Split from xxx thread (about sex stuff)

[McDuffies]

So I split it so you folks can knock yourself out without being interrupted by art.

I see a reason why circumisation is done while it's still a baby. Wait until person is grown up enough to choose whether someone's gonna tamper with knife around his genitals and see if anyone's gonna say "yes, ok, doctor, chop it off".

[VileTerror]

Surprisingly, 'Duffs, there are men who do have elective circumcisions in their adult years.
(and thanks for the split)

[Aeridus]

I like my foreskin...

And yes, cleaning is just as effective as having no foreskin at all. And safer too. If we were meant to be born without foreskins then we wouldn't have them in the first place.

Plus, for those of us with foreskins, it's painful to have the foreskin pulled back when walking around with clothes on, the tip is hypersensitive due to never touching anything.

[Nanda]

I'm not sure why any man in his right mind would want to do it anyway. (Barring religious reasons, of course.)

[VileTerror]

Social reasons.
Some men see circumcision as the norm, and thus elect to have their foreskins removed to be like the rest of the guys.

Also: How many professional male pornstars do you see with uncircumcised weenies?

[Rkolter]

Well, for starters, just recently published in Science (I believe) and mentioned in Science News (I know), it turns out that the foreskin grants AIDS a welcome means of entry. You are 50% more vulnerable to contracting AIDS.

Circumcision also all but removes the possibility of male yeast infection.

Not saying it's for everyone, but there are benefits that aren't simply hype.

[VileTerror]

I get the yeast bit, but how do they explain the AIDS thing?

[Nanda]

Well, for starters, just recently published in Science (I believe) and mentioned in Science News (I know), it turns out that the foreskin grants AIDS a welcome means of entry. You are 50% more vulnerable to contracting AIDS.

Circumcision also all but removes the possibility of male yeast infection.

Wearing a condom and washing after sex works really well, too. Yeesh... Removing my breasts and ovaries would also help prevent cancer and cysts, but I'm not about to start lopping off body parts.

edit: Eh, I'm sorry if I ever come off a bit...fanatical in this debate. Having a son myself, and having had nearly EVERYONE I know question my decision not to circumcise him, it's one of those things I feel strongly about.

[Rkolter]

I get the yeast bit, but how do they explain the AIDS thing?

I'd have to grab the article. It turns out that there are quite a few immune cells at or near the surface of the penis sheathed in foreskin, and the skin is more supple, making entry for the virus easier. Without the foreskin the penis's skin toughens and the virus finds it more difficult to penetrate.

I've got the article downstairs, it's in one of the latest magazines, if Beth hasn't hidden it during a cleaning binge.

[TRI]

Well, for starters, just recently published in Science (I believe) and mentioned in Science News (I know), it turns out that the foreskin grants AIDS a welcome means of entry. You are 50% more vulnerable to contracting AIDS.

Circumcision also all but removes the possibility of male yeast infection.

Not saying it's for everyone, but there are benefits that aren't simply hype.

"50% more vulnerable?" I dunno how you measure vulnerability but the figures I read said you were 10% less likely to contract HIV through vaginal sex if you circumcised. And like Nanda said a condom works much much better.

As for the yeast infection... there's creams for that. Creams which don't reduce your level of penile sensitivity.

Still pretty flimsy reasons for involuntarily cutting parts off of healthy people.

EDIT: for that matter, there's the fact that infections rates don't back up the conclusions of those studies, so while it may have some effect at limiting HIV transmission it's obviously not a deciding factor in whether you become infected.

[CJBurgandy]

edit: Eh, I'm sorry if I ever come off a bit...fanatical in this debate. Having a son myself, and having had nearly EVERYONE I know question my decision not to circumcise him, it's one of those things I feel strongly about.

My mom went through the same thing when my brother was a baby Nanda. My family strongly believes that circumcision is a decision best chosen by the owner of the penis, and not the parents that produced him. All the males on my dad's side (except the sons of the aunt that converted to Mormonism, which I remember her having this argument with my dad while they were talking religion one day) are uncut as far as I know.

And like Nanda's agrument, I could save myself from a terrible ammount of pain that I go through nearly everyday if I cut out my overies and Uterus, but then, I'd be having to take horomones everyday and I think that balances out to be worse than pain.

And on the note of intersex and hermaphrodite children, Have you watched any of the surgical shows where they talk about it? There was one I saw last winter where the parents had no idea about the doctor deciding their child's gender until it was 3 and it's growth was so badly stunted. They had decided to make it a girl, even though it had two health testicals, and one poor ovary. They based their decision on the fact that it had a uterus as well but no penis. I don't remember the exact reasons on why the ovary resulted in stunted growth at 3 years old, but I do remember them talking about how the ovary had not gotten any better and the child would have to take horomones for the rest of her/his life because the ovary would never be healthy enough to do so. By the age of 6, the child looked like a little boy, all except the fact that it had no testicals anymore or penis. The mother was in process of suing the orginal doctor for assigning the wrong gender to her son. It was actually really sad.

