How harmful is mgm?

-Moment_OF_Tangency- · 2020-10-04T19:06:32+00:00

peeling the most sensitive skin from the most sensitive organ with no anesthesia!

Sounds torture to me, op?

motorway6 · 2020-10-04T19:35:05+00:00

You haven't been researching you have been reading articles in favour of circumcision, otherwise, you would have found numerous articles against the practice.

But here you go anyway.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364150/

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(16)30268-3/fulltext30268-3/fulltext)

https://evidencebasedbirth.com/evidence-and-ethics-on-circumcision/

redit4speechfreedom · 2020-10-05T12:26:52+00:00

Even without all of the negative health effects, they are just denying the autonomy that men have over their body and their private parts. Which is also very horrible.

EvilLothar · 2020-10-04T20:02:35+00:00

You would need to actually talk to men who have had it done as an adult, to see if it actually did either of the things you listed... because babies don't have sex or get STDs (except when some sicko is sucking on their mutilated penis and gives them a disease).

And most of the time, the men that have this done as an adult have it done for actual medical reasons, so that may improve sexual function...

excess_inquisitivity · 2020-10-04T21:02:54+00:00

/r/intactivism

Bojack35 · 2020-10-04T19:12:12+00:00

What do you mean by improves sexual function?

-Moment_OF_Tangency- · 2020-10-04T19:04:53+00:00

I chopped my arm off because I was tired of scratching it?

I’ve been researching the subject and all the articles I’ve read say that it prevents stds and improves sexual function is this true? Please provide sources.

mikesteane · 2020-10-05T06:15:44+00:00

Have you been reading articles by Brian Morris by any chance?

user_miki · 2020-10-05T07:53:07+00:00

improve sexual function?!For whom?

LMAO!

If you have a scar on a tissue in your body any part , that scarred part become less sensitive or more sensitive to pain.

Source:

-Me-

MrSmigick · 2020-10-05T17:13:30+00:00

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
HIV was contracted through means other than sex
Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will try and use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."

MrSmigick · 2020-10-05T17:15:16+00:00

The functions of the foreskin and the adverse effects of circumcision

The foreskin has several functions and accounts for most of the sensitivity of the penis.

A comparison of the sensitivity of an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one.

The normal glans is an internal structure, only exposed briefly during urination, washing, and sexual arousal. Its surface is moist and is not keratinised. However, circumcision converts the glans into an external organ. Immediately after the operation, it retains its exquisite sensitivity, and contact with clothing causes considerable discomfort, but it soon becomes desensitised, probably as a result of the laying down of a layer of keratin on the epithelium. A few circumcised men report persistent discomfort from contact with clothing throughout their lives. The epithelium takes on the character of skin instead of a mucous membrane.

Not only is the appearance of the glans altered, but also there is a dramatic loss of sensitivity.

A keratinised circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis.

No data is collected on the complications and risks of circumcision in America as there is no legal obligation to do so. Infections, haemorrhages, meatal strictures, (partial) amputations of the penis and deaths occur. Even circumcisions performed in sterile environments result in a lot of complications. Over 100 babies die in the US every year because of complications during the procedure. When circumcision is performed in other, less developed countries, the risks are even higher.

Pictures of complications in adults

Pictures of complications in infants

Pictures of complications in tribal men

Many cut men suffer from meatal stenosis

Fine‐touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort

CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

The effect of male circumcision on sexuality

CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

The prepuce: specialised mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision

CONCLUSIONS: The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre‐operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.

Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision

CONCLUSIONS: Adult circumcision has certain effect on erectile function, to which more importance should be attached.

Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark

CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.

Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study

CONCLUSIONS: There are significant variations of appearance in circumcised boys; clinical findings are much more common in these boys than previously reported in retrospective studies. The circumcised penis requires more care than the intact penis during the first 3 years of life. Parents should be instructed to retract and clean any skin covering the glans in circumcised boys, to prevent adhesions forming and debris from accumulating. Penile inflammation (balanitis) may be more common in circumcised boys; preputial stenosis (phimosis) affects circumcised and intact boys with equal frequency. The revision of circumcision for purely cosmetic reasons should be discouraged on both medical and ethical grounds.

Cultural background, non-therapeutic circumcision and the risk of meatal stenosis and other urethral stricture disease: Two nationwide register-based cohort studies in Denmark 1977–2013

CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well.

A comparison of condom use perceptions and behaviours between circumcised and intact men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics in the United States

CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate findings supported the conclusion that intact men may use condoms more frequently and that confidence predicts use, suggesting that intervention programmes should focus on building men's confidence to use condoms, especially for circumcised men.

The psychological impact of circumcision.

CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic. Behavioral changes in circumcised infants have been observed 6 months after circumcision. The physical and sexual loss resulting from circumcision is gaining recognition, and some men have strong feelings of dissatisfaction about being circumcised.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH—EJACULATION DISORDERS: A Multinational Population Survey of Intravaginal Ejaculation Latency Time31189-9/fulltext)

CONCLUSIONS: The IELT distribution is positively skewed. The overall median value was 5.4 minutes but with differences between countries. For all five countries, median IELT values were independent of condom usage. In countries excluding Turkey, the median IELT values were independent of circumcision status.

Clinical elicitation of the penilo‐cavernosus reflex in circumcised men

CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed the lower clinical and similar neurophysiological elicitability of the penilo‐cavernosus reflex in circumcised men and in men with foreskin retraction. This finding needs to be taken into account by urologists and other clinicians in daily clinical practice.

hypocretin-1 · 2020-10-05T13:12:25+00:00

I’m only familiar with studies showing circumcision hurts sexual function. Can you provide a source to the articles that claim otherwise?

Title	How harmful is mgm?
Author	Ferretninja007
Upvotes	1
Comments	24
Date	October 4, 2020 6:49 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/j546mz/how_harmful_is_mgm/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-harmful-is-mgm.842910 https://theredarchive.com/post/842910

Comments