Declining circumcision rates in the US

[_Trinity]

There has been some recent news about this:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070328/D8O55I680.html

[_Mephitus]

Yeah, i read about that when it came out almost a year ago(If I recall correctly).

When you are having indiscriminate sex with multiple high risk partners it lowers the risk. But that could also be solved simply with a condom. that is if the pope wouldn't go down there and say your going to hell if you use birth control.

My issue still stands though, firstly its something that has lifelong repercussions for the man that he has absolutely no say in. I would never do something to any child of mine merely for "cosmetic" reasons. (only if there was a gross abnormality) And the problems its supposed to fix are rare at best. If we are going to start lopping of things that could "potentially" cause harm, why not do it to other parts? I used the breast example because there is a huge rate of that right now. And the likelihood is, you are related to someone who either has or will have breast cancer. To me its compairing something that KILLS many women every single day, to something that at worst can cause mild discomfort.

I've never met an uncircumcised man who has wished he was due to medical problems. (I've heard a story or two where due TO medical issues someone had it done) But I've met dozens upon dozens of other men who wished they never where. It can take nearly 2 years of work to partially restore a circumcision. (the nerve loss can never be regained)

Yes, i used the word "barbaric" as a bit of a pull. But to me it is no different than that of female circumcision which is called precisely that regularly. One could probly find just as much support for that, yet we do not practice it. Why would that be, do you suppose?

[_dartagnan]

Theres also the issue that 80% of women in the US who have had contact with both intact men and circumcised men prefer intact. (Kinsey institute) And men who have had sexual behaviour before and after circumcistion also prefered being intact in nearly all cases. (also Kinsey Institute)

Do you have a link for this? There have been numerous studies and the overall result doesn’t favor your interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... h_findings

In seven different studies that determined erectile function, two studies concluded it was worse after circumcision. Three said no difference. All five of these studies used less than 100 people in their sample group whereas the other two studies used 1400 and 10,000 in their samples and concluded erectile function improved after circumcision.

Other studies determined penile sensation. One finding said worse after circumcision (test group of only 40), three said there was no difference, whereas three others said the sensation was better after circumcision; this included the study involving 10,000+.

Five studies determined overall satisfaction. Two tests said no difference while three others said satisfaction improved.

My issue still stands though, firstly its something that has lifelong repercussions for the man that he has absolutely no say in. I would never do something to any child of mine merely for "cosmetic" reasons.

And neither do most people who have their sons circumcised. Again, they do it mainly for medical reasons. The argument that it works against sexual pleasure is a lame argument that contradicts the evidence.

And the problems its supposed to fix are rare at best.

Rare? Virtually everyone I know who hasn’t been circumcised, and who has commented on this subject, has admitted having infection at some point in his life. Runtu can be added to that list as well. And in third world countries this is the norm.

If we are going to start lopping of things that could "potentially" cause harm, why not do it to other parts?

You have to have a cost/benefit analysis with everything. The benefit of this is enormous in terms of piece of mind and hassle of dealing with bacterial infections. The cost is a tiny slice of skin that is so think you can see through it. There is nothing to “lop” off, it is so small. There is a reason they use the word “snip.” Babies could be circumcised with sharp toe-nail clippers and probably wouldn’t feel a thing.

Nobody here has demonstrated any costs beyond that. I read what you said about sexual pleasure and what not, but even this seems to be an incorrect report that doesn’t stand the test of scrutiny. In fact, it might very well be true that circumcision actually provided another benefit to both the man and woman: sexual.

But to me it is no different than that of female circumcision which is called precisely that regularly. One could probly find just as much support for that, yet we do not practice it. Why would that be, do you suppose?

You’re kidding right? Circumcision in males is for medical purposes. Circumcision in females is not, and is in fact illegal. Circumcision in males is a health precaution whereas female circumcision is a health hazard. It is really that simple. Even worse, female circumcision is done when the females is much older, not at birth. It also involves far more tissue and is extremely excruciating, which is why it is often referred to as female “mutilation.”

