Circumcision NOT an effective HIV preventative

[Cairber]

YOu can be sure that we are urging studies to be taken up and funding some ourselves (I mean the NOCIRC and DOC organizations).

Unfortunatly, not cutting off foreskins is far less profitable than doing it.

"Every baby boy in the USA is born with a 300$ coupon attached to the end of his penis. All the doctor has to do to collect is cut it off."

So our work is slow, but we are doing it.

[Cairber]

Why the fuck should ANY children die on the altar of habitual infant circumcision?

That's a good quote to end on!

It's a nontheraputic surgery with lots of risks. No baby boy deserves to die for it. Many hospitals in Canada just won't do it anymore. it took the deaths of baby boys to get to that point, and it should have never come to that.

I have to go to bed; if I feel like gouging my eyes out, I'll come back with more tomorrow.

[Justforfun000]

Holy fuck Omega18, you've gotta be kidding me. You think the very RARE cases of a simple UTI infection that can easily be TREATED by antibiotics in the first place is worth a lifetime of reduced pleasure and potential complications for the man and the woman? People here have listed DOZENS of sources to show the down side of circumcision and you're trumpeting out the most inconsequential excuses like a little UTI infection and IF they have sex with a positive person and IF the condom breaks it's worth the extra protection?

Give your fucking head a shake! The reason there is such an anti-circumcision bent on this board is that the great majority of people on it recognize what is good science, good sense and ethically defensible. The reasons for circumcision in infants is ridiculous and inherently flawed.

The only valid reason for this procedure are medical conditions that are causing functional problems like frenulum breve, phimosis, and a few other rare conditions and even THEN there are other options like stretching the foreskin and minimal operative repair.

Just really THINK about what you're talking about man. You're removing the most pleasurable feeling part of the penis in a horribly brutal fashion when done on an infant, and even worse, against their fucking WILL. AND on top of that it is irreversible. How the fuck can you defend this?

[Justforfun000]

I'm waiting for Edi to come on board and tear Omega18 a new asshole. It must really infuriate him to hear this nonsense still being defended.

[Eulogy]

AND on top of that it is irreversible. How the fuck can you defend this?

Hopefully it won't stay that way for much longer. The faster stem cell research (and the like) produces functional tissue, the sooner this barbaric practice can truly be reversed.

Not that the barbarians in power want such research to succeed, of course.

Hey Omega! Why don't you have your fingers amputated? With modern technology, fingers are not needed in this day and age!

[Netko]

I'm waiting for Edi to come on board and tear Omega18 a new asshole. It must really infuriate him to hear this nonsense still being defended.

Infuriates me a bit too. I fall into the category of

The only valid reason for this procedure are medical conditions that are causing functional problems like frenulum breve, phimosis, and a few other rare conditions and even THEN there are other options like stretching the foreskin and minimal operative repair.

In my case the alternatives didn't work or made it even worse (operative repair caused scarring which tightened the foreskin and made the situation even worse) so in the end I choose circumcision to get functionality with a full understanding of the sensory loss.

And as far as that goes, the best analogy I came up with is the detail sensation you get when you touch something with the tips of your fingers compared to touching it with the back of your hand, and that might be underestimating it. Omega can read up my previous posts on the issue - circumcision is something that really should be left for unfortunate cases such as myself.

Circumcision without medical necessity should be considered child abuse at the very least.

[Justforfun000]

And as far as that goes, the best analogy I came up with is the detail sensation you get when you touch something with the tips of your fingers compared to touching it with the back of your hand, and that might be underestimating it. Omega can read up my previous posts on the issue - circumcision is something that really should be left for unfortunate cases such as myself.

That's what I was told. Apparently you lose the same sensory cells as the ticklish ones in the palm of your hand. They described the way you lightly touch the palm with your fingernails compared to the back of the hand.

So would you describe the loss of sensation as major? I've never had it to use so I don't truly understand. Is it severe enough that sex is almost boring compared to before? I've always found it to be somewhat "meh",,
Quite frankly as a gay man, I get much greater sensation by being the umm receiver. I'm wondering if that's because they didn't fuck around with THAT area by surgically removing some sensitive tissue...

[Oni Koneko Damien]

"We should make removal of the left hand at birth mandatory."

"Why?"

"Studies show it helps prevent certain nail-fungous and arthritis in the left hand."

"A healthy lifestyle can do the same thing."

"Yeah, but this is easier, and if you do it at birth, there's less complications."

"Umm...studies show that over fifty people have died from complications arising from hand-removal surgery just last year, not to mention hundreds of cases of other problems arising."

"Yes, but when you consider the total number of hand-removals done before, the percentage that actually results in death is really really tiny, concession accepted. Beside, a stump would make fisting easier, thus the argument can be made that people who have had hands removed are better in bed."

"Er, fingers are far better at pleasuring than stumps, dipshit."

"Still, the deaths and complications form an absurdly small percentage, and besides, look at the benefits!"

*head a'splode*

I'm sorry, but you're a fucking moron.

