Can this parent really believe she did nothing wrong? Tatooing her kids!???

[MelanieM]

No, you're right. The literature suggests there is basically no difference in sexual pleasure. Where there is is difference, is (how do I put this delicately?) men who are circumcised tend to enjoy a broader range of intimacy (and therefore a happier sex life) than men who are not circumcised.

 

If you think that only circumcised men enjoy certain pleasures, then you are mistaken. Are you speaking anecdotally, based on a polling of your intact and circ'd friends or personal experience in both arenas? Or are there studies that back this up as well? (And I'd want to see studies that aren't just about female American partners who don't understand what a penis is naturally supposed to look like.)

 

no, but if you do a basic search via google scholar you'll see there ARE many studies that DO report on sexual satisfaction. ;)

since y'all have obviously decided that no study will change your minds, tho, and you've neatly eliminated SC's own bravely public testimony, we are at an impasse.

 

I would be happy to look at studies if they apply to the discussion. I did browse through the studies you noted as relevant, and found them not to be.

 

As for SC's testimony, I am still assuming it refers to his own experience as a heterosexual male circumcised in infancy. In which case, he has no comparitive information to share and therefore no "proof" that circumcised men experience more pleasure than intact men.

 

I'm not debating that circumcised men experience pleasure, or even as much pleasure as an intact man might. (I'm sure if there were a way to possibly test this scenario on every man there would be some in each camp.) What I'm debating is the assertion that a circumcised man experiences *more* pleasure, and that the idea of increased sexual pleasure in adulthood is a reason to circumcise a baby.

[Laura Corin]

 

And penile hygiene is a big problem for uncircumcised men and boys.

 

Bill

 

But.... I come from a country where very few men are circumcised. Washing is not a big deal. To be explicit: it's no harder for a man to keep folds clean than for a woman. It's just not difficult.

 

As for STDs and HPV. Well, I'd rather teach my boys to reduce the risks by wearing a condom than by cutting a bit off their willies. I had surgery for a pre-cancerous condition probably caused by HPV, and I still wouldn't have circumcised my sons. Husband (American) is in agreement.

 

Laura

[Nicole M]

But.... I come from a country where very few men are circumcised. Washing is not a big deal. To be explicit: it's no harder for a man to keep folds clean than for a woman. It's just not difficult.

 

As for STDs and HPV. Well, I'd rather teach my boys to reduce the risks by wearing a condom than by cutting a bit off their willies. I had surgery for a pre-cancerous condition probably caused by HPV, and I still wouldn't have circumcised my sons. Husband (American) is in agreement.

 

Laura

 

I agree.

 

I believe at least one of the studies (the groundbreaking one in the mid-1990s) that indicated that uncircumcised men had more problems with cancer and cleanliness-related illness used data collected from elderly men living in nursing homes. I did not have access to the internet at that time, so I did not double check that information, which came from my doctor. I will look into that today. If true, that puts a little slant on the information for me. I also feel it's just not that difficult to stay clean.

[Laura Corin]

If you think that only circumcised men enjoy certain pleasures, then you are mistaken. Are you speaking anecdotally, based on a polling of your intact and circ'd friends or personal experience in both arenas? Or are there studies that back this up as well? (And I'd want to see studies that aren't just about female American partners who don't understand what a penis is naturally supposed to look like.)

 

 

I suspect that whatever pleasures a circumcised American male receives, an uncircumcised British male does also. British women don't expect a surgically altered look. I've 'been around' too and can't say I have a preference, so no denial of 'services' here.

 

Laura

[Parrothead]

The procedure protects men (and women) from disease, infections, and offers benefits of hygiene. And I believe the medical model will shift back in favor of circumcision (as it has in Africa) as the fall-out of recommendations based on ideological grounds rather than science leads to unnecessary deaths and illnesses.

 

Bill

:iagree:I think circumcision is one of many things that will shift back into favor in the next few decades.

[Peek a Boo]

......What I'm debating is the assertion that a circumcised man experiences *more* pleasure, and that the idea of increased sexual pleasure in adulthood is a reason to circumcise a baby.

 

 

Then we are on the wrong pages.

It has NOT been asserted that "increased sexual pleasure" is A REASON to circumcise. It was noted as a side benefit, not a REASON. Y'all asked for studies about this side benefit, we showed them to you.

 

That study doesn't seem to say much about sexual experiences. 99% reported being satisfied with the procedure, but only 23% had had sex at that point, so I'm not sure what constitutes "satisfied" but it's obviously not solely based on sexual experience.

 

what's 23% of 479 men?

not exactly a number to casually dismiss. ;)

I would be happy to look at studies if they apply to the discussion. I did browse through the studies you noted as relevant, and found them not to be.

 

 

There 6,800 articles on google scholar discussing research about "adult male circumcision sexl pleasure." Take your pick. Even the few that have a conclusion that sexual pleasure is NOT generally enhanced still have several in the study that DO report an increased pleasure in sex, so their study-- in conjunction with several others that are showing either no difference or increased pleasure-- only shows that there's quite a few guys that do think it's more pleasurable after circumcision. NOBODY has given that as a REASON to circumcise. In fact, most of these studies were conducted because of anti-circ'ing extremists who put forth all sorts of horror stories about how awful the after-sex sensation is. Apparently those tales are less than stellar examples of scientific research.

 

MY only point of debate is that there ARE studies of sexually active men out there that specifically address the idea of sexual satisfaction before and after adult circumcision, some report an increased sexual satisfaction. The ONLY reason i point those out is because Y'ALL were saying

 

there is nothing legitimate in research literature to show that circ males have greater sexual pleasure.

 

I can't even imagine how such a study could exist.

 

Thankfully, Real Science is not subject to one's imagination, and just saying "it ain't so" doesn't make all those peer-reviewed studies disappear.

 

 

in fact, here's another one:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121390800/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

Aim.

To assess adult male circumcision's effect on men's sexual function and pleasure.

 

Methods.

Participants in a controlled trial of circumcision to reduce HIV incidence in Kisumu, Kenya were uncircumcised, HIV negative, sexually active men, aged 18–24 years, with a hemoglobin ≥9.0 mmol/L. Exclusion criteria included foreskin covering less than half the glans, a condition that might unduly increase surgical risks, or a medical indication for circumcision. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either immediate circumcision or delayed circumcision after 2 years (control group). Detailed evaluations occurred at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

 

Main Outcome Measures. (i) Sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men; and (ii) sexual satisfaction and pleasure over time following circumcision.

