Circumcision

[Southwind17]

As a circumcised man, it never really occured to me that I was missing out on anything. My dad told me I was better off because its useless and just tends to get infected, like wisdom teeth or an appendix.

OTOH, my son was born here in Japan where circumcision is not a common practice, so he is uncircumcised.

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?

Not telling!

Wait a minute, you mean your decision whether to circumcise your son was dictated purely by where you happened to be living at the time?!?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the AAP is saying medically it is not necessary, however it is not harmful and there could be minor benefits. I don’t think fear of political repercussions is the cause. It would be just as easy to say there is no medical necessity but also no harm if there are religious or cultural reasons. Also, it is my understanding the AAP originally said in 1971 there is no medical benefit to circumcision. It was only in the late ‘80s through the ‘90s that the AAP stated there may be some medical benefit to circumcision. Online source: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/ (marked edits very anti-circumcision).

The reason for the change in tone during the 80's & 90's was Edgar Schoen getting on the AAP task force. His dream is to have every male on the planet circumcised Now that he has left - or should that be has been removed from - the task force, its recommendations are less biased. It took them an embarrassingly long time to admit that circumcision is a painful procedure that requires proper anesthesia, such as a dorsal penile nerve block (Good) or ring block (Best). EMLA cream is not very good.

The only benefit worth arguing over is the reduced risk of infant UTI. The number of circumcisions required to avoid a single UTI is about 100. I.e., 100 males have to be circumcised so one of them avoids a UTI. UTI's are highly treatable, though there is a small risk of renal scarring or death and the treatment can be painful.

So, the decision is between:

Get circumcised and have a 100% chance of a painful procedure (that you will not explicitly remember).

OR

Don't get circumcised and have a 1% chance of painful procedure (that you will not explicitly remember).

Ironically, another AAP recommendation states that unnecessary traumatic procedures should be avoided so bonding between the mother and baby is not interrupted.

Anecdotally, I have had two acquaintances who decided not to circumcise at birth and then changed their minds when their boys were older. The most recent was about six months ago when a friend at work had her six year old boy circumcised. After two urinary tract infections, the doctor stated it would be a good idea. She absolutely regretted not doing it at birth.

If a six-year old is getting UTI's then normal foreskin is unlikely to be the cause of the problem.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

As a circumcised man, it never really occured to me that I was missing out on anything. My dad told me I was better off because its useless and just tends to get infected, like wisdom teeth or an appendix.

OTOH, my son was born here in Japan where circumcision is not a common practice, so he is uncircumcised.

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?

The foreskin is more sensitive to light touch than the glans and has a roller-bearing function during masturbation and intercourse that most uncircumcised men find highly pleasurable. We save a fortune on lube!

 

[Southwind17]

We save a fortune on lube!

I'll bet you do!

 

[Puppycow]

The foreskin is more sensitive to light touch than the glans and has a roller-bearing function during masturbation and intercourse that most uncircumcised men find highly pleasurable. We save a fortune on lube!

I see. So ballpark figure, how much would someone have to pay you to part with it?

Same question for other uncircumcised men. (The minimum amount that would make you seriously consider it.)

And does it matter if it hurt if I can't remember it?
Thinking about this gave me another thought: What's it like to be a human baby? Never mind what's it like to be a bat or a bee, we can't even really know what it's like to be a human baby, can we? Because none of us really remember. I have vague surreal recollections of toddlerhood. I even remember sucking on mommy's breast (and being weaned at age 2) but nothing earlier that I can trust.

Wait a minute, you mean your decision whether to circumcise your son was dictated purely by where you happened to be living at the time?!?

I didn't give it a whole lot of thought, to be honest. I guess I'm glad I didn't, although I'm not sure what I would have done at the time if offered the choice. I had it and my dad before me. He thought he was better off that way. I spent most of my life believing the same thing (although not giving it much thought because what could I do anyway?)

 

[Southwind17]

I see. So ballpark figure, how much would someone have to pay you to part with it?

Same question for other uncircumcised men. (The minimum amount that would make you seriously consider it.)

Very hard to answer seriously when not presented with the real-life scenario. I'd be inclined to say that I wouldn't even think about it for less than US$100k.