[_guy sajer]

Yes, I used the word "barbaric" as a bit of a pull. But to me it is no different than that of female circumcision which is called precisely that regularly. One could probly find just as much support for that, yet we do not practice it. Why would that be, do you suppose?

Doesn't female circumcision involve cutting off the clitoris?

If true, I would consider cutting off the clitoris materially different than cutting off the foreskin.

I was circumcized, don't regret it for a minute. I had both my sons circumcized. I would do it again.

Why?

Not sure. Cultural bias, so they don't get teased in locker rooms, asthetics, not sure, but I consider it largely a non-issue and matter of choice. Not one of my sons has any repressed or outward anger toward me for having it done to them. I'm not angry at my parents for this mutilation.

All is well in the world.

[_Gazelam]

Schmigmas nasty. that's why it should be done.

[Guest]

Yes, I used the word "barbaric" as a bit of a pull. But to me it is no different than that of female circumcision which is called precisely that regularly. One could probly find just as much support for that, yet we do not practice it. Why would that be, do you suppose?

Doesn't female circumcision involve cutting off the clitoris?

True female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood. Nothing more.

[_Mephitus]

Schmigmas nasty. that's why it should be done.

Today soap and water are really easy to come by. We are MUCH cleaner than in many centuries past. This is no longer an issue.

[_Mephitus]

Theres also the issue that 80% of women in the US who have had contact with both intact men and circumcised men prefer intact. (Kinsey institute) And men who have had sexual behaviour before and after circumcistion also prefered being intact in nearly all cases. (also Kinsey Institute)

Do you have a link for this? There have been numerous studies and the overall result doesn’t favor your interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_eff ... h_findings

Quoting a study by O'Hara and O'Hara in the UK (i was off a bit on my original %)

"[The] women [who] preferred circumcised partners ... still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints compaired to during intercourse with their circumcised partners."

"Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents."

http://www.circumstitions.com/Notjustaflap.html#20K
... the type, not just the amount, of skin lost to routine male circumcision is often overlooked. Anatomically and physiologically, the skin of the penis is designed to activate the male sexual reflex mechanism. To perform this interesting function it is richly endowed with smooth muscle fibres that cause its upper, (sexual contact) surface to 'firm up' and wrinkle - and become much more frictional - during erection.

During vaginal intromission these conformational changes in penile skin ensure stretching of ridged band and reflex contraction of bulb muscles .

In short, the penile skin behaves in exactly the same way, during erection, as scrotal skin. Almost certainly, uniquely-structuresd penile and scrotal skin play an important role in activating and moderating erogenous sensation and sexual reflexes for ejacuation. As far as I know, there is no female equivalent.

In short, male circumcision completely alters the way male sexual sensations and reflexes are generated during vaginal intercourse.

- John Taylor

In seven different studies that determined erectile function, two studies concluded it was worse after circumcision. Three said no difference. All five of these studies used less than 100 people in their sample group whereas the other two studies used 1400 and 10,000 in their samples and concluded erectile function improved after circumcision.

Other studies determined penile sensation. One finding said worse after circumcision (test group of only 40), three said there was no difference, whereas three others said the sensation was better after circumcision; this included the study involving 10,000+.

Five studies determined overall satisfaction. Two tests said no difference while three others said satisfaction improved.

Results of a 5 year study for the journal of urology PMID: 11956453

RESULTS: A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.
[Presumably this means 12% reported no change, and they were counted among the satisfied. Considering that the 64% who were circumcised for phimosis (sexual preferance) would have expected sexual benefits, this is a remarkably poor success rate.]

My issue still stands though, firstly its something that has lifelong repercussions for the man that he has absolutely no say in. I would never do something to any child of mine merely for "cosmetic" reasons.

And neither do most people who have their sons circumcised. Again, they do it mainly for medical reasons. The argument that it works against sexual pleasure is a lame argument that contradicts the evidence.

