I'm still not convinced that circumcision doesn't cut down sensation. And if it does I'd much rather be a little more careful when I play than loose that sensation. I wish I hadn't been circumcised, but that's just me.

I'm glad I was circumsized and my children will be too.

I don't really think these findings will change anyone's opinion though

Any particular reason you're glad? Appearance? Convenience? Or something else.

Just curious.

Yes, actually appereance and convenience are the reasons. I like the way my penis looks, (although I would learn to love it either way) and I'm glad I don't have to do any extra washing like suggested.

Plus, I don't remember the pain, so I don't mind that it once hurt me really badly.

[QUOTE=Edubbs818;159822]Id love to see a study about AIDS rates among heterosexual men in Europe compared to men in the US (given the fact that most males in Europe are uncircumcised).[/quote]
Speaking as person who got an A in statistics (though I'm not a statistician by any means), such a study would tell you almost nothing meaningful about circumcision, due to the failure to control dozens of other variables.

[quote]More over, were the sample sizes (and the rates of infection between the two groups of men) really that significant?[/quote]
Sample sizes actually don't have to be very large, so long as you're really careful that your samples aren't skewed by other variables. The difference in the rates of infection in the sample group was actually pretty substantial.

I think you're right that the study could do a lot more harm than good, if circumcized men start running around thinking they've got magic protection.

Even though researchers have warned people to the contrary, I still think that many men (especially in 3rd world countries) will see circumcision as a cure-all and an excuse to have even more promiscuous, unprotected sex. The NY Times stated that the researchers of this latest study surmised that many of the male subjects didnt take the researchers advice on how to have safe sex. What ever happened to common sense? Id love to see a study about AIDS rates among heterosexual men in Europe compared to men in the US (given the fact that most males in Europe are uncircumcised). More over, were the sample sizes (and the rates of infection between the two groups of men) really that significant? I mean, the studies talked about something along the lines of 22 men infected (in the circumcised group) vs 47 men in the uncut group. These are only double-digit numbers here. What do I know? I only got a "C" in my statistics class.

Despite these statistical results, I still think common sense should be king and people should think about whether or not their practices in bed are safe. Its as though these studies say something to the extent of "since promiscuity and unsafe sex are so deeply ingrained in (some) 3rd world cultures, we have given up in trying to change cultural mindsets. Instead, we will resort to less intelligent and simpler method of (possible) HIV reduction- circumcising as many people as possible." As stated above, many people (even in the US) will not read the fine print, let alone think all of the factors through, and will hail circumcision as a bona-fide protector against HIV-AIDS.

BTW- Im not circumcised- so I admit I may have a little bias- but I still think that common sense protects someone just as much as snipping the schlong. I think the researchers and advocates quoted in the NY Times article were definitely saying something about peoples common sense in 3rd world countries; that many men in the study (most likely) didnt take the safe sex education offered to heart.

And it's almost impossible to "proove" anything.

Of course, education and common sense will protect you more from std's than being cut or not.

Yeah, the decision whether to circumcize is different from decisions about education -- for one thing, the latter has much, much more influence on the course of child's life than the former.

Compared to the other decisions parents make for their children, this one is tiny.

I don't remember anybody asking me whether I wanted my tonsils (a part of my body, I believe) removed either. I guess I got some input on the wisdom teeth ....

As mentioned earlier in the thread circumcision cannot take the place of education and personal responsibility. In fact it could (as mentioned before) give a false sense of security, making people more lax to safe sex practices if they're under the impression they're less suseptible. If there is a clear medical reason to do so fine (as in it being too tight or continued infections). But to make a blanket recommendation for a procedure that removes part of the body to prevent possible infection when males become sexually active is a bit extreme. Since I was circumcised as a baby I can't comment on the advantages / disadvantages of having a foreskin, but it obviously serves a purpose. It's not a superfluous piece of skin. There's plenty of credible documentation (which you can accept or not, just as we can question the overall validity of the cited study) that loss of the foreskin does impact sensitivity of the organ. Can males still function without it? Obviously. Is there a price extracted for losing it? I believe so, as do many others, with and without foreskins.

Of course the main people this ultimately makes one whit of difference to is parents, since they wield the power to make that choice for their sons.

[QUOTE=sexjeff;158988]I'm glad I was circumsized and my children will be too.

I don't really think these findings will change anyone's opinion though[/QUOTE]

Do not circumsize your children just because you like the way it looks. It is their bodies, and you have no right to take that away from them. Personally, I consider circumcision to be a form of mutilation. I believe it can only be justified in cases where there are compelling medical reasons.