You are in favour of mutilating people, reducing their sensitivity, making them worse in bed, creating a shitload of scar tissue, and exposing them to a host of medical-risks...for a few debatable benefits that can easily be achieved through means that *don't* involve mutilation.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So would you describe the loss of sensation as major? I've never had it to use so I don't truly understand. Is it severe enough that sex is almost boring compared to before? I've always found it to be somewhat "meh",,

The problem is you're asking for judgment on something as highly subjective as personal sexual pleasure when there are insanely few people who have experienced it from both ends of the snipper, as it were.

But let's put it this way: Uncut people have more nerves, less need for lubrication, and less scar tissue. Logically speaking, it's much more likely they get more physical stimulus, and thus, more physical pleasure out of it.

On a related note: I am uncut, I can masturbate with *no* need for any lube with no pain whatsoever. The advantages of this should be pretty clear.

[Netko]

Well, my problems before getting cut kind of prevented me to get to enjoy sex, but I'd have loved to try it before the sensory loss set in after the operation (its a gradual thing, taking a few months), sadly no girlfriend at the time.

Sensation loss as major? Well, yes, but enough still there that I wouldn't agree with the mehness. Although, that might be do to me lucking out on the surgeon and getting an old conservative who tried to keep as much as possible on so that only the tip (or only part of the head to explain it another way) is exposed all the time for me. I actually get more sensation out of the rear of the head that is still covered then the exposed top.

[Eulogy]

You are in favour of mutilating people, reducing their sensitivity, making them worse in bed, creating a shitload of scar tissue, and exposing them to a host of medical-risks...for a few debatable benefits that can easily be achieved through means that *don't* involve mutilation.

Not to mention the psychological and familial impact of genital mutilation.

How do you think a male will react when he finds out that his irreplaceable foreskin was the only thing that most likely would've kept him potent and pleasurable to women, and that he had no say in the matter? What do you think will happen when he asks his parents why they lopped off his foreskin and they give him bullshit answers?

How much anger and resentment would he have towards his parents as a result?

Now imagine the same male restoring (or in the future, having a new foreskin grown for him). Through circumstance his parents find out about it, and considering most kinds of parents who do this kind of abuse towards their boys, they get angry and demand that he keep remaining incomplete.

The resulting conflict would be bloody.

[Edi]

I'm waiting for Edi to come on board and tear Omega18 a new asshole. It must really infuriate him to hear this nonsense still being defended.

Didn't see this thread until right now.

Omega18, YOU ARE A FUCKINGMORON.

You've been spouting shit in this thread and offering flimsier and flimsier excuses for your defense of ritual mutilation of boy children.

Circumcision does not offer any medical benefits whatsoever that could not be achieved without genital mutilation unless the penis of the male has some sort of deformity that requires surgery or circumcision to correct.

Circumcision severely reduces the sensitivity of the penis and causes all kinds of problems with regard to penile functionality (assuming a normal, non-deformed penis). Furthermore, it carries the risk of post-operation infection, which can lead to permanent damage or even death. Even if it does not result in either, such an infection is extremely painful, takes a fairly long time to heal. Even if infection does not occur, should the circumcision be performed on an adult, there is a good risk of accidental damage during the recovery period because any surgery wounds down there will easily open if strained, and straining them accidentally is pathetically easy.

I've been circumcised as an adult (medical necessity). Loss of tactile sensitivity was around 50-66%, masturbation is harder, sex is less pleasurable (intensity drop in pleasure roughly corresponding to tactile sensitivity loss), friction is a problem. On top of that, I suffered from post-op infection that took weeks to fully heal and resulted in painful swelling and other unpleasantness. Had it not been for the free healthcare we have here, it'd have been a fucking expensive recovery.

If there had been no medical necessity, I could have avoided all of that and I'd be a lot happier.

Those are personal firsthand experiences, with informed knowledge of both pre- and post-op circumstances, so you can take your pig-ignorant, bullshit claims and so-called research and shove your genital mutilation apologism right up your fucking arsehole to keep company with your head there.

Fuckwits like you really ought to have the shit beaten out of them every time they open their worthless yap-jole.

[ArmorPierce]

On a related note: I am uncut, I can masturbate with *no* need for any lube with no pain whatsoever. The advantages of this should be pretty clear.

So can I and I'm cut. I don't get people using lube to masturbate, I can't get off with it. I do admit that I am very insensitive but I've received nothing but positive responses due to it (but I got to use lube or else I can rub my partner raw).

[Justforfun000]

So can I and I'm cut. I don't get people using lube to masturbate, I can't get off with it. I do admit that I am very insensitive but I've received nothing but positive responses due to it (but I got to use lube or else I can rub my partner raw).

Actually I"ve never been a big fan of lube either. I always tried to pull the skin up over the head as if I had a foreskin. It was extremely difficult in the past, but now after restoring off and on for a few years I can pull it completely over the head. Much easier. However lubing the head alone makes it far more pleasurable. Obviously making it as close to the original condition is the way to go.

After again hearing the difference from Edi at what it would have felt like in an intact state I get even more depressed. Jesus I hope they perfect the potential stem-cell research necessary to give someone back their foreskin.

