Circumcision Question

YorkshirePudding · 2010-08-16T15:13:50+00:00

but the HIV results are pretty apparent

In some disputed studies about the African situation.

Cutting a substantial risk by 60% is still a substantial risk. If you have unprotected sex you will get infected with it sooner or later regardless. The only reason why anyone would suggest this approach is that in Sub-Saharan Africa everything else has failed and in many nations 10%+ are HIV+. Circumcision is suggested by some as the last ditch effort to limit the pandemic even a little.

If you live in a western nation, all arguments about HIV infection and circumcision become moot. You're simply a dumbass if you don't use condoms. They're cheap and extremely good at preventing most STDs.

I think I would just not do it and let them decide once they are adults.

Looking at the current circumcision trends in the US, they would have very little incentive to have themselves cut in the future in terms of peer pressure. Perhaps this isn't obvious to Americans who have been so ingrained with the concept of circumcision but if you go to a 20-year old European guy and give them a "choice" about circumcision, they will laugh in your face.

kloo2yoo · 2010-08-16T15:54:12+00:00

A meta-study of 35 articles on circumcision vs. HIV found that:

When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

BenderRodriquez · 2010-08-16T19:44:37+00:00

European here: Why is this even a discussion?

I suspect that the US circumcision tradition has more to do with preventing masturbation than preventing diseases...

truson3 · 2010-08-16T17:37:45+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2010-08-16T18:11:11+00:00

My argument:

Doctor's don't cut off labias for the sake of cleanliness and STD reduction.

They make washcloths and condoms for all your cleanliness and protective needs.

And have you seen the tools they use? And any videos of the procedure? It's pretty disturbing.

KappaDerby · 2010-08-16T14:28:37+00:00

well, you could just practice good hygiene instead. also, you'll make a more informed decision after watching this:

http://tlctugger.com/Media/Circumcision_WM7NTSC_256k_D.wmv

octopus_prime · 2010-08-16T17:12:55+00:00

i think you'll mostly get arguments about the ethics of genital cutting, the right of all people to bodily integrity, and the like. and while these arguments are certainly convincing enough for me, if you think of the foreskin as being just a "redundant flap of skin" then, well, who cares if you cut it off?

however, it appears that it's not redundant; it's an important part of the male sexual organ, and serves a purpose. here's a link to an interesting (though, i admit somewhat biased) site about the purpose and function of the foreskin:

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

let me know if you find any of this convincing. as i said, ethical considerations alone were enough to convince me that every person should have the right to make decisions about the wholeness of his or her body.

pisssword · 2010-08-16T19:34:56+00:00

Uncut sex lasts longer and is more pleasurable for women (1). It's also more pleasurable for men, as circumcision removes "nearly all of the penile fine-touch neuroreceptors" (2).

KappaDerby · 2010-08-16T15:34:03+00:00

but the HIV results are pretty apparent

I find any study that claims it to protect against HIV/AID suspect. It was believed to protect people from syphilis in the mid 1800s.

Thunderbean · 2010-08-16T18:00:27+00:00

Eh, from a sexual point of view; you don't want to be buying lube all the time, there's more things you can do with it, more sensitive.

ultimate-warrior · 2010-08-16T18:16:45+00:00

Did you know, the studies that sight drop in HIV infection rates in circumcised group of subjects; the circumcised individuals are briefed on how HIV spreads and how HIV works.

snark42 · 2010-08-16T19:22:18+00:00

I would do some research with the doctors.

industry7 · 2010-08-16T19:55:54+00:00

I'm looking for something that supports leaving the kids au naturel.

Basic human rights?

Just say it out loud. "I'm considering having part of my baby's penis removed, not because there is anything medically wrong with it right now, but because there could be something wrong with it in the future."

Really?

Gackt · 2010-08-16T17:20:49+00:00

DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T

it has been shown that circumcision reduces rates of HIV infection

Probably the same shit as washing it afterwards, WITHOUT the mutilation.

Please don't be a dumbass and fall into fallacies about circumcision, it's bad, wrong, unhealthy, unnecessary and damaging. Don't.

The fact that this is still a question in 2010 boggles my mind.

KappaDerby · 2010-08-16T15:38:00+00:00

A few thoughts on HIV and circumcision:

80% of adult American males are circumcised. The United States has the highest per capita HIV infection rate out of the developed countries. If circumcision is so effective, why are our rates so high when compared to similar countries that don't cut?
Condoms are a requirement for safe sex, cut or not. Circumcision does not make condoms more effective. So why cut?
American circumcision is done in the first few days of the boy's life. How is he at risk from HIV then? Who's to say this particular boy will even be at risk of HIV?