 

Results.

Between February 2002 and September 2005, 2,784 participants were randomized, including the 100 excluded from this analysis because they crossed over, were not circumcised within 30 days of randomization, did not complete baseline interviews, or were outside the age range. For the circumcision and control groups, respectively, rates of any reported sexual dysfunction decreased from 23.6% and 25.9% at baseline to 6.2% and 5.8% at month 24. Changes over time were not associated with circumcision status. Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was "much more sensitive," and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as "much more" at month 24.

 

Conclusions. Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm. These data indicate that integration of male circumcision into programs to reduce HIV risk is unlikely to adversely effect male sexual function. Krieger JN, Mehta SD, Bailey RC, Agot K, Ndinya-Achola JO, Parker C, and Moses S. Adult male circumcision: Effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in Kisumu, Kenya. J Sex Med

 

but hey - maybe guys in Kenya are just too stupid to know what "good sexual pleasure" is.......:glare:

[Peek a Boo]

a few words about the AAP's recommendation:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/385?ijkey=f1a5a0d2a7e778d9f30f942f20c6be7b10e6810a&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

*note that the numbers are referring to sources at the bottom of that article that I did not copy here.

 

The original position of the AAP was established with an erroneous statement in 1971, when the AAP Committee on Fetus and Newborn in a single sentence stated that "there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."12(p110) The anonymous authors seem to have been unaware of multiple published studies, mainly in the urologic literature, that showed that circumcision protected against penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. Multiple published studies had shown that circumcision essentially eliminates the otherwise-possible development of invasive penile cancer.13,14 During the North African desert campaign of World War II, >146000 servicemen were hospitalized with foreskin-related disorders, mainly balanoposthitis, paraphimosis, and phimosis; US Army urologists stated: "Had these patients been circumcised before induction, this total would probably have been close to zero."15(p146) In 1975, instead of admitting the existence of valid indications for newborn circumcision as revealed in the body of the report, the AAP Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision simply changed the wording to "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn."16(p611) This anticircumcision policy remained in place until 1987, when Wiswell et al17 showed a 10- to 20-fold protective benefit of newborn circumcision against severe urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the first year of life. A new AAP task force was appointed, which I chaired. Published in 1989,18 our findings did indeed confirm medical benefits to circumcision as well as possible complications, and we stated that these benefits and complications should be pointed out to parents. In the 1989–1999 decade, multiple studies confirmed the beneficial effect of newborn circumcision in preventing infant UTIs19–21 and transmission of HIV.22,23 The safety and efficacy of local anesthesia were established also.

 

With this appearance of more benefits and less risks, an update was considered necessary. A 1999 task force was therefore appointed, and a new report was issued. Unbelievably, however, this report took a step backward by issuing an anticircumcision message despite additional compelling studies favoring newborn circumcision.1 The conclusions in the report belied the evidence contained in the body of the report. Proven benefits such as prevention of infant UTIs, balanoposthitis, and phimosis and the acknowledged protection against HIV were referred to as "potential benefits" that were concluded to be "not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."1(p693) Although a table issued by the AAP in 1999 listed 6 evidence-based benefits and 1 risk (the rare [0.2%–0.6%] and usually minor risk of surgical complications),24 no benefit-to-risk ratio was offered to allow parents to decide the issue for themselves. In light of the multiple benefits and only minor risks, it is difficult to understand how the 1999 AAP task force reached its conclusions. The report was challenged25 but to no avail.

 

Since 1999, further convincing data have documented the preventive health benefits of circumcision. Published reports have confirmed a protective effect against infant UTIs,26–28 HIV acquisition,23,29–31 penile cancer,14 and penile dermatoses,32 and local anesthesia has become the standard of care. New, important evidence-based advantages of circumcision have been established. Most notable has been the finding that uncircumcised men are 3 times more likely than circumcised men to carry the human papilloma virus,33 the infectious agent involved in development of genital cancer (cervical cancer in women and penile cancer in men). Cervical cancer is of special importance because, particularly in underdeveloped countries, this disease is a leading cause of cancer death in women. Hundreds of thousands of women in the world die annually from cervical cancer, and evidence shows that male circumcision could markedly reduce this number.33 Most recently, an international study from 5 different countries found that chlamydia infection is ~3 times more common in female partners of uncircumcised men than in female partners of circumcised men.34 In addition, particularly in the past 3 to 4 years, objective studies comparing sensitivity and sexual pleasure in circumcised versus uncircumcised men and evaluating measures of sexual pleasure before and after adult circumcision35–38 have concluded that no clinically significant difference exists between the circumcised and uncircumcised states. This result should come as no surprise in view of the complex psychological, neurologic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory cascade involved in sexual activity.

 

Since publication of the misleading 1999 AAP task force conclusions, compelling evidence has accumulated warranting acknowledgment that the multiple medical benefits of newborn circumcision far outweigh the minor risks of the procedure. This updated evidence of benefits includes studies confirming the preventive effect of circumcision against HIV,23,29–31 penile cancer,14 and infant UTI26,28 and new evidence of protection against penile dermatoses,32 human papilloma virus,33 cervical cancer,33 and chlamydia infection.34 Nonetheless, in 2005 the AAP reaffirmed the 1999 policy,39 in effect suppressing all the evidence published since then. According to both the current position of the AAP and the reference list provided in the task force report, the last relevant reference on the health benefits of circumcision occurred in 19981; all the many convincing studies published during the past 7 years have been ignored. It is time for the AAP to acknowledge the evidence and to catch up to the American public.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

What did I miss that a tattoo conversation turned into a circumcision conversation?;)

:lol:

[Peek a Boo]

What did I miss that a tattoo conversation turned into a circumcision conversation?;)

:lol:

 

hey-- nothing is guaranteed after you enter....

 

The Hive.

 

mwahahaha....!

[MelanieM]

Then we are on the wrong pages.

It has NOT been asserted that "increased sexual pleasure" is A REASON to circumcise. It was noted as a side benefit, not a REASON. Y'all asked for studies about this side benefit, we showed them to you.

