4 absolutely true pro-circumcision facts you won't see on A2A.1. Circumcised males are 1/4 as likely as uncircumcised males to contract HIV/Aids from heterosexual intercourse.2. Circumcised males are much, much less likely to contract or spread HPV, the virus that caused genital warts, and cervical cancer in women.3. All the scientifically valid studies ever done say sexual stimulation and pleasure is the same cut or uncut.4. Circumcision prevents penis cancer, though its rare anyway.and the bonus fact is: circumcision improves and eases genital cleanliness.
-
4 absolutely true, pro-circumcision facts
-
Are you a pro-circumcision activist?> Circumcision prevents penis cancer, though its rare anyway.The rate of surgical complications from circumcision is greater than the rate of penile cancer.> All the scientifically valid studies ever done say sexual stimulation and pleasure is the same cut or uncut.And where might one find these studies? For reasons I'm sure you read about here and elsewhere, that defies reason (loss of structures and nerves in foreskin, drying of the mucous membranes, etc.).
-
The only thing I'm gonna say is: Its a natural state to be uncircumsised, is this a design flaw by nature? Or an outdated device to keep dirt etc out of the penis when at one time we were running around naked chasing woolly mamouths?I'm uncut btw, and can't ever imagine being cut, just my opinion though.
-
No, I'm not a procircumcision activist. I'm even tryin to keep my bro from possibly getting circumcised before he's alot older. I'm happy you're happy being uncut. I respect your argument that it's natural. I wish you would respect that I'm happy I got cut and that I don't agree that everything natural is the best.What I am is a little pissed off by the some of the scare tactics used that kept me from going forward with circumcision after I'd totally made up my mind. I now know quite a few guys who are wanting to get cut for medical or cosmetic reasons, but they are afraid of some of the bs they've been fed. I also resent the advice given here to young males suffering with phimosis and other foreskin problems. They're told to stretch, stretch, stretch and not seek medical help because the doctor will force circumcision on them, which I don't even think happens anymore. From the guys I hear from, it's not that easy to get circumcised even with a medical problem these days. But they're scared so they just live with the problem.
-
I'm happy you're happy being uncut.I am circumcised. I had no say in the matter.When you say "activist, I assume you're talking about korydon, and maybe to some extent, me. I do not have much expretise is penile issues, so I defer medical advice to folks like focus, sdp, Ineligible, korydon, and others. korydon really is an activist, and he knows a lot about tight foreskins and such. I agree with most of what he says, but I also think that some of his rhetoric alienates people who might have an open mind. But there are a lot of American doctors whose solution to a tight foreskin is automatically circumcision.I don't recall anyone here telling anyone else not to see a doctor if they have an infection. The fact is that a tight foreskin can often be stretched. If there are problems beyond that, then clearly a visit to the doctor is in order.My big issue is forcing circumcision on infants. If a guy wants to have it done when he's old enough to make an informed decision, so be it.The issue of whether circumcision diminishes pleasure was the subject of discussion here a couple of months ago, so if you have info on scientific studies on the issue, please post it.
-
I agree with some of your points SteveHowever I am cut and I am VERY thankful my parents had me circumcised.When I have children, if I have boys, they will also be circumcised. It's just more sanitary and well cosmetically I think it looks better as well.As for sensativity I can give you personal experience on this. Like I said I am cut and I am extremely sensative, as I talked about in a thread I started under the male genitalia section. On the other side of things I have a friend who is uncut and he said he has problems with not being sensative enough. I personally feel when it comes to sensativity it's an individual thing and not so much a circumcised or uncircumcised thing.
