

And I much prefer uncut penises to cut ones. They're much nicer to fellate, the skin on the head is softer and I like it when my men are more sensitive.

I must say I'm a tad turned on

SNIP

how would a place with low sanitation be a good place for a circumcision imagine the infections you could catch with an open wound in that area

Laugh? I moaned...

ha ha

well i did read a definition in a book rather than learn one in the field

you do know it cuts down on the pleasures of sex...right?

anyhow yes my foreskin is one of the more fun parts of my penis so I intend to keep it just like I couldn't live without my penis its just not right having man pieces missing like a jigsaw I say!

I've never had sex with one so I wouldn't know, but I have no complaints and have had no complaints *shrug* at the end of the day it's not that much to be bothered about.

ha ha

well i did read a definition in a book rather than learn one in the field

So, what are/were you waiting for? ;)

I think I'll email this article to my younger son. He and his wife decided they didn't want their two boys circumcised. I mildly protested, but they're their children and it's their decision. I'd just like him to know that his old man always has reasons behind what he suggests. ;)
because your son and his family live in africa or are planning to move there and raise the boys in the local customs?

are you thinking that your grandsons are going to grow up to have lots of unprotected sex?

*snip*

Yes, we should perform surgery on infants to prevent the VERY small percentage of them they may avoid this illness. They claim the evidence is strong but most studies I've seen suggest that there is no accepted link. Even those who claim their are are only claim a small decrease in chance for the already small group of people who need to decrease their risk.

You're talking about a universal surgery that in the end will be a benefit to a very, very small number of those people. Meanwhile, there is a much more effective preventative measure that does not require surgery. The implication is ludicrous.

The thing is, the article says nothing about how studies were performed. Some of the figures might sound impressive, but we know nothing about the promiscuity of the persons studied, and thus if the rate is cumulative or serial. Nor do we know if circumcision increased promiscuity and risk behaviour.
well those are variables of course. I presume that the studies just found a bunch of already-curcumsized men, and a bunch of non-circumsized men and compared their rates of infection. If no-one knew about the benefits of circumsision at that point, I don't see that there would have been a significant difference in promiscuity. If the studies actually went and circumsized a group of people and followed them, there would be more variables in their behavior.

well those are variables of course. I presume that the studies just found a bunch of already-curcumsized men, and a bunch of non-circumsized men and compared their rates of infection. If no-one knew about the benefits of circumsision at that point, I don't see that there would have been a significant difference in promiscuity. If the studies actually went and cicumsised a group of people and followed then, there would be more variables in their behavior.

No, you're making an assumption that may or may not hold true. There may be difference in these men that made certain groups more likely to be circumcized than other groups. If it's a religious practice, for example, it's obvious that there may be other factors that are contributing to the decline. GOOD studies normalize for such thing. There is no indication this study did so.

well those are variables of course. I presume that the studies just found a bunch of already-curcumsized men, and a bunch of non-circumsized men and compared their rates of infection. If no-one knew about the benefits of circumsision at that point, I don't see that there would have been a significant difference in promiscuity. If the studies actually went and cicumsised a group of people and followed then, there would be more variables in their behavior.

Your study won't show much till you find 2 groups of men who have no other distinction than the state of their member.

well those are variables of course. I presume that the studies just found a bunch of already-curcumsized men, and a bunch of non-circumsized men and compared their rates of infection. If no-one knew about the benefits of circumsision at that point, I don't see that there would have been a significant difference in promiscuity. If the studies actually went and cicumsised a group of people and followed then, there would be more variables in their behavior.

It definitely needs more study before becoming any sort of recommendation, and the question is if we want to recommend it and funnel money into that, when condom use is bound to be much, much cheaper, is of course more effective, poses less risks than surgery (this is not the West, and even minor surgeries entail much more risks in these countries), especially on a larger scale, and can thus be a much more sensible thing to do.

No, you're making an assumption that may or may not hold true. There may be difference in these men that made certain groups more likely to be circumcized than other groups. If it's a religious practice, for example, it's obvious that there may be other factors that are contributing to the decline. GOOD studies normalize for such thing. There is no indication this study did so.
There's not indication that they it didn't. The article quoted isn't a paper of any study, and doesn't describe methods. It summarized the results of 38 studies that were conducted. Until we read the actual papers, we don't know what normalization was undertaken, but it seems a bit cavalier to dismiss the result of 38 studies that found the same thing.

Perhaps circumcised men are less attractive to women in African countries, as they are in the rest of the world. So, these men get less sex--less chance of HIV?

Well, yeah. If you don't clean "it", there's a good chance "it" will get infected. If they're too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to do that, then they don't deserve foreskin.

Wow. You really don't know what you are talking about.

My buddy had his cut at 25 :eek:

He said he has heard all the arguments about loss sensitivity and you just have to clean it.

He said he cleanned his all the time but his wife still got many "issues" and what not.

He decided to get it cut and her problems went way down. He said the loss of sensitiviy is way overrated and what more then makes up for it is spontaneous sex as you don't have to stop and clean it.

You may try to argue "he didn't clean it right" which is not the case here as he is somewhat of a germ phobe......