Feckless · 2010-08-16T17:55:40+00:00

circumcision reduces rates of HIV infection

Short time, yes. Let people fuck around believing they "can't catch AIDS" because they are circumcised and the situation will be worse. Seriously, condoms, it is that simple and it is by far the best solution. Do you know how high the chance is to be infected with HIV via sex?

Estimated infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse -> 10 Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse -> 5

Why not reduce the risk entirely (even more so for the gay population) and go with the second best "solution" (I will not solve anything).

I think I would just not do it and let them decide once they are adults.

That is the right spirit. Good if you do so!

Also "circumcising" women also reduces the chance of a HIV infection and it is (rightly) still no reason to the average westerner to multilate women.

dakboy · 2010-08-16T18:45:30+00:00

Let the child make that decision when he is of the appropriate age, using whatever studies have been done between now and then. If he's going to contract HIV between now and adolescence, it's not going to be via intercourse unless there's some really, really bad stuff going on. So for the next decade plus (let's say 15 years, more realistically), this decision isn't going to "protect" him against HIV at all.

As others have pointed out, the biological default is uncut. Your SO should be looking for substantial reasons to have it performed, and this "it protects against HIV" is specious at best, because it's not actual protection against contracting the disease - it just reduces a very high risk to a moderate risk. Engage in risky behavior, and it *will catch up to you. No matter what.

You should not have to be arguing against it. That you are looking for arguments against only demonstrates that you've lost (or given up) the debate in the first place.

neofool · 2010-08-16T18:48:43+00:00

UTIs can be reduced or prevented with basic penile maintenance
Even if the reduced HIV risk is true it's totally irrelevant if one uses condoms
Values Judgment: It just seems wrong to cut off a piece of someone for what appears to be aesthetic reasons

On the up side circumcision rates are falling with the new generation of parents that are more suspicious of medical norms.

raydude · 2010-08-16T19:25:18+00:00

My wife and I left our son untouched for one reason and one reason alone: he can have it removed later if he wants, but if we have it removed, he can never have it put back. I think he should choose. I would have liked to have the choice, but when I was born it was defacto to have it nipped.

ew73 · 2010-08-16T19:44:05+00:00

The HIV prevention rates are somewhat difficult study properly (and ethically) in a double-blind sort of way. The NIH study was stopped early, for example. It found a roughly a 60% protection against HIV infection, for example.

More importantly, the proper way to prevent HIV is to use a condom, get tested, and don't stick it in skanks. As a side-note, I'm fairly sure that there have been enough studies done on the issue that can be cited as proof for every side of the issue. And when you combine them all together, you get something like a 1% difference (which can easily be attributed to statistical variance).

Hygiene is also a fairly simple task. Teach your son early how to wash that shit (Or let dad do it).

A bigger issue is genital mutilation. Do you feel it's right to cut part of your child's penis off because, someday, he might make a bad decision?

astrobear · 2010-08-16T22:18:40+00:00

My parents didn't circumcise me, they thought it was cruel, and that I should have a choice since it's my body. When I was 14, I finally went to the doctor about having problems pulling the skin back. The doctor said I had two choices: circumcision, or run the risk of eventual infection. I told him no and began trying to pull back my skin over the head of my penis. After a week of painful failures, I went back to the doctor, agreed to the surgery and waited (it was a month before high school). After the operation, I was in the worst pain a male can feel when they're at that age. The fear of said pain lasted for about six months, even after all of the stitches were out. Even though the experience was traumatic for me, I still think it's a great idea to let the kid decide. It should be a human right to decide if part of your penis should be removed. That said, the benefits were fantastic, and I felt like I finally had a normal penis. Also, the head became MORE sensitive (in a pleasurable way) and I ejaculations like porn stars. Long story short, let your kid choose.

enzomedici · 2010-08-16T22:36:10+00:00

Wash your dick.

grinch337 · 2010-08-16T23:23:58+00:00

Cutting off the feet of newborns is 100% effective at preventing sprained ankles. There is no reason to amputate body parts on the premise of it preventing a disease. If the part didn't serve a function, it would have been weeded out by natural selection by now.