-
It's funny, in one of my Nursing classes, we actually did a presentation on circumcision. So let me just say that you won't be able to find studies to back up any of your claims (or you might, but there will be just as many that disagree).The first two things are interesting because well, I would ahve to say that circumcision is the worst form of prophylactic against those diseases. You want to not get disease, don't remove part of your body. Abstain or use a condom. let's face it, if I cut off my whole dick I'd cut the chances of getting HIV or HPV to zero.All the scientifically valid studies say that sexual pleasure is no different? Name one. And the reputable journal that it was printed in. This isn't a highly researched topic due to the difficulties involved of finding subjects willing to be tested before and after circumcision on the subject of sexual pleasure. However, every study I've seen on the subject (using MEDline and CINAHL as primary search engines) states the same thing, a minor loss of sensation resulting in it taking longer from the point of penetration to the point of ejaculation (one of the papers, an American one, actually tried to present that as a feature instead of a bug).Circumcision in no way or form prevents penile cancer. Please never ever say that again. People who are circumcised also get penile cancer. The rates of penile cancer are higher in those who are intact. However, it is extremely rare in both cases. Plus, I don't think that mutilation of one's body is an effective method of fighting potential cancer. Otherwise we'd be giving all women masectomys at birth wouldn't we?And that last one? Oh boy. Thanks for propagating a huge stereotype. I have never ever had anyone complain about my cleanliness. Never. Ever.The truth is, outside of the US and Muslim countries and Israel, most men are intact. Circumcision isn't normal. And the facts you list are really only things people in the US believe (because all the other places in the world do it for religious reasons).
-
Some of these "facts" were talked about on my local news the other night...a long study had just been completed on it. I can't remember the name of the study...I'll have to look it up.
-
I don't agree with anything you said after the first sentence.
In reply to:
When I have children, if I have boys, they will also be circumcised. It's just more sanitary and well cosmetically I think it looks better as well.
This is very sad. Cosmetically? I hope you realize you think that because of your acculturation. The "sanitary" issue is a red herring. Ask most men (i.e., most of the world) how difficult it is to maintain an intact penis. It's not difficult. Cleaning takes a moment.
In reply to:
As for sensativity I can give you personal experience on this. Like I said I am cut and I am extremely sensative....I have a friend who is uncut and he said he has problems with not being sensative enough.
Your personal experience is a completely worthless contribution to the discussion. Ditto for your uncircumcised friend. You will never know how different your sensitivity would have been had you not been curcumcised. And your friend doesn't know how much worse his insensitivity might be if he were circumcised.
Your anecdotal evidence is worse than useless, because it leads to baseless conclusions.
In reply to:
when it comes to sensativity it's an individual thing and not so much a circumcised or uncircumcised thing.
You are drawing a baseless conclusion from a literal truth. It's true that sensitivity varies, but there's evidence that circumcision itself diminishes sensitivity. Think about it: It's intolerable for most men who are uncircumcised to walk around (with clothes on) with their foreskin retracted. Not true for circumcised men.
-
I'm not going to debate or argue this point. I'll simply say that my uncut penis is sanitary and clean because I keep it that way. And cosmetically...who gives a * what it looks like, it works and brings me pleasure and that is all that matters.
-
I have no problem with circumcision, if that is what YOU want. It should be your choice, based on an informed decision.
What I do have a problem with are:
1 - Parents who circumcise their baby boys without thinking because of what they think is best, and for "aesthetic" reasons. It's not their penis, and there's nothing wrong with an intact penis, so there's no reason for them to remove the foreskin. They think it looks better? How do they know what their son would prefer when he grows up? Maybe he thinks uncut looks better? Bottom line is, it should be the boy's choice if he wants to get circumcised later. It's his penis, he should choose. Once you're circumcised, you lose that choice forever. And being circumcised as a baby, you never get that choice. Just wrong, IMO.
2 - People who get circumcised without making an informed decision. Guys who dont have a clue of what the foreskin is made of, how it works, what its benefits and drawbacks are, etc., and just go out and get cut because some moron made fun of them once for being uncut. Guys who do that almost always regret getting circumcised.
But if you do all the research, and you know exactly what the pros and cons are, and you still want to get circumcised, and that's what makes you happy, then go for it!
