To cut or not to cut?

[+ imagooddog]

Just pretend that you are having a baby boy and have to decide whether or not to have

circumcision performed.

What would be your choice and why?

[Rudynate]

Not to cut. I was cut and I'm not losing any sleep over the fact. But I would rather I hadn't been. I believe it is a totally unnecessary procedure that borders on mutilation. But even if one doesn't believe it is mutilation, it is a clearly elective procedure and should only be done when the child is capable of choosing for himself.

[Guest]

I work a urology clinic every week. Maybe I have a skewed view, because I see a lot of problems that go along with uncircumcised penises, but these problems aren't rare, and the risks of circumcision pretty minimal. I've never seen any serious complication from circumcision, but I see tons of problems with phimosis, infections, cancer, pain, and so on. And in all of my years, I've never heard a man say "Boy, I'm sorry I went for that circumcision!". In other words, I see the benefits, but have never seen a down-side. Every time I've seen anti-circumcision propaganda, there's never anything but lies. I've never seen anything truthful on the other argument. That being said, my previous domestic partner was uncut, but he kept it clean, and he never had any problems of which I was ever aware. It's not as if I'm rabidly pro-circumcision by any means, but since there's a good chance it can help, and almost no chance of a negative consequence, I say Why Not?

[Guest]

I was cut and I'm not losing any sleep over the fact. But I would rather I hadn't been.

 

OK. I believe you. But would you mind explaining why you would rather not have been circumcised? When did that ever present a problem?

[Epigonos]

This is an interesting FACT. A number of years ago a group of scientists couldn't understand why the incidents of AIDS was so much higher in Sub Sahara Africa than it was in North Africa. After exhaustive research they concluded that as the vast majority of the North African population was Muslim and Muslin males are circumcised that was the reason. The foreskin of the Sub Sahara African males provided a near ideal place for the AIDS virus to survive and prosper. Based on this research numerous international health organizations began a campaign to encourage circumcision in Sub Sahara Africa. This campaign was an abysmal failure as it flew in the face of local traditions.

[body2body]

A psychologist friend says that if the father is circumcised, then his son should be as well. If the father is uncircumcised , then it is better for his son to be the same. He feels that for children it is better to see themselves as being the same as their Dad.

[Juan Vancouver]

Absolutely not cut.

 

I would make sure that I teach my kid to properly keep his penis clean at all times, I would help him to routinely pull back the foreskin to clean, let dry and stretch. Performing this when the child is growing up is very important to make sure the foreskin becomes flexible and grows at the same pace than the rest of the body. This alone wold prevent phimosis and all sorts of complications. When properly taken care of and understood, there is absolutely no need for mutilation. All the problems people associate with having a foreskin come from idiot parents never taking care of their children's needs because they are too scared to talk about anything that might be vaguely close to the forbidden theme and forbidden area.

 

I work a urology clinic every week. Maybe I have a skewed view, because I see a lot of problems that go along with uncircumcised penises, but these problems aren't rare, and the risks of circumcision pretty minimal. I've never seen any serious complication from circumcision, but I see tons of problems with phimosis, infections, cancer, pain, and so on. And in all of my years, I've never heard a man say "Boy, I'm sorry I went for that circumcision!". In other words, I see the benefits, but have never seen a down-side. Every time I've seen anti-circumcision propaganda, there's never anything but lies. I've never seen anything truthful on the other argument.

 

You said it yourself. You work at a place in which you see all the cases that went wrong. Yes. Your view on this subject is entirely skewed.

 

And no, I don't imagine anyone would ever regret having corrected something that went wrong. That doesn't mean that mandatory circumcision for all is a good thing. As a corrective measure yes, by all means. As prevention? It's grossly invasive, unnecessary and irreversible. Talk about literally throwing out a chunk of the baby with the bath water.

 

That being said, my previous domestic partner was uncut, but he kept it clean, and he never had any problems of which I was ever aware. It's not as if I'm rabidly pro-circumcision by any means, but since there's a good chance it can help, and almost no chance of a negative consequence, I say Why Not?

 

It sounds to me as if it is opinions like yours that are the most dangerous. You sound reasonable, you sound well informed, you don't sound fanatic at all, which makes one want to take your biased, skewed view as a moderate one. Even I feel tempted to believe your benevolent judgment.

 

I will only accept your opinion as fair after you have witnessed all the billions of cases in which foreskin is just another healthy part of the body.

 

This is an interesting FACT. A number of years ago a group of scientists couldn't understand why the incidents of AIDS was so much higher in Sub Sahara Africa than it was in North Africa. After exhaustive research they concluded that as the vast majority of the North African population was Muslim and Muslin males are circumcised that was the reason. The foreskin of the Sub Sahara African males provided a near ideal place for the AIDS virus to survive and prosper. Based on this research numerous international health organizations began a campaign to encourage circumcision in Sub Sahara Africa. This campaign was an abysmal failure as it flew in the face of local traditions.

