Opinions about circumsicion

[Shuemue]

Sure, in an ideal world, no one has trouble cleaning their junk and everyone wears condoms all the time and no one has tight foreskin and it rains gumdrops. But let's face it, nothing is ideal. I've maintained at least average dental hygiene, complete with regular dental checkups, throughout my childhood and into adulthood, but I've still had several small cavities. You thinking that as if magically, basic hygiene will accomplish what circumcision can is kind of... amusing.

You might try to be claiming some sort of objective motivation for raising the issue, but it really doesn't appear like that to me.

You know, you could have had those teeth painlessly removed before the cavities even developed!

[Kuya]

Interesting, it seems that people who do not have foreskin, are making exagerations of what having foreskin is like. I'm trying my best not to look surprised. You only need to clean your penis once or twice a day guys, i know it's amazing, smegma does not acumulate that quickly and your penis is already made to be able to fight off plenty of bacteria you may gather from any activity, not to mention urine is sterile.

So no, you don't have to clean your dick inmediatly after using a urinal because your dick is already made to fight off any passing infection. Miraculesly, all you need to do is not go and not wash your penis for a 5 days, and you'll be fine. Perhaps it would have been wiser for most of you to actually ask the guys with foreskin about this, instead of going off with assumptions.

And as for the guy saying that anti-circ guys are always angry, judging from this thread, it seems to go both ways. By the way Vail, what are you trying to imply?

[Mizango]

Countless mentioning of Foreskin and Dick cheese, man this thread delivers the early morning lawlz for sure.

[Beckwin]

You know, you could have had those teeth painlessly removed before the cavities even developed!

If there was some easy, sensible, lifetime fix for teeth or nails, I don't think I'd have a problem with it. However you're born with 2 sets of teeth and the second pair kinda scales up with you, and nails also scale with your growth as well. Virtually eliminating tooth and nail problems would be fantastic, not to mention you wouldn't have to worry about the looks either.

muster only unsourced quotes and ridiculous pro-circumcision specific websites to support them

Are you shitting me? That whole rant of Kuya's on page two was copy-pasta from one or two very anti-circumcision sites. I've found quotes stating the minor benefits and studies indicating circumcision does in fact have some slight medical benefit, and there's the common-sense that you can't really get smegma or develop tight foreskin problems if you don't have a foreskin. As for the risks of the procedure itself, I think we generally trust medical staff to not fuck it up and anecdotally, no one here has had a bad snip (compared to the handful of foreskin problem stories we have had reported here).

And again, about the hygiene thing: aside from the glans of an uncircumcised male, human males can healthily get by with less than once/twice a day bathing. Some people can't even manage to brush their teeth once a day either, btw. Others can't eat right, and others can't stay active enough. And considering the history of the procedure in the US, aside from the puritanical tradition, are you aware that bathing was much less common 200 years ago? Hell, it was less common 100 years ago as well.

[Elcura]

The only thing I learned in this topic is that some of you people are fucking stupid.

[Day]

What an amazing thread though. 13 pages of cocks and dick cheese. Gonna eat your cheese paper?

[Rocl]

The only thing I learned in this topic is that some of you people are fucking stupid.

You mean the majority?

[Kuya]

God said it, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)said it, The Quran, the Bible(?), the jewish holy book (forgot name), the doctors say it, my parents said it, who the fuck are you again?

Most of them disagree with you.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
Many medical organizations worldwide agree that newborn circumsicion should not be routinely performed.

http://blogs.webmd.com/mens-health-offi ... ebate.html

Early in my training, as a young and eager medical student on my first OB rotation, I was called into the nursery with two other med students. There we were told by the intern that several infant boys needed circumcisions, and that we would be doing these. Excited but afraid, I asked if it was appropriate for us to be doing these without any experience. Not to worry, we were told. Then, after observing just one, we were set free to go do our own. The old, "see one, do one, teach one" philosophy was alive and well. Fortunately, we were a conscientious group and our outcomes looked just fine. But how many I wondered would turn out horrible? Who should be doing these? Surely not medical students.