It definitely needs more study before becoming any sort of recommendation, and the question is if we want to recommend it and funnel money into that, when condom use is bound to be much, much cheaper, is of course more effective, poses less risks than surgery (this is not the West, and even minor surgeries entail much more risks in these countries), especially on a larger scale, and can thus be a much more sensible thing to do.fair enough. your only mistake is that it isn't either or. if the question is whether to fund circumsision or condoms, the obvious choice would be the latter. But i don't think that's the choice faced. Circumsision (at a young age) is a very straightforward procedure that doesn't require hospitals or doctors.

Circumcision is not going to solve this problem. It's just going to give false security. Condoms used properly are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. This just gives a marginal lowering of the risk of infection, which may very well be effaced if they put too much faith in it.

Hey now! You know you abstinence is for more efficent!

How long do we have to apologise for our leader? *sighs*

I don't think ejaculating too late would be something to brag about but anyhow you would of had beautiful sex if it wasn't for a doctor and his instrument (also more pleasurable for the man and if the woman gives a damm about you her as well)
Heh! You'll just have to take my word for it that women are very appreciative when you can continue to drive for a long time without losing it, if you know what I mean. My orgasm was only delayed, not eliminated, and since that's the only way I've ever experienced, I can only say that I've always thoroughly enjoyed it. :)

There's not indication that they it didn't. The article quoted isn't a paper of any study, and doesn't describe methods. It summarized the results of 38 studies that were conducted. Until we read the actual papers, we don't know what normalization was undertaken, but it seems a bit cavalier to dismiss the result of 38 studies that found the same thing.

Actually, from what I can find of the studies many of them were done by looking at just as circumcized versus uncircumcized. In many cases the reasons that a group was circumcized is because they belonged to certain tribes with certain beliefs. This would show an obvious flaw in the study.

For example, the US has the highest circumcision rate of an Western nation and it also has the highest rate of HIV.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
What consistently appears throughout all of these studies is the strong correlation between genital ulcer disease and HIV infection. There is also a correlation between genital ulcer disease and the foreskin in many of the studies. However, when multivariate analysis was performed on several of the studies, the foreskin as a factor was no longer significant12,13, suggesting that the genital ulcer disease rather than the foreskin facilitated the transmission of HIV.

US Circumcision rate 85%
US AIDS cases per 100,000 people: 16

Sweden Circumcision rate 1%
Swedent AIDS cases per 100,000 people: 2

Obviously circumcision is not the preventative measure some would claim.

fair enough. your only mistake is that it isn't either or. if the question is whether to fund circumsision or condoms, the obvious choice would be the latter. But i don't think that's the choice faced. Circumsision (at a young age) is a very straightforward procedure that doesn't require hospitals or doctors.

With funding as it is today, it is an "either or" unfortunately. And to keep circumcision as "low risk" as we're used to in the West, you need our standard of life and our access to medicine if something goes wrong. Do these countries have that?

He decided to get it cut and her problems went way down. He said the loss of sensitiviy is way overrated and what more then makes up for it is spontaneous sex as you don't have to stop and clean it.
? Who cleans their penis just before sex? My bf's not cut and he's never stopped in the middle of foreplay and gone to wash up.

The only foreskin-related issues I've ever heard of have been related to yeast, as the yeast can get trapped in the foreskin and cause recurrant yeast infections in women who sleep with men who have such foreskin... however, this is still an issue with some cut men, as there is often still a bit of foreskin left and it's also something that can be treated with a cream.

US Circumcision rate 85%
US AIDS cases per 100,000 people: 16

Sweden Circumcision rate 1%
Sweden AIDS cases per 100,000 people: 2

Woohoo! More foreskins, and less AIDS! :)

With funding as it is today, it is an "either or" unfortunately. And to keep circumcision as "low risk" as we're used to in the West, you need our standard of life and our access to medicine if something goes wrong. Do these countries have that?

Does infection really happen that much afterwards?

Your study won't show much till you find 2 groups of men who have no other distinction than the state of their member.

The scientists who normalized the studies for exactly that, the only difference being the state of the member, showed no significance in the effect of circumcision on rate of infection.

Heh! You'll just have to take my word for it that women are very appreciative when you can continue to drive for a long time without losing it, if you know what I mean.
I don't like it when a guy lasts for an extremely long time. Passing the 20 minute mark is generally more than enough for me. Not all women want to spend hours getting pounded in one session...

Woohoo! More foreskins, and less AIDS! :)

But, but, that's impossible. A bunch of studies that ignored standard statistical practices and didn't normalize in order to actually analyze the effect of circumcision came to the conclusion that it's a magic pill. Obviously, you crazy Swedes should be swimming in AIDS patients by now.

Does infection really happen that much afterwards?

Do we have figures on that in such countries?

And you'd be surprised how often surgical wounds get infected even in the West. In fact, it's one of the reasons we use antibiotics preventatively before and after surgery a lot, if not most, of the time.

I don't like it when a guy lasts for an extremely long time. Passing the 20 minute mark is generally more than enough for me. Not all women want to spend hours getting pounded in one session...

Agreed.

