BF2S Forums What do you think of circumscission?

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

It doesn't and I am living proof of it.  If you want I can go home and dig up the literature from the hospital (if i've still got it) that says it can reduce sensation but it can increase it or it may stay the same.  For once, I'm talking about a subject I have first hand experience of but if you don't want to believe me the fine but at least speak truthfully because I cannot beleive any serious medical website would say it defintely reduces sensation. 

Have it done, and then you may be able to debate with me but until then you're just a guy scouring the internet for websites that support your argument with no life experience.

Then why don't you actually bother to read some of the links I've posted. If you don't think medical universities, the BMJ and the AMA are "serious medical websites", then I don't really know what more I can say.

Your experience is especially irrelevant as it does not definitely lessen sensation, but decreased sensation is almost universal. Perhaps you are one of the lucky few.

Reading your links would be like going to space and then coming home and looking up what it's like to go to space.  And you may have read a few websites but how mucg reading do you think I did before I went in to have it done?

As I said before, you believe what you want but if some men do suffer less sensation then they'll be a bigger hit with the ladies than you as they'll be able to bang away all night long. 

I advise you to send this information to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford because obviously they are lying to all their patients....

P.S Watch any porno and tell me those guys (not that I concentrate that hard on them) have less sensation...

Stingray24 wrote:

PS Good luck getting a woman to suck on an uncircumsised one.  When the subject comes up EVERY woman says they'd prefer circumcised for exactly that reason.

HealthDay news: Friday, Feb. 23, 2007 (HealthDay News) -- Getting circumcised may reduce men's risk of acquiring HIV, according to a study conducted in Africa.

<sub>"Our study shows that circumcised men had 53 percent fewer HIV infections than uncircumcised men," lead study author Robert Bailey, professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), said in a prepared statement.

For the study, which is published in the Feb. 24 issue of The Lancet, researchers followed a group of 2,784 HIV-negative, uncircumcised men aged 18-24 years for two years.

The men were living in Kisumu, Kenya, where an estimated 26 percent of uncircumcised men are infected with HIV by age 25. Most of the men were Luo, a group that does not traditionally practice circumcision.

The researchers assigned half of the men to voluntary circumcision, and the other half remained uncircumcised during the study.

All of the participants received free HIV testing and counseling, medical care, tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, condoms and behavioral risk counseling during periodic assessments throughout the study.

Forty-seven of the 1,391 uncircumcised men contracted HIV during the two-year study, compared with 22 of the 1,393 circumcised men.

The risks associated with circumcision were minimal, the researchers said. According to Bailey, 1.7 percent of the circumcision surgeries were associated with minor complications (e.g., bleeding, mild infection), and there were no severe adverse effects.

Bailey cautioned that there could be a downside to this approach: that circumcised men may feel like they are protected from HIV and may be therefore more likely to engage in risky behavior.

"Circumcision is by no means a natural condom," said Bailey.

But the researchers are hopeful that, when integrated with other prevention and reproductive health services, circumcision may be able to help prevent the spread of HIV.

"This is really the first good news we've had in quite a long time. If we can reduce the risk of infection by such a substantial amount, then we can save a lot of lives," said Bailey.</sub>

From the Mayo Clinic
Opinions are mixed, but...

For some parents, circumcision is a religious ritual. It can also be a matter of family tradition, personal hygiene or preventive health care. For others, however, the procedure seems unnecessary or disfiguring.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits aren't strong enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the decision up to parents — and supports use of pain relief for infants who have the procedure.
The benefits

Circumcision may have health benefits, including:
* Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it's simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.

* Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.

* Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may narrow so much that it's difficult or impossible to retract. This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.

* Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is very rare, it's less common in circumcised men.

* Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes genital warts. Some strains of HPV also cause cervical cancer.

The drawbacks, circumcision also has drawbacks, including:
* Surgical risks. Excessive bleeding and infection are uncommon, but possible. The foreskin may be cut too short or too long or fail to heal properly. If the remaining foreskin reattaches to the end of the penis, minor surgery may be needed to correct it.

* Pain. Circumcision hurts. Local anesthesia can block nerve sensations during the procedure.

* Permanence. After the procedure, it may be impossible to re-create the appearance of an uncircumcised penis.

* Expense. Some insurance companies don't cover the cost of circumcision.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-10 09:32:30)

Stingray24 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Null.  It's not mutilation and it's not related to my religion.  Both myself and my son are circumcised.  My parents chose it because it's recommended by the doctor to reduce the possibility of infection.  Describing it as mutilation is ridiculous.  The baby boy doesn't even remember it and they numb the area ahead of time.  It's not cruel.  Having to have it done when you're sexually mature is VERY painful from what I've heard.  So from my view, NOT doing it is what's cruel.

PS Good luck getting a woman to suck on an uncircumsised one.  When the subject comes up EVERY woman says they'd prefer circumcised for exactly that reason.

I've never had a problem with that

Don't you think people have a right to decide whether they get circumcised or not? Babies can't do that.

Whether or not the doctor recommended it to reduce the possibility of infection, the AMA and AAP are both opposed (they aren't massively averse to it, but they certainly don't recommend it) to neo-natal circumcision.

I still say my son will thank me that I chose to have it done when he couldn't remember it, rather than during teenage or adult years when it would hurt like hell.  I feel no ill will towards my parents that they didn't let me choose.  A baby cannot decide so a responsible is given the decision.  Bunch of fuss about nothing.

Mekstizzle wrote:

If there was a serious need for the foreskin not to exist. It would've already have gone through mutation and evolution. Although the same people who ask for the foreskin to go are the same people who don't beleive in that.

Funny how everything ties up into a neat package (lolpun)

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-10 10:12:02)

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The 'easier to clean' argument is bullshit. Any retard should be able to clean his penis, circumsized or not. I'm not letting anyone cut off a piece of my penis, and I'm sure as hell not going to do it to my son.

cospengle wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'm circumsized, its not mutiltion, it actually looks better plus it is easier to keep clean so chances of infection is lower. It's not my religion but my son will be cirscumsized. All my girlfriends have always said it looks better so I don't see why you shouldn't.

Same

The_Mac wrote:

Great thread and poll, you truly are impartial!

Ninja_Monkey wrote:

I'm agreed with Bertster7 on this it should be a choice for the kid when they can make a decision of their own and not be forced upon them