 

 

You can split hairs all you want. But I don't think it unfair to suggest that telling people their sons will "benefit" from increased pleasure is not ever going to be used as a "reason". I feel that suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

 

 

 

what's 23% of 479 men?

not exactly a number to casually dismiss. ;)

 

 

Again, it was 23% of men saying they were satisfied with the procedure. Many of them hadn't even had intercourse at that point, so they weren't saying they were satisfied with their sexual performance. Satisfied with the procedure could mean anything. Maybe they meant they were happy with how it looked, or the progress of their healing, or how the nurses treated them after recovery. Unless they're explicitly answering the question at hand, I'm not assuming it applies. (I'm also not saying it isn't the case. Simply that the answer does not address the question you are suggesting it does.)

 

Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was "much more sensitive," and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as "much more" at month 24.

 

 

I'm not saying this to completely discount the study you've quoted, but more to point out the benefit of critical analysis: Not all men, or their partners, would consider the above an improvement.

 

but hey - maybe guys in Kenya are just too stupid to know what "good sexual pleasure" is.......:glare:

 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snarky. I think it reasonable enough that different people can analysis a study and come to different conclusions on what the results imply.

[Danestress]

This. I could see the argument here if it applied to all or none -- i.e. no physical altering of children, ever, or physical altering is ok with parental/child consent. But I guess I don't see how people can have it both ways. What's the logic behind the pick and choose mentality?

 

You would be okay with (1) no permanent physical changes to any child ever, including, say, fixing a clef palate or reshaping a flat head, or (2) anything goes. Nothing in between?

 

It seems to me that it's hard to exactly set the bounds both legally and morally. But humans are complicated. There are no easy answers. Both of these "easy" solutions look really bad to me. People may permanent physical changes to their children pretty regularly, even when there is no health benefit and only a perceived visual benefit. Some cultures, like ours, will permanently round out a child's head. Other will purposely flatten it. I don't see any way to draft legislation or even decide in my own head where exactly the line is.

[MelanieM]

You would be okay with (1) no permanent physical changes to any child ever, including, say, fixing a clef palate or reshaping a flat head, or (2) anything goes. Nothing in between?

 

It seems to me that it's hard to exactly set the bounds both legally and morally. But humans are complicated. There are no easy answers. Both of these "easy" solutions look really bad to me. People may permanent physical changes to their children pretty regularly, even when there is no health benefit and only a perceived visual benefit. Some cultures, like ours, will permanently round out a child's head. Other will purposely flatten it. I don't see any way to draft legislation or even decide in my own head where exactly the line is.

 

Interesting point. Yes, I agree it would be difficult to draw legal boundaries. For me personally, I think procedures done for cosmetic reasons are not something I would want to do to my child without their consent. However, I can only base that feeling on actual things I've had to consider, such as ear piercings (no) and circumcision (no), which seem to be performed mostly due to social norms of the times. That doesn't mean I wouldn't consider a procedure that had long-term benefits and was more cosmetic in nature; I guess I would need to know the hows and what-fors of a situation to respond definitively. (Is flat head a cosmetic or a medical concern?)

 

I also realize that standards will differ from person to person, as evidenced throughout this discussion. One person suggested that they would decide based on what is socially accepted. And we can see there's definitely a difference of opinion on what benefits do or do not exist with some procedures.

 

So, I still think it logical to either be for body modification or against it. But I can also see that people come up with their own reasons for what constitutes an exception, and it might seem logical to them even if it doesn't to me.

[nmoira]

 

Again, it was 23% of men saying they were satisfied with the procedure. Many of them hadn't even had intercourse at that point, so they weren't saying they were satisfied with their sexual performance. Satisfied with the procedure could mean anything. Maybe they meant they were happy with how it looked, or the progress of their healing, or how the nurses treated them after recovery. Unless they're explicitly answering the question at hand, I'm not assuming it applies. (I'm also not saying it isn't the case. Simply that the answer does not address the question you are suggesting it does.)

We also have to look at who is getting the procedure done and why. Those who are circumcised because of mechanical physical issues are very likely to report enhanced pleasure, presumably because in many cases they would actually feel some discomfort during intercourse. Those getting it done because they feel different are also likely to experience more pleasure, because even men experience a psychological aspect to their sexuality ;). Edited January 8, 2010 by nmoira
typo

[nmoira]

I'm not saying this to completely discount the study you've quoted, but more to point out the benefit of critical analysis: Not all men, or their partners, would consider the above an improvement.

Oops. Missed this in my previous response.

 

I think this is an important point. From a mechanical point of view, the foreskin does indeed modulate (and thereby theoretically prolong) the sensation for the most sensitive part of the penis during intercourse; however, it also rich in nerve endings and is the source of a whole other set of sensations.

[Spy Car]

If you think that only circumcised men enjoy certain pleasures, then you are mistaken. Are you speaking anecdotally, based on a polling of your intact and circ'd friends or personal experience in both arenas? Or are there studies that back this up as well? (And I'd want to see studies that aren't just about female American partners who don't understand what a penis is naturally supposed to look like.)

 

I don't have time (or the inclination) to hunt them down at the moment but there are well established studies that circumcised males have more full sex lives than uncircumcised males. And hygiene issues are a factor.

 

I'd also yield to the point that American women may have a conditioning against the aesthetics of an uncircumcised penis that is a cultural or psychological judgement that could change, or isn't a problem in other cultures.

 

But....

 

As for SC's testimony, I am still assuming it refers to his own experience as a heterosexual male circumcised in infancy. In which case, he has no comparitive information to share and therefore no "proof" that circumcised men experience more pleasure than intact men.

 

I'm not making a claim that (all things being equal) that circumcised men get more pleasure. So studies suggest they do. So say it makes no statistical difference, and a few suggest they experience marginally less.

 

I'd call it a "wash" (no pun intended :tongue_smilie:).

 

What is clear is that circumcision is not a mutilation of the sexual organ that eliminates pleasure, which is the case with Female Genital Mutilation. So they DON"T COMPARE. And that was the whole point!

 

What I'm debating is the assertion that a circumcised man experiences *more* pleasure, and that the idea of increased sexual pleasure in adulthood is a reason to circumcise a baby.

 

We have no debate on this point as I agree 100%. I favor circumcision for the reason that it might save my child's life, or the life of his future spouse.

 

Bill

[MelanieM]

We also have to look at who is getting the procedure done and why. Those who are circumcised because of mechanical physical issues are very likely to report enhanced pleasure, presumably because in many cases they would actually feel some discomfort during intercourse. Those getting it done because they feel different are also likely to experience more pleasure, because even men experience a psychological aspect to their sexuality ;).