Heh! You'll just have to take my word for it that women are very appreciative when you can continue to drive for a long time without losing it, if you know what I mean. My orgasm was only delayed, not eliminated, and since that's the only way I've ever experienced, I can only say that I've always thoroughly enjoyed it. :)

Seriously, are we going to discuss circumcision based on evidence or talk about a bunch of old wive's tales that have no basis in reality. There is no evidence that circumcision increases longevity.

Unless you were able to go back and forth between circumcision and being intact, I somehow doubt you're testing in this matter was very useful.

Does infection really happen that much afterwards?
You should have a look around on google, not only for infections, but circumcisions gone wrong... There are some oddly shaped penises as a result of circumcision and scar tissue build up.

There was at least one case where the penis was mutilated so badly, they deceided to try turning the boy into a girl...

I am not circumsized, and I do not want to be nor would I ever want my male children to be. They can learn to clean themselves like I have.

Do we have figures on that in such countries?

And you'd be surprised how often surgical wounds get infected even in the West. In fact, it's one of the reasons we use antibiotics preventatively before and after surgery a lot, if not most, of the time.

That I don't know which is why I asked.

I have surgical infections. Just not with circumcision. Do they give babies antibiotics for it?

Seriously, are we going to discuss circumcision based on evidence or talk about a bunch of old wive's tales that have no basis in reality. There is no evidence that circumcision increases longevity.
Indeed.

Actually, if I may step in. Let's recount some of my sexual experiences with cut men... the first man I slept with was cut, he lasted under a minute on occasions and never over 5. I had a man who was cut who lasted 3 thrusts.

Meanwhile, my current bf is uncut and has worn me out on occasion.

Therefore, circumcision does not always guarantee a long sex session.

So, where are the really good arguments for castration?

You should have a look around on google, not only for infections, but circumcisions gone wrong... There are some oddly shaped penises as a result of circumcision and scar tissue build up.

There was at least one case where the penis was mutilated so badly, they deceided to try turning the boy into a girl...

Well just being lazy. I figured our resident Doc might know first hand.

Ahh the candian fellow. Heard of the story. Pretty damning evidence over the question of nature vs nurture.

Did you hear he suicided a year or so ago?

So, where are the really good arguments for castration?

Hmmmmmm? Pedophiles?

Never had that particular problem, although ( and this is NOT bragging! ), I have had just the opposite problem.
That's not something to brag about, cos it does get bloody tiring after a wee while!
The way this will discourage people from using condoms is not good, though. It still leaves the chance there. Also, it'll lead people who have AIDS to think that they can't pass it on. Which is bad.
ABC all the way!

That I don't know which is why I asked.

I have surgical infections. Just not with circumcision. Do they give babies antibiotics for it?

If they get them, yes. The risk of infection is one of the reasons Sweden banned "do it yourself at home" circumcisions. They may only be done in hospitals nowadays under sterile conditions, and parents get very meticulous advice about proper hygiene. Diapers aren't the cleanest of places you know...

Actually, from what I can find of the studies many of them were done by looking at just as circumcized versus uncircumcized. In many cases the reasons that a group was circumcized is because they belonged to certain tribes with certain beliefs. This would show an obvious flaw in the study.

For example, the US has the highest circumcision rate of an Western nation and it also has the highest rate of HIV.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
What consistently appears throughout all of these studies is the strong correlation between genital ulcer disease and HIV infection. There is also a correlation between genital ulcer disease and the foreskin in many of the studies. However, when multivariate analysis was performed on several of the studies, the foreskin as a factor was no longer significant12,13, suggesting that the genital ulcer disease rather than the foreskin facilitated the transmission of HIV.

US Circumcision rate 85%
US AIDS cases per 100,000 people: 16

Sweden Circumcision rate 1%
Swedent AIDS cases per 100,000 people: 2

Obviously circumcision is not the preventative measure some would claim.I have to go to my exam, and I'll look in more detail later at the link.

But the US vs. Sweden comparison isn't fair. the studies in africa are looking at eh benefits of circumsision in an environment that LACKS widespread condom use and good sanitation.

Indeed.

Actually, if I may step in. Let's recount some of my sexual experiences with cut men... the first man I slept with was cut, he lasted under a minute on occasions and never over 5. I had a man who was cut who lasted 3 thrusts.

Meanwhile, my current bf is uncut and has worn me out on occasion.

Therefore, circumcision does not always guarantee a long sex session.


Ahm is it the fact he was cut or there are other issues?

Maybe they were in a hurry to get away? :p

I usually "last" more then 5 minutes so I don't think either situation enhances anything.

If they get them, yes. The risk of infection is one of the reasons Sweden banned "do it yourself at home" circumcisions. They may only be done in hospitals nowadays under sterile conditions, and parents get very meticulous advice about proper hygiene. Diapers aren't the cleanest of places you know...

Ahh. Didn't know that. Long forgot when it happened to me. ;)

I have a girl so I didn't have to go through that.....

Ahh. Didn't know that. Long forgot when it happened to me. ;)

I have a girl so I didn't have to go through that.....

Unless you want to promote sexual equality.

I have to go to my exam, and I'll look in more detail later at the link.