Remind me to bitch-clap Mr. Bush for again standing in the way of progress with his recent veto.

[Cairber]

Another issue to consider in the USA is that many states still cover circumcision under their medicaid programs. 28% of all circumcisions in the USa are paid for by medicaid. Right now we are working in Michigan and North Carolina to stop this funding. NC alone spent 1.8 million in infant circumcisions last year. How many people could have gotten health care coverage for that amount? How many medications could have been covered?

This are more important things to consider in any cost/risk/benefit analysis of routine infant circumcision.

[Cairber]

Actually, that should be South Carolina, not North!

If anyone wants to join our letter writing campaign, I can send you the info *hinthint*

[Darth Wong]

Has anyone ever posted a link to this Canadian study?

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/patel/

[Cairber]

Has anyone ever posted a link to this Canadian study?

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/patel/

*bows down to Canada*. I think that was one of the ones that made the CPS change their circumcision stance way back when. I appreciate Canada's firm stance. Not only do they call circumcision nontheraputic, they also bring attention to the human rights issue and flat out say it "should not be performed routinely."

The AAP, on the other hand, is wishy washy. It's money, tradition, fear of backlash...ick. Of course, what did we expect? The head of the AAP task force on circumcision writes poetry about circumcision

[mingo]

This is a question without the choice I want to answer, which is: the small benefit in lower HIV transmission rate is not enough to make it worth considering for that reason. Circumcision or not, the decission should NOT be made Re HIV, because like it or not, cut or uncut, you STILL need to wrap that rascal, so who cares? There is only one way around the latex law, long term, committed manogomy with a trustworthy person, (they better be DAMN trustworthy too, if you're betting your life on it).

[Darth Wong]

The chronic dishonesty of the pro-circumcision forces is really quite breathtaking. Making a study where the control group is differentiated by an obviously important factor other than the one under study (like not being born premature) is either truly spectacular incompetence or deliberate deception.

[Cairber]

The chronic dishonesty of the pro-circumcision forces is really quite breathtaking. Making a study where the control group is differentiated by an obviously important factor other than the one under study (like not being born premature) is either truly spectacular incompetence or deliberate deception.

When the AAP released their latest policy statement on circumcision, there were two versions. The first version was the one with all the medical language and citations, which was published in their journal Pediatrics.

The second was the streamlined version released to the media and the public (also the one you find in their books).

The longer version states this:

Although all these studies have shown an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants, it is difficult to summarize and compare the results because of differences in methodology, samples of infants studied, determination of circumcision status, method of urine collection, UTI definition, and assessment of confounding variables. Furthermore, in some studies, methods for determining the reliability of the data were not described.

Few of the studies that have evaluated the association between UTI in male infants and circumcision status have looked at potential confounders (such as prematurity, breastfeeding, and method of urine collection) in a rigorous way. For example, because premature infants appear to be at increased risk for UTI, the inclusion of hospitalized premature infants in a study population may act as a confounder by suggesting an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infants. Premature infants usually are not circumcised because of their fragile health status.

In another example, breastfeeding was shown to have a threefold protective effect on the incidence of UTI in a sample of uncircumcised infants (3). However, breastfeeding status has not been evaluated systematically in studies assessing UTI and circumcision status.

This is the entire section on UTI found in the statement released to the general public, the media, and in their books for parents:

Although studies show the relative risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life is higher for baby boys who are uncircumcised, the AAP policy concludes that their absolute risk of developing one is low ¾ at most approximately 1 percent. Research indicates that during the first year of life an uncircumcised male infant has at most about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI, while a circumcised male has about a 1 in 1000 chance.

For this and other reasons, I am tempted to say "deliberate deception."

[The Spartan]

How likely is a UTI to result in death? Or a loss of function, of one degree or another, in the penis?

I ask because the statistics show that, as I recall, between 6 and 8 of every 100,000 infants that are circumsized will die due to complications. Now, that's on top of other complications: ones that can result in loss of sensation, permanent impotence, incontinence, even loss of the penis in whole or in part.

Presumably, UTI can generally be treated with anti-biotics and good hygeine practices. On the other hand, mutilation of a body part has a tendancy to be permanent.

[Cairber]

UTI can be really serious in infants, but the numbers on infection of the circumcision site, need for recircumcision (which adds in dangers of being put to sleep for the procedure), and adhesion infection, there just no way UTI provention wins out. I blieve the Canadian Pediatric Society says that out of 1000 circumcised boys, 9 would be saved from UTI and 40 of those boys will have "moderatly severe or worse complications" and another 12 would have "severe complications."

[Cairber]

Of course, note that the "complications" in the CPS statement do not include adhesions, meatal stenosis, buried penis, webbed penis, tight erections, death from infection (sometimes it is not noted that the infection enters through the penile wound). or sensation loss.

[The Spartan]

So... to save roughly 9 boys from a urinary tract infection we're going to mutilate 1000 and cause "complications" in roughly 52 of them? Nearly 6 times as many? Beautiful...