 

Exactly. Which goes to my earlier assertion that it is near impossible to do a study on this that is worth much of anything. Some men will have issues going in, others will have different expectations on what "improvement" means, different motivations, different expectations from partners, etc. So if controlled study means anything at all, then this is not really a matter that can be determined by scientific surveys. There are simply too many variables to account for, and too many subjective elements in the equation.

 

For what it's worth, my thoughts on this are not at all impacted by the results of the study; I don't buy it as relevant whatever side that evidence comes out on.

 

Now, the one thing that does make sense to me is that the sensation is going to be different based on whether the penis is intact or circumcised. That, I can believe. But better or worse? Too subjective to be comparative.

[fivetails]

Only around here could a thread that began about kids & homemade tattoos wind up as a discussion about the sex habits of circumcised men. :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

I had surgery for a pre-cancerous condition probably caused by HPV, and I still wouldn't have circumcised my sons. Husband (American) is in agreement.

 

Laura

 

See this makes no sense to me Laura.

 

First, a disclaimer. I simply adore you! I've read your posts for many years, both here and on TDJ, before I ever joined this forum. I delight in your humor and intelligence, and love the example you've set in raising Calvin and Hobbes, and think your husband has to be among the world's most fortunate men.

 

So why risk losing you (or any woman for that matter) to an HPV associated cancer? It is non-sensical. Not when there is a simple prophylactic procedure that significantly reduces transmission rates. No ma'am, it's a risk that is too great.

 

Bill

[nmoira]

So why risk losing you (or any woman for that matter) to an HPV associated cancer? It is non-sensical. Not when there is a simple prophylactic procedure that significantly reduces transmission rates. No ma'am, it's a risk that is too great.

Well, we could move to a reproductive scheme which relies solely on artificial insemination, using only semen that has been thoroughly screened by a lab. That would reduce the risk to virtually nothing.

 

I'll pass.

[CAMom]

I don't have time (or the inclination) to hunt them down at the moment but there are well established studies that circumcised males have more full sex lives than uncircumcised males. And hygiene issues are a factor.

 

I'd also yield to the point that American women may have a conditioning against the aesthetics of an uncircumcised penis that is a cultural or psychological judgement that could change, or isn't a problem in other cultures.

 

 

 

First, again...retract, rinse, replace. I don't get the hygiene issue. If a man is properly cleaning during his regular shower (and he could even freshen up a bit before bed ;)) what is the problem? Do women enjoy a less full sex life because of hygiene issues?:confused:

 

Second, I hate to break it to men but the penis is not necessarily attractive whether or not it's circumcised. When we decided not to circumcise our youngest my mil had a fit because his "penis would be ugly.":confused: So, his natural state is ugly?

[MelanieM]

What is clear is that circumcision is not a mutilation of the sexual organ that eliminates pleasure, which is the case with Female Genital Mutilation. So they DON"T COMPARE. And that was the whole point!

 

Aha! So that was your point? This is why that Internet communication thing is tricky...

 

I don't disagree that there are differences between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. My earlier point was merely that it is valid for people to refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation, based on the definition of "mutilate". I still stand by that point. That doesn't mean there are varying degrees of something, or that there are people who feel more or less upset by/okay with a scenario just because of outside views. The fact remains that there are circumcised men that are emotionally scarred by the act, and women that have undergone FGM who are in support of the practice.

 

Bottom line: all people have a right to their personal views and feelings on a subject. It is not my place to tell a man or woman that s/he's wrong to feel a particular way about an act that was imposed upon him/her. (To go back to your comment that the only men who are upset over being circumcised are "internet whackos being taken advantage of by the anti-circ crowd".)

 

Oh, and you really can't say definitively that male circumcision doesn't impact sexual pleasure. There are most certainly times when that occurs. Surely you can concede that point even if you only accept those times when a botched job is performed.

[Laura Corin]

See this makes no sense to me Laura.

 

First, a disclaimer. I simply adore you! I've read your posts for many years, both here and on TDJ, before I ever joined this forum. I delight in your humor and intelligence, and love the example you've set in raising Calvin and Hobbes, and think your husband has to be among the world's most fortunate men.

 

So why risk losing you (or any woman for that matter) to an HPV associated cancer? It is non-sensical. Not when there is a simple prophylactic procedure that significantly reduces transmission rates. No ma'am, it's a risk that is too great.

 

Bill

 

I see it this way: it was my own fool fault that I exposed myself to HPV. It could have happened with a circumcised man (for all I know it did). The only way that I could have been fairly sure to have avoided it would have been always to use condoms. In those pre-AIDS days, I didn't.

 

As soon as people started to be circumcised in Africa to reduce the risk of AIDS transmission, there were reports of people behaving as if they were immune. It's too easy for the leap to be made from 'reduced likelihood' to 'no possibility'. I'd like my sons (no, I'm not deciding for anyone else and their sons) to know that any time they have sex they could injure their partner through an STD, or (if straight) make her pregnant. The only way to go is abstinence or condom use. Meanwhile, their willies get to keep their mufflers.

 

Maybe it's a twisted kind of logic, but it's all mine.

 

Laura

[Spy Car]

Aha! So that was your point? This is why that Internet communication thing is tricky...

 

It's not that tricky :D

 

Here's my original post. I think it's in plain-English (and not difficult to follow).

 

Apples and Oranges.

 

So-called "female circumcision" is not "circumcision." It is a "Clitoridectomy" and is a barbaric act of genital mutilation aimed at removing a female's pleasure center.

 

"Female genital mutilation" bears nothing what-so-ever in common with the circumcision of boys, which is a sound procedure for promoting health and hygiene which benefits both males and their partners, and doesn't diminish sexual pleasure. Quite the opposite.

 

The two acts have nothing in common other than "female genital mutilation" sometimes being euphemistically referred to as "female circumcision."

 

 

I don't disagree that there are differences between female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

 

There aren't "differences", the two things are totally incomparable. As in not alike in any way, shape or form.

 

And it's dangerous for the female victims of barbarism to conflate the two, as it's also dangerous for males whose parents might be swayed by a totally invalid comparison.

 

My earlier point was merely that it is valid for people to refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation, based on the definition of "mutilate". I still stand by that point.