But the US vs. Sweden comparison isn't fair. the studies in africa are looking at eh benefits of circumsision in an environment that LACKS widespread condom use and good sanitation.

The studies in Africa did not account for the cultural differences that resulted in the differences in circumcision rate, just as my comparison of the US to Sweden doesn't.

The studies in Africa used flawed methods like only looking at correllation without analyzing causation at all. They are not equal.

Unless you want to promote sexual equality.

There is no comparison, at all, to be made between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.

There is no comparison, at all, to be made between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.

Both are barbaric and unnecessary.

Unless you want to promote sexual equality.

Ehh? As in female genital mutilation?

Sorry there is no comparison.......

Both are barbaric and unnecessary.

Unnecessary, yes, but there is medical cause in many cases for circumcision. Barbaric? One is, the other not, especially looking at what FGM entails. Do not go down this line of argumentation, lest you get your ass handed to you.

Both are barbaric and unnecessary.

Do you even know what's envolved with female genital mutilation?

Do you even know what's envolved with female genital mutilation?

Not a clue, I know it's horrific. My comment was out of line.

Unnecessary, yes. Barbaric? One is, the other not, especially looking at what FGM entails. Do not go down this line of argumentation, lets you get your ass handed to you.
Male circumcision is not always unnecessary either. There are some occasions when it is necessary. It also is believed to reduce risk of disease. I think it's 100% effective in eliminating cancer of the penis.

nyah i wouldnt call it that great and its not that impressive


now what would be impressive is if you found a really good argument against animal testing, other than thats is horrible for the animals, coz that can always be stopped by, would you rather it be a person.

now i know its a little of topic but if you found a good argument for that then i would be impressed

Not a clue, I know it's horrific. My comment was out of line.

No worries. If you really want to be horrified, do look into it.

I am all for it's elimination and your energies are best used to that purpose.

Circumcision can be argued as to its need; FGM can not.

Male circumcision is not always unnecessary either. There are some occasions when it is necessary.

As reflected by my edit done prior to your post.

No worries. If you really want to be horrified, do look into it.

I am all for it's elimination and your energies are best used to that purpose.

Circumcision can be argued as to its need; FGM can not.

The wikipedia description of infibulation... :(

Both are barbaric and unnecessary.

Maybe I'm out of the loop on this one, or maybe I'm just wierd, but I for one don't see why male circumcision is all that bad. I was cut as a baby, and for the life of me I don't feel oppressed or violated in the slightest. Am I out of the loop on this one, or are you guys looking for evidence of victimization wherever you can find it?

And for the record, male circumcision and FGM have no comparison. At best male circumcision reduces the pleasure in sex and reduces the intensity of orgasm. FGM involves the complete removal of the clitoris and labia minora, as well as sometimes the labia majora as well, a practice that virtually eliminates the possibility of orgasm in a woman, not to mention hurting like a m*@#&%f$!%*@r.

At best male circumcision reduces the pleasure in sex and reduces the intensity of orgasm
I wouldn't call that best.

I wouldn't call that best.

You know what I meant.

Well, yeah. If you don't clean "it", there's a good chance "it" will get infected. If they're too lazy, stupid, or uninformed to do that, then they don't deserve foreskin.

I wasn't aware you could "clean" off the HIV virus.

A bit for the man, yes. But it also enables one to last longer,
Highly subjective or do you have clinical proof?

so ladies in the know prefer men who have no! :D
Again, highly subjective and proof requested. :p

Highly subjective or do you have clinical proof?


Again, highly subjective and proof requested. :p

I suppose if it doesn't feel as good, the guy's going to last longer. I have no stats, no proof, just speculatory logic.

Ehh? As in female genital mutilation?

Sorry there is no comparison.......

I feel I must reiterate that I really wasn't suggesting that you should, or would ever want to, do such a horrible thing. I know that the two things are completely incomparable.

Ahm is it the fact he was cut or there are other issues?

Maybe they were in a hurry to get away? :p

I usually "last" more then 5 minutes so I don't think either situation enhances anything.
My point was that getting cut doesn't guarantee you'll be going at it forever.

There is no comparison, at all, to be made between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.
There are some societies where the clitoral hood is removed though, which is analogous to male circumcision.

But yeah, the male equivalent of FGM would be hacking the head off the penis and stitching most of the penis to the body in some way, then ripping the stitches out for sexual purposes.

Unnecessary, yes, but there is medical cause in many cases for circumcision. Barbaric? One is, the other not, especially looking at what FGM entails. Do not go down this line of argumentation, lest you get your ass handed to you.

To be fair, there are many types of FGM and you seem to be referring to the worst kind. There is a form of female circumcision that is very similar to male circumcision, and it's equally barbaric and has just as little evidence for it being necessary.

Male circumcision requires a doctor to tear the foresking away from the glans of penis, scarring both tissues before maiming part of the penis and destroying another part. In famale circumcision (referring to the type most comparable to male circumcision) the clitoris is damaged in the same the male glans is, but tearing the covering, protective skin away from the not fully developed clitoris and leaving behind scar tissue.

FGM entails a lot of different practices, and it's not a fair comparison if one looks the most agregious form of FGM and the least agregious form of Male mutilation.