I was circumsized as a baby, and of course I don't remember the pain either. I was told it was for a medical reason (foreskin was too tight), but I'm not sure I really believe that. I think it was more because it was 'the done thing' at the time. I would have preferred that it hadn't been done.

[QUOTE=sexjeff;158988]I'm glad I was circumsized and my children will be too.

I don't really think these findings will change anyone's opinion though[/QUOTE]

That I am very strongly against, A parent should not decide if their child should be circumcised or not. Circumcising a child on the basis of your personal preference is vastly unfair. A person should have the opportunity to make the decision for themselves.

Allow me to risk a bit of medical input. I do not have a penis so I do not have personal knowledge.

We have known for at least 100 years that being circumcised has appeared to reduce STD's. An early (50+ years ago) study showed that the incidence of cervical cancer among Muslim and Jewish women was much lower than much of the rest of the world. Men, in equally safe (or risky) sexual relationships, had a much lower incidence of the traditional STD's (for instance, gonorrhea and syphilis) among circumcised men than uncircumcised. This new study regarding AIDS certainly strengthens the argument for circumcision for disease prevention.

The foreskin can, and apparently does, give a great hiding place for bacteria and virus of all types. The tighter the foreskin, the more difficult it is to keep clean and the more likely the disease will percolate to a level of infection.

The "operation" (and that is what it is) has traditionally been done at less than two weeks so the pain is less and will be forgotten. Adult males undergoing circumcision find it quite painful. As a woman, I only accept circumcised ones into me; as a doctor, I recommend the procedure at brith.

While I am not a doctor I do have a penis. :)

I appreciate this is a very controversial subject, and everyone is entitled to their own conclusions. All I would suggest is if, as a parent you are about to be in the position of making that decision for your child you research the subject thoroughly and come to your own conclusion.

I think it is important to mention the AMA does not recommend routine circumcision anymore (unless that's changed, if so please excuse).

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

You are correct that the "routine circumcision" has disappeared for much of the developed world. Epidemiologists would like to see that change again. The cited study showed a fifty percent reduction in AIDS transmission. That is as good as many vaccines!

No one should be shamed for having thier children circumcised. Give me a break, "it should be their choice not yours." I have news for you, we choose allot of things for our children throughout their lives, this is no different. If you have an opinion on the argument about circumcision, then make it, but don't sit there and try and shame people with your idea of morals. That's not what this site is about, never has been.

personally i prefer circumsized. i've only heard and read of bad things for not being. since the only man i've ever been with IS circumsized, i don't know from expirience, but i've heard other people say that its not clean, that there's a problem with odor and oils and other discharge getting stuck under the skin, no matter how much you bathe and wash it.

for me, its more of a cleanliness issue. i'm not religious, but i think if i ever had a son (very unlikely, i hate kids) i would get him circumsized.

I've been intimate with guys with foreskins, and have never noticed an odor or oil problem. Like any body part if you don't keep it clean there's going to be those types of issues, but I don't think it's true "no matter how much you bathe and wash it".

[QUOTE=Brandye;163544]You are correct that the "routine circumcision" has disappeared for much of the developed world. Epidemiologists would like to see that change again. The cited study showed a fifty percent reduction in AIDS transmission. That is as good as many vaccines![/QUOTE]

Brandye, I'm afraid that I have to take issue with you over this. I am not a doctor, so will not attempt to argue the case on medical grounds, but I strongly believe that it is wrong to routinely remove a part of a person's body without their consent. I'm sure you would agree that female genital mutilation is wrong, well, I believe the same applies here. It is a form of mutilation.

This is where the medical profession gets things wrong. You will argue for a procedure on medical grounds without considering the rights of the patient. I'm sure that you are aware of the tragic case of Bruce Reimer, the Canadian boy who's penis was destroyed during a botched circumcision. To add injury to injury, this poor boy was then castrated, and given a sex change in the assumption that he could be raised as a girl. Well, it didn't work. In the end he committed suicide.

The tragedy of this case was that he was born a perfectly normal, healthy boy. The circumcision was totally unnecessary. It was a medical procedure and misguided attitudes within the medical profession that ultimately destroyed this person's life.

You may well believe that circumcision is a good idea for medical reasons, but I contend that you do not have the right to make that decision about another person's body without their consent.

[QUOTE=troilistfriend;163563]No one should be shamed for having thier children circumcised. Give me a break, "it should be their choice not yours." I have news for you, we choose allot of things for our children throughout their lives, this is no different. If you have an opinion on the argument about circumcision, then make it, but don't sit there and try and shame people with your idea of morals. That's not what this site is about, never has been.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with you, troilistfriend, but I am not trying to shame anybody, I'm just expressing my opinion. That is what this site is about - people expressing opinions. It doesn't mean that we have to all agree.