 

Extrapolating factual information corresponding a very specific group of people to present it as a universal truth for everyone and make decisions on what's best for them is the perfect recipe for getting a wrong conclusion.

 

How many idiotic people -mainly in the US, where foreskinphobia is rampant- have taken those findings out of context and equated foreskin with AIDS! Right here in this very forum many men have said repeatedly that they won't hire uncut escorts because... you know... AIDS.

 

Foreskin is not the problem. Again, the problem is lack of hygiene. If I am living in the Sub-Saharan desert and have sex with someone infected, and then don't wash, let it fester, carry on with my life and two weeks later I have sex with someone else, of course it's incredibly likely I will contract and spread the virus. Theoretically in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa it might have been a good idea to perform circumcision as prophylaxis.

 

In developed countries when it comes to prevention, without a shadow of a doubt, I favour education and hygiene over mutilation.

[Juan Vancouver]

A psychologist friend says that if the father is circumcised, then his son should be as well. If the father is uncircumcised , then it is better for his son to be the same. He feels that for children it is better to see themselves as being the same as their Dad.

 

I was incredibly different than my dad in many ways. For example, I was taller. I'm glad I didn't get chunks cut off me to make me his same height. I know it's a stupid example, but... is it? How many of us can say we thought we were similar to our fathers?

 

A friend just had a baby boy. They had agreed to not cut. Two weeks later we find out they did circumcise because when she told her girlfriends about their decision one of them squirmed and said that girls don't know what to do with uncut penises... "They are kind of funny!" They found that very amusing and they all laughed uncomfortably. Because of this lazy group of sheltered women a baby had something irreversible done to him.

 

It would be ridiculous to support clitoridectomy because someone "feels" in a way it's better. Many cultures think clitoridectomy is a very powerful tool to prevent nymphomania and other evils. Luckily most of the occidental world sees it for the heinous mutilation it really is.

 

If you think my comparing circumcision with clitoridectomy is ridiculous, all we have to do is see when it first became a preventative measure and for what reason. Circumcision moved from a religious rite to a medical necessity during the Victorian era and it spread to the commonwealth. It was believed to prevent Siphilis AND masturbation.

 

Had the Victorians not been so terrified about talking about penises and anything resembling sex, it would have been really easy to teach their children to wash, exercise and check. As opposed to ignore, forget and never look at the thing.

 

Luckily other Victorian sex repressive "medical" treatments are no longer regarded as valid, otherwise there would be hordes of horny women being mechanically masturbated to prevent hysteria, forced to take cold showers and locked up in the looney bin.

[+ Funguy]

Over the past many years the American Academy of Pediatrics has altered its policy regarding circumcision from absolutely yes, to no, and presently that the benefits outweigh the risks but are not great enough to recommend routinely. It is something that should be left up to the parents in concert with discussion with their (hopefully well-informed) physician.

 

However, Juan brings up the most important part of the equation - "when properly taken care of and understood..." Well, news flash: most parents do not know how to take care of an uncircumcised male infant and do not take the time to educate themselves and understand what is involved. As a board-certified pediatrician I get this question all the time and I spend a lot of time on education. Studies do show that there is a lower incidence of HIV, herpes, HPV, syphilus, Cancer of the penis and UTI's in the first year of life. There is also a higher incidence of Cancer of the cervix when the male partner is uncircumcised (presumably due to HPV). This last issue has been dramatically decreased by the HPV vaccine. Last, it is safest and allows the maximum benefits when performed in the newborn period. Waiting until a guy is an adult to decide to have this done is not in his best interest; educating his parents when he is born is the best course.

 

But "body2body" brings up a very important and relevant issue: being like his father, a boy has an easier time processing why his penis may or may not look different from his dad's. Dads will often bathe or shower with their sons and it's always on display and open for dialogue, awkward as it may be. This alone is often the deciding factor!

[Peaker]

Funguy: your brief discussion of the pros and cons of circumcision is brilliant. You've covered the subject thoroughly and intelligently. As a fellow physician I'm impressed and can imagine this will be useful to many folks. Hopefully it will be circulated beyond this forum discussion.

[Rudynate]

This is an interesting FACT. A number of years ago a group of scientists couldn't understand why the incidents of AIDS was so much higher in Sub Sahara Africa than it was in North Africa. After exhaustive research they concluded that as the vast majority of the North African population was Muslim and Muslin males are circumcised that was the reason. The foreskin of the Sub Sahara African males provided a near ideal place for the AIDS virus to survive and prosper. Based on this research numerous international health organizations began a campaign to encourage circumcision in Sub Sahara Africa. This campaign was an abysmal failure as it flew in the face of local traditions.

