Should I circumcize my son?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Tom31


I think you’ve presented the “medical” arguments fairly, but I think your analysis needs to be taken to another level. Suppose doctors said the following to parents of newborns:

“If we cut off one of your baby’s little fingers, s/he will never get it caught in a car door and it will never develop hangnail or arthritis. These benefits are extremely minor, but on the other hand, the surgical risk of removing the finger is quite low as well. Since the harms and benefits are pretty evenly balanced, we leave it up to parents to decide whether their children should have 10 fingers or 9.”

This would suggest that people in this country had a tradition of sacrificing children’s fingers, and the medical profession was afraid of the consequences if it said the obvious: that cutting off a child’s finger is contrary to medical ethics and just plain stupid.

I was merely giving an overview of the controversy.

Actually the official recommendations of the American Association of Pediatricians and the American Association of Family Practitioners have been against circumcision since the 1980s, when studies showed that babies do indeed feel pain from the procedure. I don't generally recommend them either. Definitive studies on the role of circumcision in the prevention of HIV infection are being conducted now. If it turns out that circumcision conveys strong protection against HIV infection then conceivably the recommendations may change.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher

Obviously not. There are more reports saying either there's no real difference between cut and uncut men and AIDS and that cut men are more vulnerable than there are saying uncut men are more vulnerable. There are reports saying all three things, 28 known such reports, and when the data from all 28 reports is put together, there is a "significantly higher chance" for cut men to get HIV -- if they DO NOT WEAR A CONDOM. This is a moot point, you should be wearing a condom!

Modern studies have tended to show the opposite of what you're saying, anyway, so I wouldn't try to use it anymore.

BTW, if you're interested, I posted a couple links in this thread that specifically debunked and told where errors were made in the sampling for the studies who said uncut men are more vulnerable...

The reports you're quoting didn't sum the total number of cases, they merely compared the total number of studies published that showed protection vs. thoswe which did not, and even then they did not include all the studies published. When a true meta-analysis is done, i.e., the total number of subjects in all the studies is analyzed there appears to be a protective effect. Studies done in African men tend to show a higher effect, since these studies look at transmission from the vagina to the penis. Studies done on American and European men tend to show less effect since in these areas most of the subjects are gay and transmission is most likely to be penis to anus. Finally, most studies done to date have not been prospective, so there may be other factors determining the rate of viral transmission. The few prospective studies that have been conducted did show a protective effect, but only about 50%. IS 50% good enough? Not in my book.

[MOBIUS]

Wow! What a cool thread!

Well, I have to say I am a whole man...

I'm glad I wasn't cut - from personal experience the bell end is just too damned sensitive not to be kept under wraps by the foreskin... *shudder*

As for this uncut is ugly crap, these people haven't heard of rolling up the foreskin? My rolls up quite neatly...

Just remember to roll it back down because of even the contact of an exposed bell end with clothing is too much to bear!

Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to being a 'sensitive' guy...

[Tom31]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

I'm glad I wasn't cut - from personal experience the bell end is just too damned sensitive not to be kept under wraps by the foreskin...

Different parts of the penis respond to different stimuli. From its flared shape, you can tell the "bell end" is designed to respond mainly to pressure. The "fine touch" nerve endings of the penis are concentrated in the foreskin. The foreskin also acts as a "motion detector." The penis acts as a unit--every part of it has a purpose. See http://research.cirp.org/func1.html

[Tom31]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

If it turns out that circumcision conveys strong protection against HIV infection then conceivably the recommendations may change.

The real issues are consent and gender equality. Lots of body parts could be removed from babies as a “disease-prevention” measure. For instance, breast tissue could be removed from babies to reduce their risk of breast cancer. The question is whether it’s ethical for doctors to perform such operations, and whether the consent forms that parents sign for such operations are legally valid. As I think the finger analogy shows, the “medical pros/cons” have been a kind of smokescreen thrown up to hide a touchy ethical and legal problem.

[Tom31]

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Tom31
From its flared shape, you can tell the "bell end" is designed to respond mainly to pressure. It doesn't have many "fine touch" nerve endings. The "fine touch" nerve endings of the penis are concentrated in the foreskin. http://research.cirp.org/func1.html

Well my Bell end would beg to differ - yep, just checked to make sure!

[Tom31]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Well my Bell end would beg to differ - yep, just checked to make sure!

Compre the "ridged band" area of the foreskin.

http://research.cirp.org/pix1.html (fig. 3,4,5)

If you want you can fill in the survey:

http://research.cirp.org/cgi-bin/feedbk2.cgi

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Tom31


Check the "ridged band" area of the foreskin

Do you mean the frenulum? That's not really the foreskin IMO...

As far as I can tell my foreskin is the protective 'casing' to protect the sensitive equipment under the hood...

It does an admirable job IMO, as without this protection I fear that the sensitivity of my instrument would be damaged beyond repair...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Tom31


The real issues are consent and gender equality. Lots of body parts could be removed from babies as a “disease-prevention” measure. For instance, breast tissue could be removed from babies to reduce their risk of breast cancer. The question is whether it’s ethical for doctors to perform such operations, and whether the consent forms that parents sign for such operations are legally valid. As I think the finger analogy shows, the “medical pros/cons” have been a kind of smokescreen thrown up to hide a touchy ethical and legal problem.

I'm not arguing in favor of circumcision, but I think you're overplaying the "ethical" argument. First of all, let me point out that no western medical society recommends it, so the procedure can no longer be looked on as needless surgery imposed on little boys by a vested interest. The matter is now strictly a matter of parental preferrence. That it should remain legitimately so can be inferred by the fact that circumcised men don't appear to suffer from the procedure. There does not appear to be a higher rate of sexual dysfunction resulting from the procedure, so it would appear that the foreskin's role as an essential sensory organ is over stated. You might as well argue about the right of a parent to have a child's hair or fingernails cut.

[Tom31]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You might as well argue about the right of a parent to have a child's hair or fingernails cut.

Unlike hair and fingernails, foreskins don't grow back. The penis is a well-integrated organ. The various parts, including the foreskin, have specific functions.

http://research.cirp.org/

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Do you mean the frenulum? That's not really the foreskin IMO...

As far as I can tell my foreskin is the protective 'casing' to protect the sensitive equipment under the hood...

It does an admirable job IMO, as without this protection I fear that the sensitivity of my instrument would be damaged beyond repair...

Circumcision generally doesn't remove the entire foreskin. Usually about one-half to one-third is left, enough to cover the raised part at the posterior aspect of the glans.

[Nacht]

So the majority of the americans is circumsized.... ... I didn't know that... you silly people.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Tom31


Unlike hair and fingernails, foreskins don't grow back. The penis is a well-integrated organ. The various parts, including the foreskin, have specific functions.

http://research.cirp.org/

Yes, I read that article, but as I pointed out the role as a sensory organ is overstated, as there appears to be no functional difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doc:

While it might not be necessary, for those who happen to be religious, they aren't doing anything horrible to their children. I also believe that the foreskin's role is overstated. To hear all these uncut people tell it, they would assume I can't feel anything in my penis at all!! I can definetly tell you that that is soooo not the case. The problem is that uncut can never understand the cut and vice versa, however, we can all get off the same. Thank you .

I'm leaving now.

When were you here?