 

And I'll stand by a diametrically opposed position.

 

The fact remains that there are circumcised men that are emotionally scarred by the act, and women that have undergone FGM who are in support of the practice.

 

Utter nonsense. The evidence of a few mentally unstable individuals being exploited for their claims of "trauma" from circumcisions performed in he first days of life is an example of shameless exploitation of the mentally ill by zealots and simply lacks rationality. The appeals to emotion do scare parents (which is the goal) but what a shameful practice.

 

Oh, and you really can't say definitively that male circumcision doesn't impact sexual pleasure. There are most certainly times when that occurs. Surely you can concede that point even if you only accept those times when a botched job is performed.

 

All evidence point to the fact that it does not affect sexual pleasure (at least not negatively).

 

I concede the point that I would not want the procedure done by anyone but a person of the highest training and competence, with local anesthesia. As opposed to the way Female Genital Mutilations commonly occur, with no anesthesia by unlicensed non-physicians cutting off clitorises with razor blades (sorry for the bad imagery, but that's the reality).

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

You can split hairs all you want. But I don't think it unfair to suggest that telling people their sons will "benefit" from increased pleasure is not ever going to be used as a "reason". I feel that suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

 

and I disagree. Part of sound medical advisement must include all known side effects, both emotional as well as physiological. Several studies have shown that sexual satisfaction has been a factor.

 

 

and if we meander back to why this thread took the turn it did, was in comparing female circumcision to male. The sensation experience was put forth as an example. In fact, YOU said

 

I'll echo what Peek a Boo said regarding sensation. [pqr offered no lack of sensation, i mentioned some others testified opposite] That is the reason circumcision was widely introduced in the Western world in the first place. Also, there is no preventative medical reason to circumcise baby boys.

 

So SpyCar clarified the medical reasons [supported by many current studies] and also offered testimony as to any lack of sensation. Studies specifically instituted to research male sexual pleasure show either no difference, some increased pleasure, and some decreased pleasure. It's obviously not universal. [and I've read more abstracts at google scholar than I've linked].

 

 

Again, it was 23% of men saying they were satisfied with the procedure. Many of them hadn't even had intercourse at that point, so they weren't saying they were satisfied with their sexual performance. Satisfied with the procedure could mean anything. Maybe they meant they were happy with how it looked, or the progress of their healing, or how the nurses treated them after recovery. Unless they're explicitly answering the question at hand, I'm not assuming it applies. (I'm also not saying it isn't the case. Simply that the answer does not address the question you are suggesting it does.).

 

we'd have to read the full report to get the specific answers, but since 99% of the 479 subjects were satisfied, even after 23% had sex following the procedure, That means that over 100 men who had sexual experience before and after adult circumcision were satisfied with the procedure. To suggest that sexual satisfaction is excluded is quite a leap when sex is explicitly mentioned.

 

the text doesn't reveal what "satisfied" entailed, but an email to them might be interesting. it does say that

 

In all, 321 men had assessments at ≈ 90 days from surgery, when 65% reported having resumed sexual intercourse, and 54% of their sex partners had expressed an opinion about the procedure. Of these partners, 95% were very satisfied with the outcome, 4% were somewhat satisfied and 2% were somewhat dissatisfied. None was very dissatisfied.

 

it also clarifies that men who had medical reasons for circumcision were not included as part of this study.

 

[/b][/color][/i]I'm not saying this to completely discount the study you've quoted, but more to point out the benefit of critical analysis: Not all men, or their partners, would consider the above an improvement..

except THAT study was specifically about function and pleasure.

 

and there are more out there. ;)

 

here's an article by someone who's spent more time crtically analyzing these articles than i have: he discusses quite a few of them, in fact:

 

http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/~brianm/MorrisSkepticCirc07.pdf

 

 

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be snarky. I think it reasonable enough that different people can analysis a study and come to different conclusions on what the results imply.

 

the snark is simply that I fail to see how someone could eliminate sexual satisfaction as an aspect to a study where a sexually active man has an incredibly sensitive part of his penis removed and says he's SATISFIED.

 

we can come to different conclusions about what a man may or may not define as "satisfied" but after looking at study after study on journalistic reports about male sexual satisfaction after being circumcised as an adult, it's a no-brainer that some men DO experience increased sexual satisfaction, some DO experience no difference, and some DO experience loss of satisfaction. To lay a blanket statement on either extreme is flat out wrong.

[Peek a Boo]

First, again...retract, rinse, replace. I don't get the hygiene issue. If a man is properly cleaning during his regular shower (and he could even freshen up a bit before bed ;)) what is the problem? Do women enjoy a less full sex life because of hygiene issues?:confused:

 

 

"hygiene" is practiced differently around the world for various reasons. Many times it's lack of water, period. Note that many of the studies cited are dealing with places where people aren't sweetly snuggling into bed each night after a hot relaxing shower.....

[Slartibartfast]

I don't have time (or the inclination) to hunt them down at the moment but there are well established studies that circumcised males have more full sex lives than uncircumcised males. And hygiene issues are a factor.

 

I'd also yield to the point that American women may have a conditioning against the aesthetics of an uncircumcised penis that is a cultural or psychological judgement that could change, or isn't a problem in other cultures.

 

But....

 

 

 

I'm not making a claim that (all things being equal) that circumcised men get more pleasure. So studies suggest they do. So say it makes no statistical difference, and a few suggest they experience marginally less.

 

I'd call it a "wash" (no pun intended :tongue_smilie:).

 

What is clear is that circumcision is not a mutilation of the sexual organ that eliminates pleasure, which is the case with Female Genital Mutilation. So they DON"T COMPARE. And that was the whole point!

 

 

 

We have no debate on this point as I agree 100%. I favor circumcision for the reason that it might save my child's life, or the life of his future spouse.

 

Bill

 

 

Again,

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

 

As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to

discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine

circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision

to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.

 

http://www.icgi.org/information/medicalization/

 

Positions of various world health organizations

http://www.nocirc.org/position/

 

 

The American Cancer Society doesn't feel it is a valid reason to circumcise.

 

There are risks that are involved. It isn't a complication free magic procedure. Not a single medical organization has stated that the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

I am against non-medical/non-religious circumcision because it could lead to sexual harm, extreme trauma and pain in an infant and even death.