Besides, how many kids do you know need to worry about HIV infection? If they want to elect to have cosmetic surgery on the basis of infection prevention, they can wait until they are at an age to make that call, themselves.

octopus_prime · 2010-08-16T23:34:07+00:00

take a look at this (as a circumcised male, this information really bothers me):

http://www.enotalone.com/article/3513.html

and a quote:

"Circumcised males have been robbed of a normal body part. They have also been robbed of a normal level of sexual sensation. Just as a person whose lips were amputated could never really appreciate the sensations that lips can convey, so a circumcised male can never understand what his genitally intact friends experience. This helps explain why some circumcised males defend circumcision so vehemently. They have no idea what was taken from them and are psychologically unprepared to deal with their loss."

sumname · 2010-08-16T23:47:14+00:00

I'm an older mother of young boys (so not the bulk of the Reddit demographic). I'm single. I've seen cocks of many ages (not that that necessary follows). Anyway, back in the olden days of the internet I gathered information about circumcision which lead me to believe it's a barbaric practice. The online community was also helpful for guiding us when my young son's phimosis (tight foreskin causing ballooning during urination) alarmed pediatricians and they advocated varying degrees of unnecessary and potentially harmful intervention. My sons much older half brother said he had the same problem and after being regularly sexually active the retraction tightness went away.

While participating in conversation with the online Intactivist community I also encountered websites and discussion about restoration for cut men who restored skin over the glans and restored some sensation. As the years went on I shared this information with two older men who informed me they experienced so little sensation they could barely ever orgasm (neither were lovers). After each had been restoring for awhile they contacted me to let me know what a monumentally positive change it made to their sex lives. Given what adult men can accomplish with restoration I find it odd that a knife is used to address the problem with adult phimosis. Perhaps a different method for masturbation is all that is needed.

Back to happy talk. My partner is intact and I adore the sensation. As well, I can't keep my hands off his cock. He has the full package invitation for hand jobs. There's never any reaching for lube or cream. His glans is smooth and moist. Oh, and the foreskin is also useful with blow jobs (for anyone who wants to complain that ewwwww there is too much skin). Older cut men get a thickening of the skin on their glans after so many years of being dry and exposed to rubbing on fabric.

Before I had my first kid I was absolutely ignorant about the issue. I'd have said I preferred cut because it's what I knew and I was accustomed to a somewhat bent penis that had a scar in the middle and pulled sideways when erect. Now I say, keep cocks packaged up - to open up for special occasions.

shimshimmaShanghai · 2010-08-17T03:05:48+00:00

Ive always thought it wrong to do it to children, I'm not "cut" and come from a society where it is considered kind of strange to remove a part of the penis.. As for health benefits, ive heard many people argue that there are some benefits to lack of foreskin, but I dont see anything really conclusive, if you have unprotected sex with someone who has is HIV positive, you are probably going to pick up the infection with or without a foreskin. Its really a moot point,

If you want to protect your kids from HIV, teach them to use a condom, if they use a condom everytime, thats the best protection...

I have been considering circumcision for a while now though, not because of health or aesthetics, but because i cant get my foreskin over my bell end when im hard, which makes getting a good blowjob difficult.

Reasons against it are, I dont want the loss of feeling that comes from it (I have a friend who was cut when he was in his early 20s for the same reason im considering doing it, and he has complained on a number of occasions that he lost most of the sensitivity after the op.) I like my foreskin also, its fun to play with!

Bottom line from me is, dont do it to your kids and pretend its to keep them safe, sex education is the only thing that will keep them safe. Dont take away their hope for truly enjoying oral sex (or penetrative sex i suppose! the loss of feeling in the head also lessens the pleasure from that!) Circumcision is an outdated practice with no practical benefits except to a few people who have the problem of an over tight foreskin, and then let them choose if they want it or not..

etherspirit · 2010-08-17T04:45:08+00:00

KappaDerby, are you circumcised? My guess is that you are, as most fathers who are intact don't get their boys circumcised. Do you think this is influencing your decision in anyway? Anyway,...the people that bring up the issue of HIV and other STDs are thinking about the future sex lives of their children? In any other context, this would be perverted and messed up. The appropriate time to bring this up would be during the sex talk, before they've had sex, not when they're babies. And you and I can both guess what they'll decide then. Do you really want to go and make that future decision for them? Without their consent?

KillTheInfidels · 2010-08-16T18:37:03+00:00

I dont plan on fucking any bitches with HIV regardless of whether I have a foreskin or not

discowoodchuck · 2010-08-16T14:39:52+00:00

most places have running water these days, thus hygene isnt a huge concern. Think about the fact that your children will loose 30% of their size and vast majority of the feeling of their head if you chop their junk. if you decide not to, they will thank you regularly during their adult life.

2010-08-16T18:56:25+00:00

edit - let's be clear here - I'm looking for something that supports leaving the kids au naturel.

Your perspective is backwards. "Au naturel" is the default. Its up to the pro-circumcision side to present evidence that circumcision is absolutely necessary for a newborn.

