There was a question some time ago in a slightly drifted off thread about the functions of the foreskin. See: http://www.sexinfo101.com/forum/sexual-health-men/30213-how-remove-fores...
I have recently found these video that explain it quite thoroughly: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=uaRBVOnflCM&annotation_id=annotatio... of Foreskin - YouTube According to the credits, this video was produced by Gavin W. Sisk, MFA at the University of Washington and George C. Denniston, MD. It is an attempt to educate what American textbooks and anatomical schematics fail to show. I can't judge whether it displays medically correct information. But certainly found it interesting enough for anyone who searches information on this subject :)
I'd encourage you to make it through the 20 minutes. But for those who can't take the metal-like voice; there is a two minute vid available as well. Less impressive and complete, but gives you some of the flat facts: [url=http://youtu.be/uaRBVOnflCM]Foreskin Explained with Computer Animation - YouTube
Personally; based on the facts that
-the foreskin is comparable to an eyelash in the way it covers a mucous membrane (which dries out and calluses when circumcised),
-it is covered with nerve-endings that are as highly sensitive as those in our fingertips and lips (and removal means deliberately removing sensations of sexual pleasure),
-it is unique in human physiologically for it's ability to turn inside out and outside in,
-this ability of the penis to glide in and out of itself increases pleasure-dynamic for both partners (in fact; the absence of it causes loss of lubrication and increases abrasion of the vagina),
-the short- and longterm effects of circumcision as explained in 16:06-19:00,
I'd say this little piece of skin should not to be considered obsolete nor expandable.
The only exceptions being when it doesn't function properly and needs to be removed as medically indicated (just like any other part of the body in poor condition) or if a male chooses so himself.
..... and, without proper hygiene, carries a load of nasties affecting both the man with it and ny woman into whom it is inserted.
True. Though without proper hygiene, many bodyparts can carry decease infecting ourselves and others. We don't generally remove or mutilate those as a matter of precaution, instead of teaching proper hygiene.
What surprises me is how male circumcision without medical indication, is condoned because it could reduce spreading decease. Or because it's tradition. Or even; because guys are "sensitive enough as it is", so it wouldn't "matter" :eek:. In the western world we condemn any type of female genital mutilation, including only nicking the clitoral hood. And for very VERY good reason! It is a violation of the human body and sexuality. It disrespects the child's integrity. In my opinion male circumcision is wrong for the same reasons.
Regardless of that, I figured the vid answered the question rather thoroughly, which is why I considered it worth posting.
This is a timely post for me. I'm pretty seriously considering getting circumcised, because after talking to my doctor and one of the posters on here I really do think it has health benefits in terms of improved hygiene and reduced risk of STIs. But the one thing I'm worried about is the potential loss of sensation. It's really hard to find information on the internet - some people say one thing, other people say another. Most of the studies I've read actually say there is no difference, or that sensation is actually improved for the male after circumcision. Does anyone have any experience with this (circumcised as an adult), or know anyone who does, who could maybe provide some input?
It is difficult to find those who have sexual experience both with and without foreskin. I can addres the science and female safety only.
I do not advocate adult males becoming circumcised unless there are other problems - quite infrequent. I do advocate circumcision for hygienic purposes. The recent (last five years) experience in E. Africa certainly demonstrates the hygiene: statistical dramatic decrease in HIV spread in both men and women. The long standing difference in cervical cancer among the Jewish population of New York v. the gentile population of tells us something. The same thing world wide tells us that there are benefits in circumcision.
Then Japan messes up my neat little bit of science. The Japanese obsession with cleanliness does play into the "hygiene" bit. I do not know where to get unbiased tales of adult circumcision. The two sides, pro and con, can each be such asses in presenting their ideas that the facts get lost.