Somehow this young boy's foreskin would be foreshadowing of my future profession. Jump ahead many years, here I am in private practice, after completing a rigorous general surgery training at the world famous Mayo Clinic and my urologic residency at Tufts/New England Medical Center in Boston. Pediatricians are screaming that circumcision has a high complication rate and is tantamount to torture and child abuse of the worse kind. Urologists are struggling to keep their penile cancer patients alive after diagnosis of a rare but very aggressive killer, after horrible surgery. Then more studies start to appear - circumcision may reduce risks for STD's and HIV as adults.

Here we are today, and the debate continues. So what, if any, is the advantage to a newborn circ? First, to have any advantage the circumcision must be preformed by a skilled and experienced doctor. As a urologist, I prefer that urologists perform the circumcision and if possible pediatric urologists. In all my years I have never seen a complication from a skilled urologist. I have seen real problems from circumcisions done by other doctors who may only do an occasional circumcision. It is my guess that the majority of these complications and problems we all read about serve as the basis for the anti-circumcision hysteria. Like anything in life, if you take the time to seek out the best skilled specialist, you will get better results with fewer problems. You don’t take your new Buick to a bicycle shop mechanic for a reason. This is not rocket science.

Second, the risks from an uncircumcised boy only exists if he has poor hygiene during his life, usually associated with scarring of the foreskin so that it cannot be pulled back, called phimosis. The risks go up if he smokes. These guys are the ones that have a higher risk for penile cancer. It all comes down to regular washing away of the cancer-causing irritating substances that normally build up under the foreskin.

This is the end of the debate in my eyes. Preventing a devastating cancer has never been so easy - soap and water. To follow are a number of scientific papers (opinions of urologists, as we are the only ones I think who have any legitimate right to comment on foreskins. We see the problems from birth to death. I personally don't pay much attention when a pediatrician or OB or internists writes about something that they only read about.)

Should you circumcise your newborn son? It is up to you. There are pros and cons of both sides. If he will be clean, then he can do just fine with his foreskin. My personal preference is for the son to match the dad. And if you do choose to have him circumcised, take the time to find the best doctor in your area to do it. It will be worth it.

American Cancer Society:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conte ... ?sitearea=

The large variations in penile cancer rates throughout the world strongly suggest that penile cancer is a preventable disease. The best way to reduce the risk of penile cancer is to avoid known risk factors whenever possible.

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk.

For example, some recent studies suggest that circumcised men tend to have certain other lifestyle factors associated with lower penile cancer risk: they are less likely to have many sexual partners, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have better personal hygiene habits. Most public health researchers believe that the penile cancer risk among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States is extremely low. The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer.

Perhaps the most important factor in preventing penile cancer in uncircumcised men is good genital hygiene. Most public health experts recommend that uncircumcised men practice good genital hygiene by retracting the foreskin and cleaning the entire penis. If the foreskin is constricted and difficult to retract, a doctor may be able to cut the skin to make retraction easier.

Avoiding sexual practices likely to result in HPV infection might lower penile cancer risk. In addition, these practices are likely to have an even more significant impact on cervical cancer risk. Until recently, it was thought that the use of condoms ("rubbers") could prevent HPV infection. But recent research shows that condoms poorly protect against infection with HPV. This is because HPV can be passed from person to person by skin-to-skin contact with any HPV-infected area of the body, such as skin of the genital or anal area not covered by the condom. It is still important, though, to use condoms to protect against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases that are passed on through some body fluids.

Circumsicion has not been shown to prevent HIV infections equally for all factors:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/

WASHINGTON - Circumcision may reduce a man's risk of infection with the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent if he is an African, but it does not appear to help American men of color, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

"We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners," Millett told reporters in a telephone briefing.
Doctors believe circumcision protects men because of specialized cells in the foreskin of the penis, which is removed in the procedure. The foreskin is filled with immune cells called Langerhans cells, which are the immune system's sentinels and attach easily to viruses — including HIV.