 

[fls]

I think the AAP is saying medically it is not necessary, however it is not harmful and there could be minor benefits. I don’t think fear of political repercussions is the cause. It would be just as easy to say there is no medical necessity but also no harm if there are religious or cultural reasons. Also, it is my understanding the AAP originally said in
1971 there is no medical benefit to circumcision. It was only in the late ‘80s through the ‘90s that the AAP stated there may be some medical benefit to circumcision. Online source: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/ (marked edits very anti-circumcision).

Yeah, I think those are all just slightly different ways of saying the same thing. The wording seems stronger (against) in statements from other countries, like this from the BMA..."The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests." I just wonder how much of the wording in the AAP statement depends upon making sure it doesn't leave the practices of its members unsupported given that they have to deal with issues of third-party payers, litigation, and discrimination that may not be seen in other countries. I will admit that I may be overly paranoid about these things.

I also suspect that these various statements have little effect on the actual practice - that the practice depends more upon perceptions of what is the norm.

Anecdotally, I have had two acquaintances who decided not to circumcise at birth and then changed their minds when their boys were older. The most recent was about six months ago when a friend at work had her six year old boy circumcised. After two urinary tract infections, the doctor stated it would be a good idea. She absolutely regretted not doing it at birth.

I don't complain as long as the decision was made thoughtfully, with a realistic assessment of the benefits, rather than from habit.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

I don't complain as long as the decision was made thoughtfully, with a realistic assessment of the benefits, rather than from habit.

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?

 

[fls]

Thank you. My wife is miserable but we're both very excited.

Since your wife is miserable, I assume she is still pregnant. And (if I recall correctly) you already have one child, so you know the due date thing is a farce (getting our hopes up only to dash them as the lumbering beast lives on). So what's the countdown all about?

Linda

 

[fls]

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?

I didn't have my boys circumcised, if that's what you mean. But, it turns out that "medically necessary" can mean pretty much what you want it to, in this circumstance.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

I didn't have my boys circumcised, if that's what you mean. But, it turns out that "medically necessary" can mean pretty much what you want it to, in this circumstance.

That's not what I meant (I didn't know you'd had any boys), but I suppose it answers my question. I agree that 'medically necessary' is open to interpretation, but it's threshold clearly lies way above the 'hygienically beneficial' justification.

Incidentally, neither I nor any of my three sons (11,7,7) are circumcised and none of us has ever had any UTIs or any other penile-related ailments. I guess none of us falls within the 1% that Ivor referred to earlier.

I'll make another point, too. I find it rather uncomfortable when the foreskin retracts, for whatever reason, whilst wearing underwear, especially when walking. That to me demonstrates the sensitivity of the glans, which presumably diminishes when circumcised, thereby leading to the suggestion of reduced pleasure during sex.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I see. So ballpark figure, how much would someone have to pay you to part with it?

£1,582,981.43

Though that isn't really the issue for me. I believe the child, when it is able, has the right to decide what bits of its body it wants modifying. Parents should only be making irreversible medical decisions for their incompetent children when there is deformity or immediate need, as should medical professionals.

Same question for other uncircumcised men. (The minimum amount that would make you seriously consider it.)

And does it matter if it hurt if I can't remember it?

Does raping someone matter if they've been drugged unconscious first?

 

[fls]

That's not what I meant (I didn't know you'd had any boys), but I suppose it answers my question.

What did you mean, then?

I agree that 'medically necessary' is open to interpretation, but it's threshold clearly lies way above the 'hygienically beneficial' justification.

I suppose it depends upon whether you take into consideration mental and social well-being, if only to recognize that these decisions are made within (and depend upon) a particular context.

Incidentally, neither I nor any of my three sons (11,7,7) are circumcised and none of us has ever had any UTIs or any other penile-related ailments. I guess none of us falls within the 1% that Ivor referred to earlier.

Yes, this pattern is fairly consistent in this and other threads. The perceived risk seems to depend heavily upon personal experience. Those who have had problems or know men/boys with problems due to their foreskin place a greater emphasis on the benefit of circumcision, and those without these experiences tend to dismiss them. It's one of the hardest biases to overcome, I think.

I'll make another point, too. I find it rather uncomfortable when the foreskin retracts, for whatever reason, whilst wearing underwear, especially when walking. That to me demonstrates the sensitivity of the glans, which presumably diminishes when circumcised, thereby leading to the suggestion of reduced pleasure during sex.