There are some societies where the clitoral hood is removed though, which is analogous to male circumcision.

But yeah, the male equivalent of FGM would be hacking the head off the penis and stitching most of the penis to the body in some way, then ripping the stitches out for sexual purposes.

Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. FGM refers to all involuntary practices of modifying the female genitals and lumps many forms together. There are many forms not comparable at all to male circumcision but there are some forms that are also barbaric that are comparable. The practice of surgically and irreparably modifying the genetals of babies should be considered barbaric in all cultures.

Male circumcision is not always unnecessary either. There are some occasions when it is necessary. It also is believed to reduce risk of disease. I think it's 100% effective in eliminating cancer of the penis.

When defending the practice of cutting a part of the male genetalia off, please be armed with more than "I think".

When defending the practice of cutting a part of the male genetalia off, please be armed with more than "I think".

Well you haven't proved it serves no purpose either.

I suppose if it doesn't feel as good, the guy's going to last longer. I have no stats, no proof, just speculatory logic.
That is where subjectivity comes into play. If a man is a good lover, he can make it last as long as he wants to, with or without foreskin. The bonus for the guy with the foreskin is that the longer he delays, the more pleasure he will feel. :D

Poor Eut lost part of his manhood when he was only a babe I guess. :p

The practice of surgically and irreparably modifying the genetals of babies should be considered barbaric in all cultures.

Why?

Maybe I'm out of the loop on this one, or maybe I'm just wierd, but I for one don't see why male circumcision is all that bad. I was cut as a baby, and for the life of me I don't feel oppressed or violated in the slightest. Am I out of the loop on this one, or are you guys looking for evidence of victimization wherever you can find it?

And for the record, male circumcision and FGM have no comparison. At best male circumcision reduces the pleasure in sex and reduces the intensity of orgasm. FGM involves the complete removal of the clitoris and labia minora, as well as sometimes the labia majora as well, a practice that virtually eliminates the possibility of orgasm in a woman, not to mention hurting like a m*@#&%f$!%*@r.

Again, there are different forms so it's inappropriate to treat them as if they are all equal. In some parts of the world similar practices are done to the penis (though far, far less popular).

The fact that you think it's okay to be circumcized is a good reason for YOU to make that choice. The fact is that the choice is taken away from millions of men who DO feel victimized. It's an unnecessary and irreparable surgery that leaves men maimed and missing a part of their anatomy. There is very little evidence of any reduction in disease that outweighs the surgical risk and most diseases it even effects are either easily curable or have a low incidence.

If one is looking for victimization, I would say the routine practice of maiming the genetals of babies is a pretty damn good place to look.

Why?
Why? You're not sure why we should surgically remove healthy, normal, useful parts of babies? Would I have to explain why it's barbaric to cut the pinkies off of babies?

There are some societies where the clitoral hood is removed though, which is analogous to male circumcision.


Ahh but you leave out the reasons.....

Why? You're not sure why we should surgically remove healthy, normal, useful parts of babies? Would I have to explain why it's barbaric to cut the pinkies off of babies?

Comparing a pinky to foreskin?

The foreskin was useful when we didn't have cloths. Just because it remains doesn't mean it has a purpose to serve. For example, the appendix.

Ahh but you leave out the reasons.....
I've heard of religious reasons for that.

It seems quite pointless, but some adult women undergo the procedure willingly, so I'm not about to complain about that. It's when it's done on unwilling children that issues really arise.

It's when it's done on unwilling children that issues really arise.

What age are you talking here?

Comparing a pinky to foreskin?

The foreskin was useful when we didn't have cloths. Just because it remains doesn't mean it has a purpose to serve. For example, the appendix.
It's still useful even with clothes, it protects the head of the penis from friction from clothing. The head of the penis is supposed to feel soft, on circumcised guys it often feels rubbery as it's been exposed to all sorts of friction it's not very pleasant.

Also, nobody goes to get their appendix out unless they're having trouble with it.

Comparing a pinky to foreskin?

The foreskin was useful when we didn't have cloths. Just because it remains doesn't mean it has a purpose to serve. For example, the appendix.

That doesn't mean we should remove it, even if it were true that it served no purpose.

What age are you talking here?
I don't know much about it, I read one article where it was briefly mentioned and it sounded like adult women (like in their 20s) were having this done. Unlike say, male circumcision that occurs at infancy and well, FGM is wrong no matter what... if a woman wanted to have that done, she should have her head examined first.

That doesn't mean we should remove it, even if it were true that it served no purpose.

Ahh but there are examples where it does show it's better without. For example, the story of my friend and the amount of infections his wife used to get.....

Ahh but there are examples where it does show it's better without. For example, the story of my friend and the amount of infections his wife used to get.....

That doesn't mean we should remove it from perfectly healthy, sexually happy men, or (sexually inactive) children.

I don't know much about it, I read one article where it was briefly mentioned and it sounded like adult women (like in their 20s) were having this done. Unlike say, male circumcision that occurs at infancy and well, FGM is wrong no matter what... if a woman wanted to have that done, she should have her head examined first.