 

http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/3/216

Edited January 8, 2010 by Sis

[Peek a Boo]

It's not that tricky :D

 

Here's my original post. I think it's in plain-English (and not difficult to follow).

 

 

yeah, me too, but then again,I've been on these boards quite some time. ;)

 

i'm just glad communication is getting better! sometimes it takes some fumbling....

 

Utter nonsense. The evidence of a few mentally unstable individuals being exploited for their claims of "trauma" from circumcisions performed in he first days of life is an example of shameless exploitation of the mentally ill by zealots and simply lacks rationality. The appeals to emotion do scare parents (which is the goal) but what a shameful practice.

 

All evidence point to the fact that it does not affect sexual pleasure (at least not negatively).

 

 

 

i gotta stand by M on this one-- [i think i'm getting dizzy,lol]. There IS evidence that points to affecting sexual pleasure [all ways,as indicated inmy post above]. But as I mentioned from the get-go, blanket statements about subjective feelings start leaving one looking somewhat uninformed..... ;)

[MelanieM]

 

and if we meander back to why this thread took the turn it did, was in comparing female circumcision to male. The sensation experience was put forth as an example. In fact, YOU said

 

I'll echo what Peek a Boo said regarding sensation. [pqr offered no lack of sensation, i mentioned some others testified opposite] That is the reason circumcision was widely introduced in the Western world in the first place. Also, there is no preventative medical reason to circumcise baby boys.

 

 

 

This was in response to a comment that sensation wasn't a reason to perform circumcision, I believe? (I can't face going back to read through this whole thread again!) And yes, I said that the reason it was originally started was due to matters of sensation; it was intended to lower sensation and therefore discourage "deviant" sexual behaviour. My only point was that physical sensation -- increased or decreased -- has been a factor in the decision to circumcise. Which goes back to my more recent comment that suggesting it is not used as a reason isn't really correct.

 

To suggest that sexual satisfaction is excluded is quite a leap when sex is explicitly mentioned.

 

 

I don't mean to suggest that it isn't ever about sexual satisfaction. I'm simply saying that it isn't stated clearly enough for me to draw a conclusion that x % of men find sexual satisfaction increases after circumcision.

 

the snark is simply that I fail to see how someone could eliminate sexual satisfaction as an aspect to a study where a sexually active man has an incredibly sensitive part of his penis removed and says he's SATISFIED.

 

 

Again, I'm not saying the aspect should be eliminated. I'm simply saying there are too many variables for it to *prove* to me that there is a standard result that men should expect from the procedure. That's all.

 

we can come to different conclusions about what a man may or may not define as "satisfied" but after looking at study after study on journalistic reports about male sexual satisfaction after being circumcised as an adult, it's a no-brainer that some men DO experience increased sexual satisfaction, some DO experience no difference, and some DO experience loss of satisfaction. To lay a blanket statement on either extreme is flat out wrong.

 

Yes, I agree with this. I don't think a blanket statement can be made. I have been reading Bill's comments to suggest there is one to be found here, and I disagree. That's really my whole point on this front. (And actually, I was reading your posts providing studies as an attempt to help him make that point.)

[CAMom]

"hygiene" is practiced differently around the world for various reasons. Many times it's lack of water, period. Note that many of the studies cited are dealing with places where people aren't sweetly snuggling into bed each night after a hot relaxing shower.....

 

So, even more of a percentage of the world's women have a hygiene problem? I would argue that it's much harder to keep a woman's anatomy clean than that of an uncircumcised male.

[Impish]

Many, many years ago, Wolf dated and was seriously considering proposing to a woman from Ethiopia. She had had so-called female circumcision.

 

It was when she told him that if they ever had a daughter, she would take the child to Ethiopia to have the same procedure done that he broke up with her. No way was he going to risk his daughter being brutalized like that.

 

 

When Tazzie was born, I left the question of circumcision up to Wolf...figured he had a penis, he should get the vote on this one.

 

Tazzie is circ'd.

[BeachGirl]

If my dd had come home from her dad's house with a tattoo, I would have gone ballistic. Then again, I would hold him down and tattoo "MORON" on his forehead. At least then he would have a warning label!

[IsabelC]

Where's the smiley for sitting and reading and having a hot drink? Can't find it. Ah well I'll have to have :lurk5: instead.

[TravelingChris]

We don't have tattoos, don't have piercings, and did have our son circumscribed. THis was 20 years ago and it was the thing to do. After that, we had girls. Then I started reading reports about penile cancer, HPV transmission, etc. and was quite happy we had it done. Then a few years ago, my FIL had prostate cancer. Somehow this necissitated him having a circumsion at age 84. That was the worst part of the prostate cancer for him since it wasn't healing well. At that point, I was so happy that both my dh and my ds had had it done at birth. What a horrible thing to go through along with cancer surgery.

 

My dd's and I don't have piercings and can't have them. Both older dd and I are keloid formers and having pierced ears would just mean we would get scars. Then younger dd has eczema and that is a no no too. I watched my younger sister deal with pierced ears and eczema and that wasn't a pretty sight.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Aha! So that was your point? This is why that Internet communication thing is tricky...

 

I don't disagree that there are differences between female genital mutilation and male circumcision. My earlier point was merely that it is valid for people to refer to male circumcision as genital mutilation, based on the definition of "mutilate". I still stand by that point. That doesn't mean there are varying degrees of something, or that there are people who feel more or less upset by/okay with a scenario just because of outside views. The fact remains that there are circumcised men that are emotionally scarred by the act, and women that have undergone FGM who are in support of the practice.

 

Bottom line: all people have a right to their personal views and feelings on a subject. It is not my place to tell a man or woman that s/he's wrong to feel a particular way about an act that was imposed upon him/her. (To go back to your comment that the only men who are upset over being circumcised are "internet whackos being taken advantage of by the anti-circ crowd".)

 

Oh, and you really can't say definitively that male circumcision doesn't impact sexual pleasure. There are most certainly times when that occurs. Surely you can concede that point even if you only accept those times when a botched job is performed.

 

I think that female genital mutilation should not be compared to male circumcision at all IMHO. FGM is the equivalent of cutting off a man's penis (am I allowed to say that here;)) whereas male circumcision is the removal of some skin. FGM definitely takes away pleasure for a woman and is barbaric IMO.