-
To me and i think to most other people, anyone who constantly cites "information" from sites like CIRP, NOCIRC, NORM etc, is an activist because those are biased, activist sites with an extreme anticircumcision agenda. It would be more honest to direct people to mainstream sources like webmd, medline, ama.The evidence for circumcision's protection from HIV/AIDS is growing everyday. Just on Friday there was a story or reuters about how a study in Africa was halted because the protective effect of circumcision was so great (70%, twice the hoped for effect of an HIV vaccine) that it would be unethical to continue to subject the uncut test group to the additional risk of infection.I found the sensitivity study by googling "circumcision senstivity study"--there were 2--1 in 2003 and a better one in 2005. I don't want to post links because I don't necessarily want to direct people to pro-circumcision websites.
-
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/yahoo_health6.htm :In reply to: In the current investigation, Melman's team evaluated the penile sensitivity among 43 uncircumcised men and 36 circumcised men through a variety of methods, including vibration, pressure, spatial perception and warm and cold thermal thresholds.The study was done by a group of uroligists, which immediately raises a flag. Part of their livelihood comes from performing circumcisions, so they have an underlying bias which may have affected the way they constructed the experiment. And I'm not sure how their metrics relate to sexual feelings.That study is highly suspect.I'd like to see a well-construted study of a large number of men, performed by a more objective group. Unfortunately, I doubt that many folks who aren't urologists would be that interested in performing an expensive study on circumcision.
-
Here is a quote from the article:" For every 10 uncircumcised men who contracted HIV, about three circumcised men contracted the virus, according to two unnamed people familiar with the research and a draft of the study."Two unnamed people "familiar" with the research and a "draft" of the study? Am I the only one who find the reliability of this article conclusion suspect? That's kind of like: well, I heard from someone that someone else said so and so. I would definitely like to see the details, methodology, and statistics of that study. There have been many similar studies in the past about this, and they have all been inconclusive. Even if it were true, I don't see how circumcision would solve the HIV problem, and in fact could make it worse by giving people a false sense of security causing them to be less likely to use protection while having sex. Using circumcision as a solution to prevent passing HIV is like saying removing the entire penis virtually guarantees the prevention of transmitting the HIV virus. True, but is that the right solution? I don't think so. The reality is, people need to practice safe sex and use protection to prevent the spread of HIV. Circumcision isn't a substitute - its not even close.
-
I have a question for you guys. Since you know your circumcised would you still have unprotected sex with a girl who had HIV since you knew circumcised men had a lesser chance of getting it?
-
Ypu would never known they had it most likely!
-
It wasn't a stupid question, it was a rhetorical question. For the rhetorically impaired, he was saying, "OK, so you have a reduced chance of contracting AIDS if you're circumcised. So what? You still wouldn't have unprotected sex with someone you didn't know, or knew to be infected."Think before typing the word "stupid".
-
No, it was a stupid follow-up.
-
No, of course you would never have unprotected sex with someone who you knew is HIV+. But the protective effect of circumcision is still important because guys don't always take the precautions they should and because people lie about or don't know about their status. An uncut guy has 4 times as much chance of having a sexual mistake like that turn into HIV/AIDS.
-
SteveA, this is in response to your insightful "bash" to my post. Have you talked to many medical professionals when it comes to cosmetically and cleanliness when it comes to uncut penises? I am guessing you have not. Though I agree it's not a difficult practice to learn how to clean properly, many people do not take the time or learn the proper cleaning rituals and end up developing infections that can end up pretty severe. As for when I stated it looks better, YES that is MY opinion, as we are all allowed to have.Secondly, As for my personal experience being worthless... and you think your personal experiences are full of worth... my personal experience does give weight to the topic because I am cut and I have issues with extreme sensitivity as well. As for my friend who is uncut, gives me evidence that not all men who are uncut are extremely sensitive. Come now Steve read between the lines, I'd hate to have to point out all the obvious details for you.Thirdly, to my "baseless" conclusions about sensitivity are no more baseless than your conclusions that getting circumcised diminished sensitivity. Because something is being studied does not make it fact. They are/have done studies on sensitivity being hereditary.. does that make that a fact too?Try not to take everything so personal and actually look at where another person is coming from before you make a post trying to belittle that person.