Just a clarification question. I have heard unwilling children used and they meant all children. Until a certain age, many don't even notice what they got ;)

Ahh but there are examples where it does show it's better without. For example, the story of my friend and the amount of infections his wife used to get.....
What sorts of infections were they? The only type of infections I've heard of getting from foreskin is yeast infections because sometimes foreskin can trap yeast. However, this can be remedied by treating both parties with an antifungal treatment. And some women are just prone to yeast infections anyways.

Just a clarification question. I have heard unwilling children used and they meant all children. Until a certain age, many don't even notice what they got ;)

You mean they don't know if they've got a willy or a fanny? (in the British sense)

Well you haven't proved it serves no purpose either.

I have to prove that a surgery is unnecessary? Shouldn't the onus be on those practicing the surgery to prove it? By the way, did you read the link I provided. Clearly not.

I'll help out then. Here's some more.

AMA work for you?

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.

Did you catch that? VIRTUALLY ALL medical societies no longer recommend the routine practice. In other words, it should be a therapuetic practice performed when the foreskin is not healthy.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
The various Australian (and nearby locales) medical societies -
All six medical societies (the RACP, Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand) have now corroborated the Canadian Paediatric Society, declaring that circumcision of newborn males should not be routinely performed. The new statement firmly declares: "There are no medical indications for routine male circumcision."

http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm


http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/
"Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm#CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed.

So the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada do not find it to have medical indications. It is not longer routinely practiced in most western nations for this very reason.

Is that enough evidence for you?

That doesn't mean we should remove it from perfectly healthy, sexually happy men, or (sexually inactive) children.

Well you show me where sex has decreased from not having a foreskin. My friend had his at 25 and he will tell you the loss of pleasure is highly overrated and is voiced by men who don't know.

Well you show me where sex has decreased from not having a foreskin. My friend had his at 25 and he will tell you the loss of pleasure is highly overrated and is voiced by men who don't know.

That is absolutely no argument for removing foreskins. If I slap myself in the face, I won't cause myself any physical injury; that is not a reason to slap myself in the face.

What sorts of infections were they? The only type of infections I've heard of getting from foreskin is yeast infections because sometimes foreskin can trap yeast. However, this can be remedied by treating both parties with an antifungal treatment. And some women are just prone to yeast infections anyways.

Mainly yeast. He said he would clean it like crazy but she got them all the time.

He decided to have it cut and her infection rate went way down. He said he felt she was prone to them and decided it was a small price to pay for your wife.....

Comparing a pinky to foreskin?

The foreskin was useful when we didn't have cloths. Just because it remains doesn't mean it has a purpose to serve. For example, the appendix.
It does have a purpose. When a child is circumcized the foreskin has to be RIPPED from the glans of the penis. It does not retract until later when the glans has fully developed. It is intended to protect the glans and keep in moist. Clothing doesn't replace this need. Do we no longer need skin because we wear clothes or are you maybe not really educated about the use of the foreskin?

And yes, I'm comparing a pinky. Can we live without a pinky. Yes, of course we can. In fact the only things that really use the pinky are things that we built with the expectation of having one, like a keyboard or a guitar. The pinky is generally not a necessary finger unless you have trouble counting past eight.

Fine, you compare the foreskin to the appendix, would you support the routing practice of removing the appendix from children? Personally, I think performing irreversible and mutilating practices on children without a compelling medical benefit is barbaric, but I guess I'm just a fan of human rights and all.

Mainly yeast. He said he would clean it like crazy but she got them all the time.

He decided to have it cut and her infection rate went way down. He said he felt she was prone to them and decided it was a small price to pay for your wife.....

Actually, we know now that sometimes the substances we use to clean can cause yeast infections. My girlfriend was told by her gyn to be careful about using certain substances to clean with and about doing it to frequently. The penis has natural substances that are supposed to be there to protect the glans. His overcleaning could have been responsible for them not being presenting and allowing the growth of bacteria.

It's very similar to the reason why you shouldn't shave to often, etc. Cleaning yourself too often is a fairly traumatic event for nearly every part of the body.

Ahh but there are examples where it does show it's better without. For example, the story of my friend and the amount of infections his wife used to get.....

And again this is an argument for your friend making a choice. There are no medical indications for the practice. The fact that some people choose to have it done isn't a reason to take away all choice. I'm sure some men get laid because they have tattoos and there is very little medical evidence why people shouldn't get tattoos, but that's not a reason to routinely tattoo people.

but I guess I'm just a fan of human rights and all.

:rolleyes:

Well you show me where sex has decreased from not having a foreskin. My friend had his at 25 and he will tell you the loss of pleasure is highly overrated and is voiced by men who don't know.
The woody with a hoody is far more moist than a dried out pecker than could almost wrecker. :D

The woody with a hoody is far more moist than a dried out pecker than could almost wrecker. :D


Ahhh a poet! :D

Mainly yeast. He said he would clean it like crazy but she got them all the time.
You can't clean away yeast. In kits for treating yeast infections there are topical creams, he should have just rolled back the foreskin and treated the area with that. If he just washed up, of course she's going to get reinfected.

