.

[DocMcStuffins]

Thankfully there are a couple of new reviews to offsetting this depressing thread.
Also, I console myself with the thought that circumcision, while unnecessary, will probably not be the worst decision I make for my son. I haven't heard someone complain about what their parents did to them yet (but I suppose I might hear it now ).

 

[User#16452]

.

 

[Wwanderer]

it makes me think that it's not such a big deal and trauma that some people make out of it.

I console myself with the thought that circumcision, while unnecessary, will probably not be the worst decision I make for my son. I haven't heard someone complain about what their parents did to them yet (but I suppose I might hear it now ).

Fwiiw, that's roughly my opinion. It is probably better not to circumcise (males), but it really isn't a big deal.

I've also never heard any man complain that his parents had him circumcised. It would be extremely difficult (impossible really) I think for anyone to judge whether or not an adult male had been circumcised by observing his interest in sex, the way he interacts with women, his confidence about performance etc. Jewish men are, of course, nearly all circumcised and are famously sexually oriented. And even outside of sexual matters, it seems to have no effect on anything from success in career to interest in sports to creativity to... Basically the only way to tell is to examine a guy's cock and see if the foreskin is there or not. It is just a trivial bit of cosmetic surgery, quite minor compared to all sorts of routine cosmetic surgeries which are ever more common. It is more in the realm of piercings perhaps.

As for stress on the infant, it is minuscule compared to the trauma of birth which they undergo at roughly the same time...as anyone who has been present at births and infant circumcisions could never doubt! The couple of men I know who had adult circumcisions (for purposes of converting to Judaism) all also report that it was less of a big deal than they expected, both the surgery itself and the effect on their sexual experience.

The intense controversy and strong feelings the topic engenders remind me of the issue of breast feeding vs bottle feeding infants. To hear people talk about it, you'd think it was a choice on the level of aborting a pregnancy or not, but in fact the world is full of indistinguishable people who were and were not breast fed. This is not to say there is no difference nor that there are not significant pros and cons, but it does not seem to me to be nearly the big deal that many make of it.

Still, like most cosmetic surgeries, it is not necessary but also harmless from a medical perspective and a matter of taste from a personal one.

-Ww

 

[Sudsy]

I wouldn't trust hospitals too much, some decades ago the medical world sold amphetamine as an easy to get medicine and there has been a lot of addictive drugs being sold over the counter before. Also treating mentally ill people with icepricks and stuff like that.
The medical world did things that would now be considered insane in a not very distant past.

To be fair, this is the difference between medical practice and religious practice when it comes to these sorts of procedures... medical practice evolves to a state of doing less harm and more good, and on a much faster scale.

 

[Wwanderer]

To be fair, this is the difference between medical practice and religious practice when it comes to these sorts of procedures... medical practice evolves to a state of doing less harm and more good, and on a much faster scale.

Indeed, medicine is at least trying to look after the interests of patients (in general, not 100% always). It is also worth noting, in the context of this topic, that the consensus medical opinion on many issues swings back and forth over time. A good example is the age at which you should first start giving infants food other than breast milk (or formula) or when to start solid food or how quickly to introduce new foods into their diet etc. Medical opinion on all of these things have swung back-and-forth over the years, and at any one time, different doctors will give different advice on topics of this sort. Why? It is because there are trade-offs, pros and cons involved and it comes down to judgement call. The information available from medical research also evolves/changes as new studies are done.

So, if medical opinion was once for circumcision and is now against it, it is at least possible that it will swing back the other way at some point.

Also note that (public health) doctors cannot take the point of view that being unclipped is "no excuse of poor penile hygiene". It is true *in principle* of course, but they must also take account of another truth, namely that some people/parents will not be as careful and attentive as they should be. In other words, not circumcising infants puts them at greater risk of infections under the foreskin *in practice* even though it shouldn't in an ideal world.

-Ww

 

[Vulkan]

Interestingly, as @User#8628 mentioned, men who have been circumcised generally always defend it. I guess accepting that your genitals were mutilated is not easy.

Please, do not circumcise your son. There really is no reason to do so.

I can remember of one half jp-us guy claiming that it made his tool smaller than it should have been otherwise.

I am not necessarly defending it but it's always disappointing when there are women who prefer uncircumsised. I find it cleaner that way but do i have a way to compare?

 

[User#16452]

.

 

[Wwanderer]

Uncircumcised is ribbed for her pleasure. Of course we prefer it

Of course *some* of you do: http://www.tokyoadultguide.com/threads/why-viagra-wont-fix-your-sex-life.8957/page-2#post-52645

-Ww

 

[namae]

Why disappointing? That seems a strange word to use with regard to something natural.
Uncircumcised is ribbed for her pleasure. Of course we prefer it

I think a lot of circumcised TAGgers will be hitting the bottle hard tonight!

 

[Sudsy]

I think a lot of circumcised TAGgers will be hitting the bottle hard tonight!

Wait, we have to be circumcised to hit the bottle? DAMMIT... be right back, off to the clinic.