 

OTOH, I also struggled a bit and cried when I agreed to my own son's circumcision. I let my dh decide on the matter since he is a man. I was conflicted about it since the uncircumcised state is definitely the natural state and I have trouble thinking that God created something that should not be so to speak:) I was also concerned about any potential accidents which thankfully did not happen.

[Renee in NC]

See this makes no sense to me Laura.

 

First, a disclaimer. I simply adore you! I've read your posts for many years, both here and on TDJ, before I ever joined this forum. I delight in your humor and intelligence, and love the example you've set in raising Calvin and Hobbes, and think your husband has to be among the world's most fortunate men.

 

So why risk losing you (or any woman for that matter) to an HPV associated cancer? It is non-sensical. Not when there is a simple prophylactic procedure that significantly reduces transmission rates. No ma'am, it's a risk that is too great.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I don't understand. In our country, so many women have HPV that we have decided that a vaccine is needed. However, most men in this country *are* circumcised. So, how does this work? It seems if circumcision would really reduce the rates of HPV, then we wouldn't have much HPV here, correct?

 

Are the rates of HPV higher in the UK where most men are *not* circumcised?

[LibraryLover]

Retract, rinse, replace...simple.:D

 

 

 

Which is why the Victorians loved circ so much. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

So, even more of a percentage of the world's women have a hygiene problem? I would argue that it's much harder to keep a woman's anatomy clean than that of an uncircumcised male.

 

I haven't seen any studies about issues of cleanliness w/women vs men in less-than-ideal conditions, but it's my understanding that women in general tend to take better care of themselves [wrt hygiene] than men. Men in present company excepted of course. ;):D

 

There's also the factor that if the foreskin is a hygiene issue in men wrt living conditions [war/ poverty/ lack of water/etc], it is fairly simple [medically speaking] to remove the foreskin. Women don't have that same "fix".

 

But it's also my understanding that this whole thread was more about a parent's right to decide how to mutilate/add to their child's body, so ear piercings [purely cosmetic], male circumcision [religious, cosmetic, health benefits], and female circumcision [religious/cultural] were all discussed in that light. Nobody is saying that male circumcisions should be routine, it is simply about discussing what is well within a parent's choice that does not fall under *abuse*.

 

I do think it would serve everyone [if you haven't already] to read up on female circumcision [female genital cutting/ mutilation/ infibulation].

[Peek a Boo]

Bill, I don't understand. In our country, so many women have HPV that we have decided that a vaccine is needed. However, most men in this country *are* circumcised. So, how does this work? It seems if circumcision would really reduce the rates of HPV, then we wouldn't have much HPV here, correct?

 

Are the rates of HPV higher in the UK where most men are *not* circumcised?

 

yes,the rates appear to be higher, but circumcision isn't given as the primary reason, altho it certainly could be a contributing factor.

 

In the United States, it is only the 8th most common cancer of women. In 1998, about 12,800 women were diagnosed in the US and about 4,800 died.[8] Among gynecological cancers it ranks behind endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. The incidence and mortality in the US are about half those for the rest of the world, which is due in part to the success of screening with the Pap smear.[8] The incidence of new cases of cervical cancer in the United States was 7 per 100,000 women in 2004.[70]

 

In the United Kingdom, the incidence is 9.1/100,000 per year (2005), similar to the rest of Northern Europe, and mortality is 3.1/100,000 per year (2006) (Cancer Research UK Cervical cancer statistics for the UK)[71]. With a 42% reduction from 1988-1997 the NHS implemented screening programme has been highly successful, screening the highest risk age group (25–49 years) every 3 years, and those ages 50–64 every 5 years.

 

eta: that's just wiki. needs double checking, of course. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

If my dd had come home from her dad's house with a tattoo, I would have gone ballistic. Then again, I would hold him down and tattoo "MORON" on his forehead. At least then he would have a warning label!

 

:thumbup1::thumbup::cheers2::hurray:

[Renee in NC]

yes,the rates appear to be higher, but circumcision isn't given as the primary reason, altho it certainly could be a contributing factor.

 

In the United States, it is only the 8th most common cancer of women. In 1998, about 12,800 women were diagnosed in the US and about 4,800 died.[8] Among gynecological cancers it ranks behind endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. The incidence and mortality in the US are about half those for the rest of the world, which is due in part to the success of screening with the Pap smear.[8] The incidence of new cases of cervical cancer in the United States was 7 per 100,000 women in 2004.[70]

 

In the United Kingdom, the incidence is 9.1/100,000 per year (2005), similar to the rest of Northern Europe, and mortality is 3.1/100,000 per year (2006) (Cancer Research UK Cervical cancer statistics for the UK)[71]. With a 42% reduction from 1988-1997 the NHS implemented screening programme has been highly successful, screening the highest risk age group (25–49 years) every 3 years, and those ages 50–64 every 5 years.

 

eta: that's just wiki. needs double checking, of course. ;)

 

Screening is done in the US (for most people in the high risk group) every year. That alone would allow our rates of cervical cancer to be less, because "pre-cancerous" cells are found and subsequently removed much sooner than if we were only screened every 3 years. Even so, I am surprised that the difference in rates is so low considering the difference in screeening is so big.

 

This talks about cervical cancer rates, though, not HPV infection rates. That was what I was asking about, because the idea is that circumcision will reduce the number of HPV infections and therefore reduce cervical cancer rates even further.

[Peek a Boo]

This talks about cervical cancer rates, though, not HPV infection rates. That was what I was asking about, because the idea is that circumcision will reduce the number of HPV infections and therefore reduce cervical cancer rates even further.

 

yeah. it's tougher finding cut n dried statistics on it. but it's a start. ;)

[Mabelen]

Sorry to say it, but wait until adolescence. Then the glads start producing smegma. And it's a big issue for the uncircumcised.

 

Bill

 

I don't have any data, but if this were such a big problem as you make it, why haven't I heard about this? I mean, I lived in my country of birth for 24 years (where males are not circumcised), lived in another European country for another 11 (where males are not circumcised), and have been married to my dh, who is yet from a third country and different continent/religion (where males are not circumcised) for 18 years? And yes, I agree that there are some cases where circumcision is required for medical reasons, and I have met men from these countries that were circumcised for particular medical reasons, but they were a minority.

[Carmen_and_Company]

Maybe everyone they know has tattoos.

 

I had my ears pierced when I was a child, and I never wear earrings. If it were not done, I would not have had them done.