I watch too much Discovery Health.

[TRI]

I watch too much Discovery Health.

That's one reason I try to limit my Discovery Health time.

Personally for Discovery-Channel-intersexed-baby-horror-stories I like the one where the this boy was born with a smaller-than-average penis and only one testicle (and some kind of female tissue, a uterus I think) and the doctors recommended "feminizing" his genitals and raising him as a girl. The parents decided not to. Felt that he was better off as a boy with one testicle than a girl with no ovaries.

Then they take the kid back to the same hospital for a checkup. The doctors tell the parents they have to take the kid away to do some kind of tests. After a while the parents get worried and try to find out why it's taking so long... turns out they had started the "feminizing" surgery without the parents consent.

[CJBurgandy]

I saw that one too and that one made me mad at the doctor >:(

[TRI]

Yeah, me too. I really hope he lost his license over that.

[Rkolter]

Well, for starters, just recently published in Science (I believe) and mentioned in Science News (I know), it turns out that the foreskin grants AIDS a welcome means of entry. You are 50% more vulnerable to contracting AIDS.

Circumcision also all but removes the possibility of male yeast infection.

Not saying it's for everyone, but there are benefits that aren't simply hype.

"50% more vulnerable?" I dunno how you measure vulnerability but the figures I read said you were 10% less likely to contract HIV through vaginal sex if you circumcised. And like Nanda said a condom works much much better.

You measure vulnerability by looking a group of thousands of men, assigning half to be circumcised and half not to be, and then following them as they go about their lives, and see whom contract AIDS. The result was that those who had their foreskins ran a 50% higher chance of contracting AIDS. It's been peer reviewed.

Circumcision is not like removing your uterus. One is a fairly complicated surgery requiring a hospital stay, that ends in sterility. One is done with a local anesthetic and unless horribly, horribly botched, doesn't alter your fertility at all.

It's not even like female circumcision, which is basically butchering the female genetalia and actually doesn't serve any medical purpose. So although it hasn't been compared to that, that comparison isn't apples to apples either.

Condoms are great for preventing STDs including AIDS. But they aren't always used. Yeast creams exist, but people have parts removed for less than recurring yeast infections - look at the people who have their tonsils removed to prevent sore throats, or have their eyes cut and adjusted to prevent wearing glasses.

Is a circumcision the right thing to force on an infant? In my opinion, no.
Is it a valid medical procedure that has some proven benefits? Yes.

Thanks for the interesting conversation. Good grief.

[Rkolter]

On the doctor that took the baby away for the feminizing surgery, or any doctor that would do any surgery on an infant that isn't life saving without talking to the parents and giving them their options, including not having the surgery done...

Good grief. Yank the license. And sue the doctor. I'm not normally for lawsuits of any kind. But that's abhorrant.

[Laemkral]

If you want a quality circumcision, minimal chance of being botched, you get a mohel. That's his job, performing circumcisions. I'm sure he'd have no problem doing it for non-Jewish individuals, as long as its a baby. Anyone past baby stage should seek professional medical aid and a psychiatrist because they're gonna have something to talk about REAL soon.

[Yeahduff]

Is circumcision really so controversial? Almost all men in America have had it done at birth, and I don't think I've ever heard one complain about it. It just seems like one of those things where you could or you could not and it's no big deal.

[TRI]

It's become controversial (in the US at least) because at one point, like you said, nearly all boys in the US were, and now that's changed. (Currently the ratio is about 50/50 or 60/40 depending on who you listen to.) Any time conventions change controversy is born.

[Snackbot]

Is circumcision really so controversial? Almost all men in America have had it done at birth, and I don't think I've ever heard one complain about it. It just seems like one of those things where you could or you could not and it's no big deal.

I think the issue is that circumcision is DONE to a child, and once it's done and the baby grows up he has no way of knowing, say "how the other half lives".

It's more an ethics discussion than an issue of health.

It's the same argument about baptizing children. Some christian relatives will go as far as to kidnap their nephew and have them baptized so as not to burn in hell forever. This happened to a good friend of mine when she was a baby.

It seems to me that if the foreskin is a problem, remove it. It's not like children are born and immediately whisked off to have their tonsils and appendix removed "just in case".

However, if you are christian and must baptize your child for your beliefs, it doesn't hurt so go for it. And if you are jewish and must circumcise your child for your beliefs, it doesn't hurt so go for it.

</my two cents>