[url=http://nymag.com/health/features/60133/]Hugo Schwyzer on Why He Got Circumcised at Age 37 -- New York Magazine this link gives a testimony from a man who needed a circumcision as an adult. after reading that article there are others that are for or against circumcision.
i can only give you my opinion from the view point of someone who has been circumcised all my life. my orgasms feel amazing, some come quickly and others take awhile. i couldn't imagine being able to handle more sensation than i already have to. i like that i don't have to worry about cleaning foreskin, and that i never will have problems with it giving me pain.
to comment on the Japanese culture - sure every man could become that obsessed with hygiene but in reality it won't happen, so might as well reduce the risk of std's with circumcision.
i dont belive in this procedure. I say you were born with it and if your parents didn't get the doctor to take it off, it should stay. It's not very hard to clean that part of your body when you're taking a shower. It even give you the chance to inspect for unusual things down there, and take the time to play aroud while you're there.
On another level; in "Birth as we know it" Elena Tonetti points out that by circumcising babies you're imprinting a primal association of the baby between his penis and pain. As mentioned earlier; the surgery itself and the healing following it, interferes with the bonding and trust between mother and child AND interferes with breastfeeding; his vital source of energy and only food for the first months in his life. Tonetti adds it could also interfere with the bonding of the baby with the world he lives in (that has violated him in his first few hours of life) and the bond between the baby and his own body.
The line of research concerning prenatal & newborn psychology and long-term effects of interventions during and soon after birth is still young. But the results of research done by the pioneers, such as: dr.Thomas Verny, dr. David Chamberlain, dr. William Emerson indicate quite an impact on the babies' later health and well-being. Consider that interventions during and after birth are at times just simply medically necessary to safe the lives of mother and child, but circumcision of babies is in no way necessary.
As for circumcision without medical reason at an adult age. Sure; it's your body, your choice. You can get tattoos, piercings, plastic surgery or any other body-adjustment as well, so why not this? But personally; just the hypothesis that if someone would tell me I'd reduce risk of STI's and be more hygienic if they'd just cut my clitoral hood off, every cell in my body would be screaming "no" in capitals.
A few years ago there was an "attack" on this Board by a rabidly anti-circumcision group from Seattle (related to the doctors who did the YouTube videos you point out. They repeatedly cited the same studies over and over and were quite easily identified even to getting their real names. They are still active on the internet and god know whom they are spamming at this moment. It was one of this group whom I called a jerk and was suspended from the Board. He was not a jerk for being against circumcision but he was certainly a jerk in how he expressed it. I am rather proud of having been suspended by the mods. This present discussion is not such that anyone is yet being called a jerk!
I am neither advocating nor opposing circumcision for either babies or adults. I am reporting the science behind the current WHO recommendations. The reduced incidence of STDs has been known for about a century; the reduced risk of cervical cancer in women married to circumcised males has been known for about fifty years; relationship to HIV infection, for the last five to ten years. The relative absence of cervical cancer in Japan was first noted about a century ago.
Putting on my woman face, I am hesitant to engage in unprotected sex with uncircumcised males I do not know well and have been since my days at university. Putting on my public health face, I support WHO efforts in Asia, Central America and Africa to encourage circumcision. Simply acting as a physician, I make no recommendation unless a man is having some other difficulty when I would refer him to a consultant. I have never performed a circumcision and would not want to be a male in whom I learned! That is not usually part of a trauma surgeon's bag of tricks. And, these days, I am much more of an academic and administrator than a practicing physician.
There are few sources of unbiased information on the web or anywhere else. Talk to your physician and hope that he is not biased. Or, at least, does not cut on a bias.