Sure, we make lots of decisions for our children, but I believe this decision IS different to others. It involves the unnecessary removal of a part of the body. It is not the same as other decisions, such as choosing a school, etc.

We as parents choose medical decisions for our children all the time, you decide what you want to think about the whole thing, and choose what you'll do for your children, and I'll do the same for mine. Neither is right or wrong in this case as opinion is the only thing anyone can state clearly. Evidence as to whether circumcision is healthier or not is vauge at best, therefore parents should make the decision for themsleves and their children free from whatever guilt you seek to impose. There are those that say that all those vitamin shots that kids are given at birth are unnecesary, yet it's still the parents' choice as to whether or not they get them. Its up to parents to make the informed decision at the time it is most appropriate to do so. If your opinion is that circumcision is unnecesary, then state it, but stay away from the 'you shouldn't do that' business.

I agree with your point that it's the parent's decision, Troilistfriend, but in fairness to Cyclefreak he was responding to a poster who said he would make the decision to circumcise his children based on "appearance and convenience", not because of any medical advantage. Legally it's any parent's right to base their decision on any criteria they think is valid. But I don't think it oversteps the boundries of this board to at least post the opinion the decision deserves a little deeper thought and state why. That isn't shaming parents who have made the decision to go forward from an informed and researched position.

One quick observation about the benefit of circumcision; not that this may be of any particular value to anyone here at this time in life. However, as we age, hitting the point of geriatrics, circumcision has a benefit of keeping all clean, reducing infection. Many uncircumcised men have complications later in life due to the foreskin and not being able to retract it to properly cleanse the area. I have had many elderly patients with all types of infections under the tissue, similar to what elderly women experience. It's not just about sexual issues but hygenic issues as well.

Interesting point, Sera300. I assume from your post you're in the medical profession and deal with older males. What do you think about the point of view that the glans skin toughens over time, especially over years, decreasing sensation? I'm in my early fifties, have always been circumcised, so it's a bit difficult to say but I don't think mine is a sensitive as when I was younger. That may be true with everyone, or have to do with other medical issues as well. I'm just curious if you think it's a valid factor or not, especially since it sounds like you have a chance to examine both cut and uncut older men.

[QUOTE=NizeGie;163677]

Compared to the other decisions parents make for their children, this one is tiny.

[/QUOTE]

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[QUOTE=NizeGie;163677]I don't remember anybody asking me whether I wanted my tonsils (a part of my body, I believe) removed either. I guess I got some input on the wisdom teeth ....[/QUOTE]Yes, but tonsils are usually taken out because they're inflamed or causing problems, not as a routine "preventative measure".

I still have mine (and my wisdom teeth for that matter), but I'll trade 'em for my missing foreskin any day. :)

[QUOTE=DVDBear;163665]I agree with your point that it's the parent's decision, Troilistfriend, but in fairness to Cyclefreak he was responding to a poster who said he would make the decision to circumcise his children based on "appearance and convenience", not because of any medical advantage. Legally it's any parent's right to base their decision on any criteria they think is valid. But I don't think it oversteps the boundries of this board to at least post the opinion the decision deserves a little deeper thought and state why. That isn't shaming parents who have made the decision to go forward from an informed and researched position.[/QUOTE]

I understood the "convenience" that the writer spoke of was a reference to overall cleanliness, which could be considered a medical advantage.

As to opinions versus shaming, there is a difference. If in a thread someone says "I enjoy anal sex with my wife," and someone says, "I don't enjoy anal sex with my wife," you have two opinions. When the second person says "you shouldn't have anal sex with your wife because you'll ruin her rectum, and it's an insulting demeaning sexual position in the first place," then it's beyond opinion. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any thread on this site where people climb the soapbox outside this thread.

I understand there are people out there that think differently on this topic, but if a parent chooses, for whatever reason, to circumcise their sons, no shame or misgivings should be heaped upon them, and if you don't think that's what happened in the posts by cyclefreak, go back and read, he essentially accused parents that circumcise their children of mutilation, basically, child abuse.

So what next, everyone here that has sex out without procreation is a "sinner," not what this site is about.

All right, I've re-read my post and I will concede that is how it reads.

Ok, I will be a bit more careful about the way I phrase my comments in future so that it doesn't appear as if I'm trying to shame anybody. I really didn't intend to do that.

However, I still have the view that circumcision seems like mutilation to me. I can't get away from that. I can't help it if people are offended by that point of view.