He decided to have it cut and her infection rate went way down. He said he felt she was prone to them and decided it was a small price to pay for your wife.....
Well, if he'd used the topical treatment, then getting cut wouldn't have been necessary. If the issue is that she keeps getting them, passing them onto him and then he just tried to clean it away with soap and water, reinfecting her, then that whole thing is silly. If he'd worn a condom this also would be preventable.

Although your friend was also an adult and free to choose what he wants done with his foreskin, not an infant who has no say in the matter.

You can't clean away yeast. In kits for treating yeast infections there are topical creams, he should have just rolled back the foreskin and treated the area with that. If he just washed up, of course she's going to get reinfected.

Well, if he'd used the topical treatment, then getting cut wouldn't have been necessary. If the issue is that she keeps getting them, passing them onto him and then he just tried to clean it away with soap and water, reinfecting her, then that whole thing is silly. If he'd worn a condom this also would be preventable.

Although your friend was also an adult and free to choose what he wants done with his foreskin, not an infant who has no say in the matter.

*Sigh* all right its all a fabricated lie he made up to hide the fact he wanted to mutilate himself.

He didn't give the whole details and she has a doctor and he conversed with his......

His overcleaning could have been responsible for them not being presenting and allowing the growth of bacteria.
Nitpick: Yeast is a fungal infection.

Although, I'm not sure this works the same with men, but when it comes to yeast infections and women, killing off too many healthy bacteria from the vagina can cause yeast infections, which is why many women get yeast infections after being on a round of antibiotics. But perhaps killing off helpful bacteria living on the penis produces the same problems.

*Sigh* all right its all a fabricated lie he made up to hide the fact he wanted to mutilate himself.

He didn't give the whole details and she has a doctor and he conversed with his......
I didn't say it was fabricated, but from your description they didn't use the topical yeast infection cream. And it is true, cleaning doesn't get rid of yeast, fungisides do.

Also, some doctors are a little hasty with the unnecessary surgery recommendations.

Nitpick: Yeast is a fungal infection.

Although, I'm not sure this works the same with men, but when it comes to yeast infections and women, killing off too many healthy bacteria from the vagina can cause yeast infections, which is why many women get yeast infections after being on a round of antibiotics. But perhaps killing off helpful bacteria living on the penis produces the same problems.
Sorry, I misworded. I actually meant what you're saying.

With a foreskin the moisture exists that makes a yeast infection more likely but what you are referring to can have a large effect. Like you said, however, he had a nonsurgical way of addressing it. Unfortunately there are still a lot of doctors out there that think that circumcision provides a general medical benefit, so they recommend it at every turn. It is a procedure that is slowly losing ground, fortunately. People don't realize how much doctors are subject to their own prejudices.

Duh...circumcision owns.

you do know it cuts down on the pleasures of sex...right?

That's debatable. It may actually increase pleasure. I'm quite happy without a foreskin and until a year or so ago, I thought every man was circumcised...

Duh...circumcision owns.
I like my foreskin.
That's debatable.
As is almost everything, as this site proves
It may actually increase pleasure.
Who claims that?
I'm quite happy without a foreskin and until a year or so ago, I thought every man was circumcised...
That doesn't make you look favourably.

Duh...circumcision owns.


That's debatable. It may actually increase pleasure. I'm quite happy without a foreskin and until a year or so ago, I thought every man was circumcised...

You're quite happy without your foreskin? Do you have a basis for comparison?

I find it interesting that people keep acting like if the circumcised don't walk around all day long crying about the loss of their foreskin then they must not have a reason to gripe.

You have no idea how you would feel about having a foreskin because you were not given the choice (or at least most men in America are not).

You're quite happy without your foreskin? Do you have a basis for comparison?

I find it interesting that people keep acting like if the circumcised don't walk around all day long crying about the loss of their foreskin then they must not have a reason to gripe.

You have no idea how you would feel about having a foreskin because you were not given the choice (or at least most men in America are not).

And your knowledge in this matter is.....

because your son and his family live in africa or are planning to move there and raise the boys in the local customs?

are you thinking that your grandsons are going to grow up to have lots of unprotected sex?
No, and no. Certainly not if they listen to their parents and grandparents. :p

I don't like it when a guy lasts for an extremely long time. Passing the 20 minute mark is generally more than enough for me. Not all women want to spend hours getting pounded in one session...
LMAO! True, true. This is why I tend to go for the women who do. :D

Seriously, are we going to discuss circumcision based on evidence or talk about a bunch of old wive's tales that have no basis in reality. There is no evidence that circumcision increases longevity.

Unless you were able to go back and forth between circumcision and being intact, I somehow doubt you're testing in this matter was very useful.
Why pick at it? All I was doing was adding a bit of personal perspective. I never indicated otherwise. [ confused look ]

Highly subjective or do you have clinical proof?

Again, highly subjective and proof requested. :p
Sorry, but I'm no longer attracted to Canadian women. :p

And your knowledge in this matter is.....

I know nothing about how not having his foreskin has affected him except that I know for sure it has denied him a foreskin. In a more general sense, I've done a lot of research that reveals that the foreskin continues to be useful even if it is not vital.