World's statistics on circumcision, culture & religion
According to the WHO about 30% of the world's male population is circumcised (either medically indicated or not). The results are extremely variable based on country and religion. The US and Israel are mostly responsible for this high percentage. In Europe it's fairly uncommon. In the Netherlands only 10.000 boys are circumcised without medical indication yearly. By comparison; there are about 20.300.0 newborns a year. These boys are of different ages ranching from baby to puberty. It's no surprise that I've never seen a circumcised penis in real life. Even though I'm into nude recreation and see penises flopping by all the time ;)
My intentions
My intention is surely not to be a jerk :) My intention is also not to make circumcised men feel bad about themselves. Or to encourage them to get angry at their parents. What's done is done. My focus is on the babies born today and tomorrow. On their parents facing decision. Who deserve to make a conscious decision, even owe it to their son, instead of accepting circumcision as the way to go, simply based on their own heritage. If my next lover is circumcised, I will accept and love every cell of his body. Though when it comes to our future son, he should know I will never let them make him "just like daddy", without medical indication.
People sometimes tell me I have this "activist-attitude". Which I think is true. However; I don't really fight for a particular group. I simply get shocked by practices that cause people harm. And when it comes to circumcision of babies, I protest from the point of view of protecting the birth-right, the mother-infant-bond, breastfeeding, the child's right of integrity of it's own body, sexuality and equal treatment of men and women.
Medically indicated circumcision, I strongly support without a doubt. Adults choosing to get circumcised themselves, I let them be. Babies, infants and children without medical indication? Based on all the information I've gathered, I'm personally strongly against it. For all the reasons as mentioned. Though I also believe that whatever opinion I hold, deserves a second scrutinizing depending on the situation. And that the primary focus should be to inform people, not ridicule or insult, but communication and interaction. Only when you question you'll learn.
West vs South/East
Until rather recently I was under the perception that male circumcision without medical indication was highly uncommon in the world and only done as religious ritual. A practice done by minorities, comparable in it's rarity like piercing lips and putting dishes in them as random example. We condone male circumcision without medical indication, because
a) it's too uncommon to waste energy on and
b) religious -particularly Jewish- traditions are a very touchy subject to discuss, especially in a culture based on Christian-Jewish heritage, not to mention WW2. And since I now know how common practice it is in the US, add:
c) political agenda; if we'd condemn it, we'd be offending some big country across the big ocean, who we depend on economically big time:rolleyes: All together; reasons why our government encourages "dialogue". A very politically correct term of basically encouraging second thoughts by informing people through physicians and other health and social authorities. Not only practical for the above reasons, we know this works best. It's not as much the legal punishment as it is the education that invokes change of mind, that has dropped the rates of female genitals being secretly mutilated.
In the Netherlands they've seriously scrutinized the WHO advice on HIV-reduction through circumcision. And concluded that the benefits of lowering HIV are not to be expected here. According to the American Center for Disease Control; circumcision doesn't protect HIV-transmission among homosexual men nor does it prevent spreading the decease from infected man to uninfected woman (as also mentioned here: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?ref=health... in U.S.). Statistically in the Netherlands HIV is transmitted mostly through sharing needles in drug-use and unsafe homosexual activities among men- again: touchy subject, yet it's just what the numbers say. So circumcision will not reduce HIV-transmission any further. In fact; it seems that when taking ourselves as an example, encouraging condom-use is much more effective, particularly in Western cultures.
I can see why people want to encourage this practice in Africa. Every HIV-infected circumcised man may infect the women he has sex with, same chances as an uncircumcised man does. But the next man who has sex with either of these women has lesser chance of becoming infected himself, if he's circumcised. Which means he has less chance of taking it home back to his wife and his other sweet-sixteens. It means lives are being saved.
Though part of me sees babies who are getting off to such a bad start. In a country without much medical assistance. I see them risking babies unable to breastfeed to a point they weaken and even die. Yet; I can see that generations of people dying of HIV may beat weakening the chances of survival of infants. Still; it highly bothers me when babies' rights should be violated and their body mutilated for the sake of a pope and other religious hotshots who have imprinted people against condom-use.
Equal treatment?
Another aspect that troubles me -and I pray that the WHO has considered this wholeheartedly before advising- is the hypothesis that by making male circumcision a norm in Africa, you could be encouraging female circumcision as well. Which is exactly what we do not want!!! I haven't found this recorded as part of the WHO considerations. And yet, I know that in the Netherlands the debate around male circumcision fired up, by the time the wrong doing of female circumcision was recognized and condemned. Even within religious communities; they're abandoning male circumcision as a just as barbaric tradition.