That observation isn't really born out by research that finds that the sensitivity under conditions of arousal is no different. And from a common sense point of view, circumcised men get erections and have orgasms, which is consistent with the idea that sexual pleasure depends upon sufficient sensitivity rather than an absolute amount. If most men have more than enough, then arguing about the degree to which there is excess baseline sensitivity is somewhat redundant, as it doesn't contribute to the experience.

Linda

 

[Z]

Only 11 kinds of evil monster? You're an eternal optimist too!

May I ask, what cosmetic 'alterations' did your loving parents violate (sorry, adorn) your body with, as a child (in addition to the apparent brain cavity reduction)?

Just circumcision. They couldn't afford anything else, and there was no cultural impetus to do so. (And no apparent brain cavity reduction - support of parental right of body modification of infants is not a sign of reduced intelligence or cognitive function. Kindly keep your ad-homs to yourself)

Have you thought of emigrating to Iran, or Saudi? I think the 'way-of-life' might suit you better there!

Not particularly, seeings as our views on the treatment of women are significantly different. Plus, I hate sand. And camels. Especially sandy camels. And how sandy camels treat women.

[[Is there a Godwin's Law variation for the Middle East yet?]]

 

[Z]

So why not have your nipples removed. They're more 'superfluous' than your foreskin.

If I could afford to do it, I would, as a matter of fact. The damned things react to everything - every bit of sweat, or salt water, or the slightest drop of temperature.

Care to fund the surgery? If you buy, I'll definitely do it.

 

[Loss Leader]

Mmm ... Munchhausens by Proxy comes to mind.

Or, you know, Jewish.

But thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet someone who believes anyone who disagrees with him must be mentally ill.

 

[Z]

Circumcised men also last longer - probably from the alleged reduced sensitivity - thereby providing more pleasure to their partners, from some studies, IIRC.

I know in my case, when having sex with a woman who has had previous uncircumcised partners, she found this to be true - that, on average, I was lasting 3 to 4 times longer than her prior uncut partners. In fact, the only real issue I tend to have is becoming too tired to continue prior to 'release', which I largely blame on being a 'fat bastard'.

The few uncut men I've known in the military, when the subject came up at all, regretted being uncut for precisely the same reason. Sure, sex might be more intense - but how many women REALLY want a 'minute-man'?

Obviously, this is hardly true of all men; we clean-cut gents have our share of quick-shooters, and I'm sure some whole fellows can last three hours or more at a go as I tend to... Honestly, though, I'd like to see some current research on this part of the subject.

 

[fls]

[[Is there a Godwin's Law variation for the Middle East yet?]]

Well, duh! Here's your chance to attach your name to it, and so attain immortality.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

What did you mean, then?

The question can hardly be re-worded for added clarity, but I'll try:

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?

So, you don't agree with circumcision then, unless it's medically necessary?

I suppose it depends upon whether you take into consideration mental and social well-being, if only to recognize that these decisions are made within (and depend upon) a particular context.

'Mental and social well-being' of whom? Surely not the victim; he's too young even to appreciate what's happening. So you must be referring to the parent(s) then. To my mind, disfigurement of your own child in the selfish interests of your own social or mental well-being is a very lame and pusillanimous reason.

The perceived risk seems to depend heavily upon personal experience. Those who have had problems or know men/boys with problems due to their foreskin place a greater emphasis on the benefit of circumcision ...

I very much doubt that this reason alone determines many parents' decision, where the choice is otherwise completely open.

That observation isn't really born out by research that finds that the sensitivity under conditions of arousal is no different. And from a common sense point of view, circumcised men get erections and have orgasms, which is consistent with the idea that sexual pleasure depends upon sufficient sensitivity rather than an absolute amount.

I (and I suspect most un-circumcised men) can easily achieve orgasm without retracting the foreskin, if I so wish. The ability to achieve an erection and thereafter orgasm is not, therefore, determined by sensitivity of the glans. An exposed glans, however, does increase the sensation and experience immensely (well it does for me) during sex.

If most men have more than enough, then arguing about the degree to which there is excess baseline sensitivity is somewhat redundant, as it doesn't contribute to the experience.

Simply not true. I enjoy ice-cream, but on those rare occassions I've had an entire tub to myself ...!

 

[Z]

Well, duh! Here's your chance to attach your name to it, and so attain immortality.

Linda

Oh lovely - so everyone on the internet can mistakenly apply Z's Rule once Circumcision comes up, instead of when comparisons to Islam come up...

Of course, if you think about it - I DID cut my name down from 'zaayrdragon' to just 'z'...