 

 

Close to 90% of European men are not circumcised. Why isn't the incidence of AIDS in Europe similar to that in sub-Saharan Africa?

[Rudynate]

OK. I believe you. But would you mind explaining why you would rather not have been circumcised? When did that ever present a problem?

 

Why do such a drastic thing when the simple expedient of proper hygiene and self-care can do the same thing?

[+ Funguy]

Why do such a drastic thing when the simple expedient of proper hygiene and self-care can do the same thing?

 

Also, I do believe that there is a difference in education between Europe and Africa regarding this subject. Education is paramount when dealing with this issue!

 

I REALLY hate to say this, but it's done because it CAN be done! (other than, of course, for religious reasons.)

[Guest]

Close to 90% of European men are not circumcised. Why isn't the incidence of AIDS in Europe similar to that in sub-Saharan Africa?

Rudynate is correct in pointing out (albeit somewhat tangentially) that one should not simply compare HIV transmission rates in northern Africa versus subsaharan Africa and conclude just from that one piece of data that the circumcision is responsible. There are so many differences between northern Africa and subsaharan Africa that it would be an inappropriate step to jump to that conclusion. That being said, since those epidemiological studies were done, randomized prospective trials have since shown quite conclusively that circumcision does make a big difference. For me, that's not the most important argument, because there are other ways to prevent HIV. I just see so many infections, balanitis, phimosis, and the like, that it tends to tip me towards thinking it's a good idea. Hopefully, the rare cancer of the penis should end in a few decades if we can get schools to require HPV vaccines like they do all others. It shouldn't be optional like it is now. By the way, HPV can cause cancer in the throat, too. You're more likely to get it from sucking an uncut cock. Just saying...

 

http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/many+throat+cancers+may+be+linked+to+hpv_554_801614936_0_0_7030330_300.jpg

 

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/hpvandhncancersfinal-130404135028-phpapp01/95/information-for-the-patient-on-human-papilloma-virus-hpv-and-head-and-neck-cancers-19-638.jpg?cb=1365083496

 

http://s29.postimg.org/3rjqgdgyv/photo_2.jpg

[Rudynate]

Also, I do believe that there is a difference in education between Europe and Africa regarding this subject.

 

 

Bingo. So the WHO, rather than educating sub-Saharan men on hygiene and self-care, would rather cut off all of their foreskins. Great solution!

[Rick Munroe]

Close to 90% of European men are not circumcised. Why isn't the incidence of AIDS in Europe similar to that in sub-Saharan Africa?

 

Because that's an outdated BS myth.

[+ Gar1eth]

Close to 90% of European men are not circumcised. Why isn't the incidence of AIDS in Europe similar to that in sub-Saharan Africa?

Condom use and medication to keep viral levels low to decrease the risk of transmitting the virus.

 

 

I realize it's cultural. But I prefer the look of circumcised tallywackers. Up until I was around 25 years old , I think I only remember ever seeing one uncircumcised guy. IIRC it was a guy in my junior high. There's a good chance he was one of the very few in my junior high. I don't remember really staring at him. After I was 25, uncircumcised tallywackers started popping up a bit more frequently (although these incidences were still occasional and only by chance as I was dedicated to living my life sexless at that point because I didn't want to be gay. ). I remember having two acqaintances who were German. We went to the beach one day and were showering off (naked)afterward at the shower cabana at the beach before we went to a restaurant . Unfortunately in contrast to how often similar situations lead to a hot, steamy ménage a trois in gay prom films, we just showered, dried off and out our clothes back on. But I did notice in passing (and with mild surprise) that neither of them were circumcised. I might have intellectually known that Europeans weren't usually circumcised (there's a line in American Werewolf In London) that had alerted me to that fact back in 1981 or so-about 10 years before). But I hadn't given it a lot of thought (as I didn't usually have Europe a friends) until the two Germans were nekkid in front of me.

 

Gman

[Rudynate]

Because that's an outdated BS myth.

 

That 90% of European men are circumcised?

[Rudynate]

Rudynate is correct in pointing out (albeit somewhat tangentially) . . .

http://pictures.directnews.co.uk/liveimages/many+throat+cancers+may+be+linked+to+hpv_554_801614936_0_0_7030330_300.jpg

 

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/hpvandhncancersfinal-130404135028-phpapp01/95/information-for-the-patient-on-human-papilloma-virus-hpv-and-head-and-neck-cancers-19-638.jpg?cb=1365083496

 

http://s29.postimg.org/3rjqgdgyv/photo_2.jpg

 

 

Couldn't help it-I have a weakness for Socratic questions.

[+ purplekow]

Over the past many years the American Academy of Pediatrics has altered its policy regarding circumcision from absolutely yes, to no, and presently that the benefits outweigh the risks but are not great enough to recommend routinely. It is something that should be left up to the parents in concert with discussion with their (hopefully well-informed) physician.