And from my point of view; it only serves us right to treat our sons' genitalia with the same respect as we do our daughters; by leaving them in tact! I'm just afraid the same logic can be applied the other way around, when encouraging the male genitalia to be mutilated. Like I said; I pray they've extensively checked on this possible effect.
> This is a timely post for me. I'm pretty seriously considering getting circumcised, because after talking to my doctor and one of the posters on here I really do think it has health benefits in terms of improved hygiene and reduced risk of STIs. But the one thing I'm worried about is the potential loss of sensation.
> > i dont belive in this procedure. I say you were born with it and if your parents didn't get the doctor to take it off, it should stay.
There can be medical reasons for an adult to have the foreskin removed. My best friend whom I've known since the 8th grade had the procedure done a couple of years ago because of problems related to a medical condition.
He reported soon after he was able to resume his sex life that his penis was extremely sensitive, that sex was literally a real pain. Now, he reports that over the past months the nerves in his exposed glans have calmed down and that while there is not the intensity as before, there is still more than enough sensitivity to accomplish an intense buildup and ejaculation. It's not that it's less sensitive so much as it is just different than what he was accustomed to.
Keep in mind that much of the world's male population are circumcised so if it was a problem, you'd think the practice would not be so common.
Fear not that there is a crossover between male and female circumcision. Those few cultures, actually tribal groups, where female circumcision is still practiced do it to remove the challenge of female sexual enjoyment and keep the women in line. The men in those same groups would never consider circumcision of themselves. There are those, including the visitors here a few years ago, who see a parallel between male and female circumcision as they are both mutilation of the natural body. I really have no response to that except circumcision of the woman removes all sexual interest or desire and leaves sex at the control of the men. A woman with no response is not likely to commit adultery and, in most cases, simply wishes to avoid sex completely. Circumcising men hardly removes sexual desire.
The infection rate for HVI in parts of the world are so high, 20% is not considered excessive in parts of Africa, that nearly half of all children under five are orphans. I recognize that in Holland HIV is almost exclusively dirty needles and unsafe sex among homosexual men. This addresses the headline grabbing diseases but ignores the carrier function of other STDs and the typical European rate of cervical cancer in Holland. You Dutch may not be paying the price in near term diagnosis but the incidence of cervical cancer indicates that you are not getting off Scot-free. Cervical cancer shows up later (typically between 35 and 54 years of age) and is exclusively a woman's disease. Europe, as a whole, has a higher incidence rate than the U.S. and is almost undifferentiated across countries. 75% of all cervical cancer is caused by four four specific HPV and is most commonly introduced to the cervix by a penis.
The KNMG -organization who represents all doctors in the Netherlands- does consider male and female genital mutilation the same. This point of view is backed-up by medical-scientific organizations that concerns these matters (pediatricians, urologists, physician, child surgery, etc) and is supported by the members as represented.
Circumcision concerns more than the actual mutilation itself. The practice of sunna light -which means poking the clitoral hood until a drop of blood appears- is also defined female circumcision and thus severe child abuse. Even though no permanent damage is done to a girl, it's considered a violation of the human body and the child's rights. Which means that done in whatever form, both male and female circumcision violate our constitution.
Any medical act on children can only be executed when the child is ill, has developed abnormalities that need correction or there is strong evidence that the act will be done for the sake of the child as individual (such is the case when vaccinating). Male circumcision therefor violates our laws on medical practice.
As you can see, there's sufficient legal ground to prohibit the practice of male circumcision here and any country with the same laws as we do.
Yet (for now) the KNMG advices dialogue and urges all medical practitioners to strongly discourage parents, informing about the lack of medical advantage and evidence for it and the risk of physical and psychological complications. And surely not to consider it with babies, infants or children. The possible advantage only becomes apparent when the child is of age to have sexual relations. Conveniently; 16 is the age to consent to sex and medical procedures.