Is it necessary for people to justify keeping any other body part? No. There has to be an actual problem and all other more conservative treatments must be tried first. Why is the foreskin any different?

herty1 · 2010-08-16T18:39:30+00:00

I'm sure cutting off the labia would reduce HIV transmission due to less tissue being exposed. Framing the argument in the context of women generally shows the craziness of circumcision for most people.

Circumcision will reduce sensitivity and has very serious and real disadvantages which are inescapable, like a fatality rate of over 100 babies per year in the US. Is that a fair trade for a possibly of reducing HIV transmission when condoms are thousands of times more effective?

In the end it's not your or any parents right to make that choice for a man. The damage is real and inescapable and it's not your decision to make. You have no right to even consider forcing your choice an another human being. That's how I see it.

2010-08-16T18:42:53+00:00

www.historyofcircumcision.net

2010-08-16T20:41:59+00:00

The risk of accident or infection from the circumcision alone is more than enough to counteract a (potential) slightly reduced risk of HIV transmission. Just tell your kids to wear a condom.

Then there's the usual loss of sensitivity and irreversibility concerns. They can always cut up their penis if they want to when they are older.

Cutting off the entire penis would drastically reduce HIV transmission, anyways.

laheyin · 2010-08-17T06:05:16+00:00

The studies in favor of HIV were not scientific. It was a random-control study, that is an experiment without a control group, which doesn't work. http://circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

Also, 0.6% of Americans have HIV, most of whom are very likely to be circumcised. However, in England (where most adults are uncircumcised), the rate is 0.2%. This is not an isolated figure; in many other non-circumcising nations, the HIV rate is much, much lower than in the US. Examples: Netherlands, 0.2%; Japan, <0.1%; France, 0.4%; Germany, 0.1%; Greece, 0.2%; and even Canada, 0.4%

Also, in the African nation of Malawi, circumcised men are actually 4.5% MORE likely to be HIV+ than uncircumcised males.

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/mcnotavaccine.pdf

There is also simple logic, that if one wears a condom, circumcision is not needed for a source of prevention. It's already covered (excuse the pun)

There are also ethical reasons. For example: Children cannot consent to the procedure of circumcision. One can live without being circumcised, therefore next-of-kin consent is not valid under medical ethics. Therefore, all circumcisions are non-consensual unnecessary medical operations. Also, >100 children die per year of circumcision in the US. That is more than SIDS.

^That is my case.

anwarsadat · 2010-08-17T17:14:39+00:00

At the same time, it has been shown that circumcision reduces rates of HIV infection.

Those studies were done in Africa, where modern medicine is scarce. Uncircumcised men wouldn't have that problem in developed worlds.

snark42 · 2010-08-17T21:54:17+00:00

This was on reddit today...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=1

enso13 · 2010-08-16T19:53:29+00:00

The bottom line is that chicks dig 'cut' men more.

truson3 · 2010-08-16T19:35:33+00:00

Nah circumcision is not genital mutilation. That's some bitch term manginas subscribe to. Circumcision is good in general and if you ask any guy who had it done, he'll think you're a bitch for even worrying about it. Not only does your junk not look like a crazy sock puppet, it also has other medical benefits.

enso13 · 2010-08-16T19:41:47+00:00

[permanently deleted]

endo · 2010-08-16T17:06:13+00:00

I read a HUGE tear about this article because most of the men had sores from other UTIs already, and were less scabbed-over because of their protective foreskins.

Of course, I cannot lay hands on the article at work.

And, do you live in Africa? No, then the whole thing is moot, and it goes back to: Don't cut your son's johnson until he can make the decision for himself!

Or, circumsize both sexes!

NickTheNewbie · 2010-08-17T18:19:27+00:00

Forget HIV/STDs, don't you want to make sure your sons aren't plagued with dickcheese?

snackpower · 2010-08-16T19:36:15+00:00

ITT, a bunch of women dramatizing baby mutilation and a bunch of circumcised guys just lurking because its not a big enough deal to bother posting. Nice work Op. ;)

b-schroeder · 2010-08-16T19:47:19+00:00

72 comments and no one has mentioned the 2009 NEJM study showing that male circumcision reduces the risk of contracting herpes and HPV?

blackjesus · 2010-08-16T22:24:44+00:00

So are you married and have a kid on the way? If not then why are you so deep in thought about different varieties of dicks and which is best? Oh never mind it makes complete sense.

Title	Circumcision Question
Author	KappaDerby
Upvotes	37
Comments	148
Date	August 16, 2010 2:18 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/d1q29/circumcision_question/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/circumcision-question.1048049 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048049

Comments