Its still an interesting analogy of something that regularly kills over something that at worst causes discomfort.

And the problems its supposed to fix are rare at best.

Rare? Virtually everyone I know who hasn’t been circumcised, and who has commented on this subject, has admitted having infection at some point in his life. Runtu can be added to that list as well. And in third world countries this is the norm.

I've had both skin infections and urinary infections too, but im circumcised. So it doesn't exactly solve the problem, i would still rather have mine even with 10x the problems. (so would every girlfriend I've slept with. i asked)

If we are going to start lopping of things that could "potentially" cause harm, why not do it to other parts?

You have to have a cost/benefit analysis with everything. The benefit of this is enormous in terms of piece of mind and hassle of dealing with bacterial infections. The cost is a tiny slice of skin that is so think you can see through it. There is nothing to “lop” off, it is so small. There is a reason they use the word “snip.” Babies could be circumcised with sharp toe-nail clippers and probably wouldn’t feel a thing.

New studies have shown that children under the age of 2 are of heightened neverous system and as such feel MORE pain than adults. As such, the pain associated with circumcision has now been shown to cause BRAIN DAMAGE! http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/ let alone the rate of complications has been rated as high as 2/3 http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html (so don't tell me its not painfull)

Nobody here has demonstrated any costs beyond that. I read what you said about sexual pleasure and what not, but even this seems to be an incorrect report that doesn’t stand the test of scrutiny. In fact, it might very well be true that circumcision actually provided another benefit to both the man and woman: sexual.

Its not just a "small bit of skin" that's being removed. Its up to 20 square inches of high nerve density tissue that serves a sexual purpose. Do a quick google on "foreskin sexual function" and youl find dozens apon dozens of articles about this and the many many people who are attempting restoration just for this reason.

But to me it is no different than that of female circumcision which is called precisely that regularly. One could probly find just as much support for that, yet we do not practice it. Why would that be, do you suppose?

You’re kidding right? Circumcision in males is for medical purposes. Circumcision in females is not, and is in fact illegal. Circumcision in males is a health precaution whereas female circumcision is a health hazard. It is really that simple. Even worse, female circumcision is done when the females is much older, not at birth. It also involves far more tissue and is extremely excruciating, which is why it is often referred to as female “mutilation.”

Its excruciating because its done when people show more pain. True female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood. again, as with male circumcision: Less infections, less area for bacteria, less buildup of waste, generaly more health benefits. Its because male circumcision is the expected norm, and female is foreign that we scoff at the similarities.

[_Runtu]

Schmigmas nasty. that's why it should be done.

Today soap and water are really easy to come by. We are MUCH cleaner than in many centuries past. This is no longer an issue.

I don't have any issues with keeping things clean down there, so I don't get infections. Of course, young boys are not as likely to be careful as adults, so I was occasionally prone to an infection as a child.

[_Mephitus]

You know, it occures to me Dart. If you want to discuss circumcision as a treatment rather than as a regularly prescribed preventitive application. Then i have absolutely no issue with it.(in pre-adults) It is then solving a specific medical need of that person. Its like tonsels. They do serve a purpose for most people. Its better to only take them from people who would directly benefit such action. (if i catch strep one more friggin time, they bite the dust)

Personaly, when i asked my parents. they did it wholey and completely for the sake of religion and took no reasoning for medical application. that's where i get the most pissed off on this subject. Its supposed to be done as a sign of religious ferverance by that person. Now if you where an adult weighing the decision, then you are making that choice for yourself. More power to you. When its automaticaly done on subjects with no say in the matter, then i question it. (and im talking any form of bodily modification pre-adult) I am not the religion of my parents, so at its base, i have a permanent physical reminder of what my parents attempted to force me to follow. Had i done it as an adult, well then, i was the one who made the decision. It weighs only on me as to whether it was a good idea or a bad one.

I hope this clears things up a bit on why this is one of my "buttons".