The advice is clear and simple; wait till the child is of the age that he is able to consent to the procedure himself.
Personally; I feel that circumcision is of the same category as promoting abstinence and monogamy in the battle against HPV. Great theory, but in practice; no. Because there's far more to consider. This is a practice that was a religious ritual and continued for centuries without any evidence of health-advantage. And because we consciously continued to violate rights that should have been protected, we now can investigate possible advantages. Whereas the basics of the matter remains; it was and is a violation.
Others have told me; but if we leave it up to the boys it won't work. Well if it doesn't work, it wasn't such a good plan. You don't violate rights to avoid consent and make it work. Honestly; I wouldn't blame boys in the least if they didn't chose to become hero's for our society. I consider myself a rather generous person. But I wouldn't let them cut erogenous tissue from my body, if I could reduce the chances of one day indirectly and unintentionally deceasing and even leading to the death of someone. Pay extra attention to my personal hygiene for the sake of others; off course. And I think such obviousness goes for almost everyone.
I dislike the messages we're (unconsciously) sending out to perfectly healthy boys through promoting male circumcision; you were born wrong, your penis is filthy. And even to girls; his penis is disgusting. Unless there's a medical indication that it is not functioning well, no-one should feel that their body is wrong. In my book a better message would be; when it comes to sex personal hygiene exceeds personal. Or some other catchy phrase and the proper education to go with it :)
PS: Brandye, I do thank you for having this conversation with me. I find it very refreshing to discuss this with someone who does get her facts.
Red,
We are speaking from two different perspectives - neither one right nor wrong. I am speaking from the scientific perspective of public health, especially in less developed cultures. You are speaking from the perspective of philosophic purity. We will not find common ground but that does not mean we need become emotional and call one another names - as happens with some who visit here.
My profession is to reduce disease in the world and I will stand strongly on my statement that circumcision is a major tool in doing this. Given that Europe and the States have very similar standards of living, circumcision is the best explanation remaining for the difference in cervical cancer between the two. The difference may approach trivial and I do not stand on a street corner in Kassel with a scalpel in my hand inviting business. Projected to Eastern Europe where HIV is raging or South Asia where it is already pandemic, I support the WHO policy of encouraging circumcision.
In Nederland, education works pretty well; in the Central African Republic, people resist using soap to wash their hands.
I guess you're right Brandye. Though I really don't mean to practice philosophy. I genuinely care about people. But I think circumcision for it's violation-nature, shouldn't even be considered a solution.
I off course do agree it is very sad that in some parts of the world things are so bad and yet it seems impossible to provoke change to make it better. Though I do believe it's possible. Like how in Eastern Bali they've changed a community through the "art of learning by doing"- as is the title of their beautiful book published in 2005; [url=http://eastbalipovertyproject.org/2005/09/01/the-launch-of-the-art-of-le... Bali Poverty Project I know this doesn't say much about HIV or HPV, but their project did start with basic hygiene. Deathrates have gone down dramatically since. The children are now building a self-supporting community into a better future. Such projects are initiated throughout the third world. Also entire villages of orphans (often due to HIV) who are receiving loving home and are taught everything they need to know to one day become adults in a thriving community: [url=http://www.soskinderdorpen.nl/pages/default.aspx]SOS Kinderdorpen - Een liefdevol thuis voor ieder kind(only in Dutch) I support those projects as much as I can, because I believe those are the way to go for a better future.
Btw; nice you spell out my nation's name in my language :)
Interesting site regarding Somali orphans. That is the side of public health that I am now wallowing in. Though I have never been to Somalia or Puntland or Somaliland, the pieces of a fractured nation. Sadly for everyone who is saved and leads a normal life, another is sold into slavery. We need all the organizations we can afford fighting this blight throughout Africa and South Asia. And, I fear, the various wars in the Islamic world are generating more such orphans.