 

Ditto, and my 12.8 yo dd has no desire to have her ears pierced. I feel to pierce earlobes or not is a choice dd can make as a legal adult, as it's her body, not mine. And, we're a non-tatooing family, it just is not acceptable for religious reasons.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't have any data, but if this were such a big problem as you make it, why haven't I heard about this? I mean, I lived in my country of birth for 24 years (where males are not circumcised), lived in another European country for another 11 (where males are not circumcised), and have been married to my dh, who is yet from a third country and different continent/religion (where males are not circumcised) for 18 years? And yes, I agree that there are some cases where circumcision is required for medical reasons, and I have met men from these countries that were circumcised for particular medical reasons, but they were a minority.

 

 

because it's not a popular topic for the evening news or dinner chit chat. ;)

 

frankly, most people are ill-informed of the hygiene habits of others, period. It's not usually offered or volunteered as a "hey, here's a bit of trivia for ya" or "guess what I had to clean out today?"

 

But there ARE many researchers who have taken the time and effort to compile data and delve into reasons. Not everyone can know everything, even if we've lived in specific places for a Very Long Time.

[MelanieM]

because it's not a popular topic for the evening news or dinner chit chat. ;)

 

frankly, most people are ill-informed of the hygiene habits of others, period. It's not usually offered or volunteered as a "hey, here's a bit of trivia for ya" or "guess what I had to clean out today?"

 

Seriously? You think that 80-85% of the world's male population has a hygiene problem, and all the women in their lives (mothers, wives, sisters...) don't know about it because no one wants to talk about it?

 

Women here are saying that the intact boys and men in their lives do not have hygiene issues, and the response is that we just don't know about it because it's a taboo subject. Er... ok. Surely you can see how silly this seems?

[nmoira]

 

Women here are saying that the intact boys and men in their lives do not have hygiene issues, and the response is that we just don't know about it because it's a taboo subject. Er... ok. Surely you can see how silly this seems?

I think I would have noticed if the intact man in my life had hygiene problems. Is it also taboo to say he doesn't? :D

[Peek a Boo]

Seriously? You think that 80-85% of the world's male population has a hygiene problem, and all the women in their lives (mothers, wives, sisters...) don't know about it because no one wants to talk about it?

 

Women here are saying that the intact boys and men in their lives do not have hygiene issues, and the response is that we just don't know about it because it's a taboo subject. Er... ok. Surely you can see how silly this seems?

 

no-- what I'm saying is that we are very often unaware of the extent to which even our spouses --much less the neighbor men-- go to keep oneself clean. And that applies to men AND women.

 

You think it's NORMAL to know the intimate hygiene habits of the people around you??

retract- rinse-repeat may sound great, but there are some people for whom that needs to be done on a more frequent basis or requires a little bit extra help to keep it from getting too bad. I mean, holy cow: just the differences in the flow of a woman's period can swing so wildly from woman to woman that most men aren't aware of the steps women take to stay clean and keep from making a mess. And that's not taking into account "regular" cleaning. Do you really think that women are the only ones w/ differences in bodily excretions? really??

 

The fact that it IS a much bigger hygiene issue in many parts of the world is not a hidden blurb: it's an outright concern that is being addressed on a fairly large scale for such a sensitive topic.

 

and a heads up: the bulk of the people in the world are NOT living in cute apartments with wonderful water supplies and stores down the street. So the "men in a person's life" aren't the issue: it's the billion OTHER men out there that have opinions and issues with basic hygiene too.

 

WHO says:

Around 1.1 billion people globally do not have access to improved water supply sources whereas 2.4 billion people do not have access to any type of improved sanitation facility. About 2 million people die every year due to diarrhoeal diseases, most of them are children less than 5 years of age. The most affected are the populations in developing countries, living in extreme conditions of poverty, normally peri-urban dwellers or rural inhabitants. Among the main problems which are responsible for this situation are: lack of priority given to the sector, lack of financial resources, lack of sustainability of water supply and sanitation services, poor hygiene behaviours, and inadequate sanitation in public places including hospitals, health centres and schools. Providing access to sufficient quantities of safe water, the provision of facilities for a sanitary disposal of excreta, and introducing sound hygiene behaviours are of capital importance to reduce the burden of disease caused by these risk factors.

 

80-85%? nah. Just a few million.

[keptwoman]

Seriously? You think that 80-85% of the world's male population has a hygiene problem, and all the women in their lives (mothers, wives, sisters...) don't know about it because no one wants to talk about it?

 

Women here are saying that the intact boys and men in their lives do not have hygiene issues, and the response is that we just don't know about it because it's a taboo subject. Er... ok. Surely you can see how silly this seems?

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing. I don't find circs or penile issues a sensitive topic and it was discussed from time to time at playgroup and mothers groups. I do know of one child who had a circ, but most of them get to keep their foreskins. I attach the idea of cutting it off to save problems the same status as cutting off the breasts to avoid breast cancer (unless you have a strong family history, that's something quite different and I know some do it)

I also have always lived in a country where intact is the norm, I have a BIL who deeply resents being cut and he is not a

. The evidence of a few mentally unstable individuals being exploited for their claims of "trauma" from circumcisions performed in he first days of life

 

Bill

he is not being exploited, he's certainly not mentally ill and he seldom says anything to anyone but it's something that came up over the dinner table one night when they were staying with us. You can be certain his boys are intact.

 

My husband is very grateful the doc changed his advice to MIL between the two boys. I'm glad that it wasn't even something that even crossed our minds at the time our sons were born, in fact it wasn't until I was preg with DD and joined a US baby board that I realised that some places still did it.

 

And I find it ironic that the hygiene practices (or lack thereof) in third world countries are being used as a reason to do it in first world countries.

 

Bill, smegma is produced from well before adolesence, babies still in nappies have it.

Edited January 10, 2010 by keptwoman

[freerange]

yeah. it's tougher finding cut n dried statistics on it. but it's a start. ;)

UK Rate - 20.7%

http://www.nhs.uk/News/2007/September/Pages/HPVinfection.aspx

 

US rate - 26.8%

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813

[Laura Corin]

I think I would have noticed if the intact man in my life had hygiene problems. Is it also taboo to say he doesn't? :D

 

In my experience of intact men, I've never encountered a problem. Goodness, what kind of a woman does that make me sound like!

 

Laura (with husband for 21 years now)