I noticed you asked for evidence but every time anyone supplies any you ignore it. Care to reply to evidence that pretty much destroys any medical argument for routine circumcision?

Nitpick: Yeast is a fungal infection.

Although, I'm not sure this works the same with men, but when it comes to yeast infections and women, killing off too many healthy bacteria from the vagina can cause yeast infections, which is why many women get yeast infections after being on a round of antibiotics. But perhaps killing off helpful bacteria living on the penis produces the same problems.
Plain, unsweetened yogurt.

Duh...circumcision owns. That's debatable. It may actually increase pleasure.
Yup. :)

Why pick at it? All I was doing was adding a bit of personal perspective. I never indicated otherwise. [ confused look ]

The problem is that in this debate most people rely on old wive's tales for their evidence on both sides.

It is a fact that most large medical societies do not believe that there is any medical indication for circumcision and state as much flatly.

As far as the various claims about sensitivity or lasting or various things like that, there is little evidence either way.

The problem is that in this debate most people rely on old wive's tales for their evidence on both sides.

It is a fact that most large medical societies do not believe that there is any medical indication for circumcision and state as much flatly.

As far as the various claims about sensitivity or lasting or various things like that, there is little evidence either way.
Pardon, but my personal experience does not equate to "an old wive's tale." :p

Well I aint had one for 37 years and I'm fine with it. Ohh yeah and it's bigger too!:p

Quite right!

I know nothing about how not having his foreskin has affected him except that I know for sure it has denied him a foreskin. In a more general sense, I've done a lot of research that reveals that the foreskin continues to be useful even if it is not vital.

I noticed you asked for evidence but every time anyone supplies any you ignore it. Care to reply to evidence that pretty much destroys any medical argument for routine circumcision?

I didn't ask you about your knowledge of him. You said he can't know because he doesn't have it. So where does your situation give you the ability to judge?

Yes and they didn't call for it's abolishment now did they? If it is wrong as you suggest, why isn't it getting outlawed as a frivolous procedure?

You have suggested the Docs in my examples are biased and yet yours are not?

Pardon, but my personal experience does not equate to "an old wive's tale." :p

Your personal experience is that you can last longer after circumcision? When were you circumcised?

And if you were circumcised after you began having sex, it's still only anecdotal evidence.

I didn't ask you about your knowledge of him. You said he can't know because he doesn't have it. So where does your situation give you the ability to judge?

Um, I didn't judge. I said there is very little evidence either way. One thing that is certain is that he was denied use of his healthy, useful and natural foreskin.

Yes and they didn't call for it's abolishment now did they? If it is wrong as you suggest, why isn't it getting outlawed as a frivolous procedure?

No, I doubt they would. It would create a pretty big rift, methinks given the vast number of doctors that would have their own sons circumcised for religious or cultural reasons. It's a spurious argument. The fact that there is no medical indications should be enough. I think it's hilarious. The old "it should be denounced because it's not denounced argument".

You have suggested the Docs in my examples are biased and yet yours are not?

I'm suggesting that your doc didn't publish for peer review. The one's I referenced did. Meanwhile, I don't actually know that the doc in your example exists.

Until you give me some better evidence than this doctor recommended surgery because doing something as useless as scrubbing his penis wasn't working sounds a bit made up to me. Scrubbing would likely be counter-productive and I find it hard to believe that if you knew as many details as you claim that his doctor never mentioned this to him. As Dakini pointed out and as many women know, cleaning too much can cause yeast infections.

Anecdotal evidence is useless because we have no means by which to verify your claim and/or verify that this doctor was acting properly.

I enjoy how you compare your story to the numerous links I provided from the major medical organizations of four different western countries.

Time for a few testimoanials:

Being American born and 35, the chances that I or my peers to have experienced sexual relations with both intact and circumcised men is a rarity. Of the few friends that I know that have been blessed to experience both intact and cut first hand, we all agree.....the anatomically correct penis is a much better ride. I don't want to go into details *as I will start blushing* but at one point in my life I lived with two men....one was cut and one was intact. I have had the opportunity to compare the two side by side at the same time. If American woman only knew.....
A Talklist Member, 3/8/99

Testimoanial # 2:

I recently divorced and started to date again. I fell back in love with a wonderful all American born hunk! Blonde, blue eyed and full of muscles! We got serious in our relationship and that's when I saw my first uncircumcised penis. I was mesmerized and didn't know what to do next. He sensed my hesitation and asked if I had ever seen one before. I told him no and he proceeded to educate me first hand.

I learned and experienced the true nature of god's gift. The endless pleasures it gives to the both of us during foreplay and sexually. I found I could last longer without getting sore and to experiment with different oral techniques that I never could have performed on my previous lovers.

Take that....God's gift even!! :)

HIV is passed through blood and sexual fluids. How on earth is getting circumcised going to reduce the passing of the virus around?

This seems completely unfounded.

You can't get the HIV virus from not cleaning your foreskin properly. It can't be created out of nothing. You have to get it from someone who already has it or something that has been infected by it previously (syringes).

The only thing I can think of is that statistics show a higher percentage of uncircumcised men are contracting HIV, but that doesn't mean the two are linked...