 

However, Juan brings up the most important part of the equation - "when properly taken care of and understood..." Well, news flash: most parents do not know how to take care of an uncircumcised male infant and do not take the time to educate themselves and understand what is involved. As a board-certified pediatrician I get this question all the time and I spend a lot of time on education. Studies do show that there is a lower incidence of HIV, herpes, HPV, syphilus (sp), Cancer of the penis and UTI's in the first year of life. There is also a higher incidence of Cancer of the cervix when the male partner is uncircumcised (presumably due to HPV). This last issue has been dramatically decreased by the HPV vaccine. Last, it is safest and allows the maximum benefits when performed in the newborn period. Waiting until a guy is an adult to decide to have this done is not in his best interest; educating his parents when he is born is the best course.

 

But "body2body" brings up a very important and relevant issue: being like his father, a boy has an easier time processing why his penis may or may not look different from his dad's. Dads will often bathe or shower with their sons and it's always on display and open for dialogue, awkward as it may be. This alone is often the deciding factor!

I have read this a few times and I think you need to be clearer as that this is true of the circumsized.

HPV vaccine itself has its detractors and while it has decreased the incidence of HPV related diseases, it is only one bullet in the arsenal.

[+ quoththeraven]

Bingo. So the WHO, rather than educating sub-Saharan men on hygiene and self-care, would rather cut off all of their foreskins. Great solution!

 

I'm not certain education is all or even most of it. There are also differences regarding access to clean water and whatever else would be necessary for foreskin hygiene that it seems to me are more likely to be the problem. All of the education in the world is futile if there's no ability to use it properly.

[Guest]

Bingo. So the WHO, rather than educating sub-Saharan men on hygiene and self-care, would rather cut off all of their foreskins. Great solution!

 

I'm sorry, but three randomized controlled studies have shown that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. One can argue that epidemiological studies and case-controlled studies show only correlation, and not causation. However, one cannot argue against cause and effect when a randomized controlled trial (let alone three of them) proves it. One could argue that the reduction of HIV is not a good enough reason to recommend circumcision (and that's probably true in Europe and the US), but it is now a known fact that circumcision reduces HIV transmission in areas of high prevalence.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

 

As for other reasons, I guess when one has seen enough of this:

http://www.candidainstool.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Candida-Balanitis22.jpg

 

and this:

http://www.visualdx.com/view/diagnosis/balanitis_erosive.jpg

 

and this:

http://poliklinika-arcadia.hr/en/images/stories/pediatric/phim6.jpg

 

and this:

http://www.cleanmybro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/dirty.jpg

 

and this:

http://www.jle.com/e-docs/00/04/49/25/texte_alt_jlemtp00301_gr1.jpg

 

and this:

http://i.imgur.com/yqekWDy.jpg

 

and this:

http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/imgs/512/236/3047836/3047836_12245_2010_221_Fig2_HTML.png

 

one thinks, if there's an almost risk-free way to prevent that, should we? Complications are much, much rarer than complications of not being circumcised, so if one wants to use the argument "well, complications happen," then that argument would support circumcision. The specious argument that it reduces sensitivity has also been thoroughly disproven. The fact that circumcision opponents even bring it up shows their hatred of facts and truth, and their disdain for science:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309

[Rudynate]

But what about that 90% in Europe? You can't characterize the European healthcare establishment as being anti-science. While the European experience may not be applicable to Africa, it may very well have something to teach the US healthcare establishment. They certainly see just the sort of problems you're showing pictures of. Yet they are able to deal with them without resort to mass circumcision. Could it be a failure on the part of a healthcare establishment that is so strongly biased to mass circumcision that it is incapable of providing adequate training in hygiene and self-care for those few not circumcised.

[Guest]

But what about that 90% in Europe?

 

You are quite right that the majority of European men do not end up having serious problems due to not being circumcised. However, it is also true that the percentage having serious problems is much higher than the percentage of babies having circumcisions who have serious complications from that procedure. Waiting later increases the odds for complications. Again, I'm nor fervently pro-circumcision. I would never support, for instance, forbidding enrollment of a boy into kindergarten because he's not circumcised. However, there are good rational arguments for encouraging circumcision.

[Rudynate]

You are quite right that the majority of European men do not end up having serious problems due to not being circumcised. However, it is also true that the percentage having serious problems is much higher than the percentage of babies having circumcisions who have serious complications from that procedure. Waiting later increases the odds for complications. Again, I'm nor fervently pro-circumcision. I would never support, for instance, forbidding enrollment of a boy into kindergarten because he's not circumcised. However, there are good rational arguments for encouraging circumcision.

 

 

The Europeans have access to the same data that you do. They've seen the data and they're not convinced. Apparently, the data tell them something different from what the data tell you. So, it's an open question.