 

[MacMackerson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

 

[Soapysoap66]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

That article never once mentions the actual medical reason why circumcision would be a better protection against HIV. I would love to hear that reason.

 

[e-smile]

Interestingly, as @User#8628 mentioned, men who have been circumcised generally always defend it. I guess accepting that your genitals were mutilated is not easy.

Please, do not circumcise your son. There really is no reason to do so.

that's a big word for a little piece of skin that can make some cheese on the nut if someone fall asleep after sex

 

[Soapysoap66]

Hey you can use it to store stuff in, like a kangaroo.

 

[MacMackerson]

That article never once mentions the actual medical reason why circumcision would be a better protection against HIV. I would love to hear that reason.

http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/...rcumcision_for_HIV_prevention__current.7.aspx

I think the common belief is that HIV jumps down your pee hole! haha pee hole!

 

[Soapysoap66]

Ugh too long article. I got some porn I'd rather be watching.
The only possible thing I could think of would be that the skin is very thin and rich in blod vessels which would somehow facilitate the contracting of the virus into the bloodstream, but I still think there would need to be some kind of wounded area for it to work anyway, and they haven't presented anything claiming that penises with foreskin intact is more likely to contract damage like cuts etc.
Either way, I'd gladly take a higher risk of infection (if there is one) over losing the skin.

 

[MacMackerson]

Yeah I get it. Science is hard.

Unintended consequences - circumcision has prevented literally millions of Africans from getting AIDs. Plus my cock is prettier than yours!

 

[Sudsy]

That article never once mentions the actual medical reason why circumcision would be a better protection against HIV. I would love to hear that reason.

Quite simply, when the penis becomes flaccid post-coitus, the foreskin can retain higher quantities of virus-loaded bodily fluids and give them more time and opportunity to infect the nearby cells. In particular with HIV, it also protects the virus against exposure to oxygen, which kills off HIV.

 

[e-smile]

Quite simply, when the penis becomes flaccid post-coitus, the foreskin can retain higher quantities of virus-loaded bodily fluids and give them more time and opportunity to infect the nearby cells. In particular with HIV, it also protects the virus against exposure to oxygen, which kills off HIV.

it just lowers the probability a little, it's still very important to use condom.

 

[MacMackerson]

it just lowers the probability a little, it's still very important to use condom.

"Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60%"

60% is 'a little'? And this does not diminish the importance of condoms in preventing HIV.

 

[e-smile]

"Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60%"

60% is 'a little'? And this does not diminish the importance of condoms in preventing HIV.

it's the statistics of controlled trials not the risk reduction rate. the statistics can be affected by many things and can be interpreted in a different way. may be the circumcised people in sub shararan countries have less random sex than others because of their religion for example.
unless you use men as guinea pigs and have them get intercourse with HIV positive women you can't really calculate the risk rate.

I'm circumcised and I wouldn't much feel safer than an uncircumcised one if I don't use a condom.

 

[MacMackerson]

Yeah I hate science too! Booo science! Yay feelings!

 

[Soapysoap66]

If the numbers are correct then it certainly is a valid argument for circumcision, especially in ravaged areas like in Africa. Still think everyone should get to decide for themselves.
Also, I still believe most circumcisions are performed because of the wrong reasons.

 

[zthomasz]

Yeah I get it. Science is hard.

Apparently it is for you.................

60% is 'a little'?

Do you really not understand the difference between 'Relative Risk' and 'Absolute Risk'?
5497 Circumcised - VS - 5497 Uncircumcised (control)
64 Infected (1.18%) - VS - 137 Infected (2.49%)
Absolute Risk reduction = 1.3%
I'm pretty sure 1.3% matches anyone's definition of 'a little'.

circumcision has prevented literally millions of Africans from getting AIDs.

I would very much like to see the evidence of that.

Plus my cock is prettier than yours!

I'm cut too (YAY FOR ME!) but apparently the girls here don't agree with your assessment.

Post Script
One has to wonder why, if you are so happy and contented with your prepuce-less state that you seem so prickly and defensive about it?

 

[Wwanderer]

Do you really not understand the difference between 'Relative Risk' and 'Absolute Risk'?
5497 Circumcised - VS - 5497 Uncircumcised (control)
64 Infected (1.18%) - VS - 137 Infected (2.49%)
Absolute Risk reduction = 1.3%
I'm pretty sure 1.3% matches anyone's definition of 'a little'.

I would very much like to see the evidence of that.

If circumcised or not is actually the dominant determinant of HIV infection probability (as @e-smile mentions, other factors correlated wuth circuncision could be in play), then the claim that circumcisions has prevented large numbers of African males from being infected follows directly from the numbers you give in your post plus the total population of circumcised sub-Saharan male Africans. In other words, the would be roughly 73 (the difference between 137 and 64) per 5497 (1.3%) of circumcised population additional HIV infections if none were circumcised.
Then there are the HIV infections these additional infected males would have given their sexual partners and those which their partners would have given to yet others etc. It could easily run into the millions.

-Ww