In addition, sexual intercourse may cause tiny tears in the foreskin, allowing the virus into the bloodstream.

The data has been so clear that the World Health Organization now recommends circumcision as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection. But circumcision does not protect men 100 percent — the studies in Africa have suggested it is 50 to 60 percent protective.

Millett's team studied 1,079 black and 957 Latino bisexual and homosexual men from New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. They filled out a computer survey and were tested for the AIDS virus.

"Overall, we found no association between circumcision status and HIV infection status among black or Latino (men who have sex with men)," said Millett, who presented his findings to the CDC's National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

Posting moar soon.

[archibaldcrane]

Sure, but comparing africans who have largely vaginal sex with women to americans who have largely anal sex with men is ....kind of flawed in general, if you ask me.

[Kuya]

An obvious anti-circumsicion site, but i do prefer it because it cites its sources.
http://www.infocirc.org/medical.htm

The first hint that there is something unusual about circumcision as a medical procedure is the very fact that there are so many different “benefits” claimed. All other amputations are done for a specific medical indication, not for reasons that change as one reason after another is debunked. The very fact that discussions of this procedure quickly become heated debates also is a hint that this is not an ordinary medical procedure. When routine tonsillectomies were shown to have minimal benefit, there was no passionate defense of them, no attempt to promote new, formerly unknown “benefits” of the procedure, no discussion of parental rights to demand this medical intervention whether indicated or not, or to have it done to match peers or parents.

Urinary Tract Infection: Although there appears to be a small difference in the rate of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life between boys who are circumcised and those who are intact, complications of the procedure occur at a rate far greater than the overall rate of UTIs. This is before considering the permanent loss of function entailed by the amputation of normal male genital tissue. In addition, there are effective preventive strategies for UTIs, as well as effective treatments for UTIs that leave no permanent sequelae. Therefore, there is no meaningful benefit of circumcision in the case of UTIs. (More complete evaluation of the UTI evidence and references here) (Top)

http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

The relative risk of hospital admission for UTI in the first year of life was 3.7, meaning an intact boy was 3.7 times more likely to be hospitalised for a UTI than his circumcised counterpart. This was highly statistically significant and sounds meaningful until you consider the absolute rarity of UTI’s. The absolute risk of a UTI was 1.88 per 1000 person-years in circumcised boys and 7.02 per 1000 in normal boys. In other words, a normal intact boy has a 99.298% chance of getting through his first year of life without a UTI, whereas a circumcised boy increases his chances to 99.812% (see graph below). Another way of stating this is that 195 circumcisions would be needed to prevent one UTI hospitalization (as shown in graphic above).

In addition, a realistic rate of short-term complications of circumcision is 2 to 10 percent (2). Therefore, somewhere between 4 to 20 complications could be expected for every UTI prevented by surgery (shown in graphic at top of page). Other complications may not show up until sexual maturity, and their true incidence is unknown. It is also known that many infants who get urinary tract infections have underlying congenital anomalies of the urinary tract.

Other interventions are known to significantly decrease the rate of UTI’s, including breastfeeding (because of protective maternal antibodies) and early rooming-in at the hospital after delivery (to colonize the baby with the mother’s harmless skin bacteria instead of more virulent hospital nursery bacteria). In addition, UTI’s are easily treated with antibiotics.

Most studies of UTI’s in infants have serious shortcomings, because the way the UTI is determined is problematic. Urine from the diaper or an external plastic bag is more likely to be contaminated by skin bacteria in intact boys. The only sure method of diagnosis is a suprapubic needle aspiration of the bladder, which was not done systematically in any known study of circumcision and UTI. In addition, in parts of North America where the infant circumcision rate is very high, virtually the only infants to leave the hospital after birth without having been circumcised are premature or sick infants, who may also have a greater tendency to develop urinary tract infections.

The March 1999 AAP statement notes:

Few of the studies that have evaluated the association between UTI in male infants and circumcision status have looked at potential confounders (such as prematurity, breastfeeding, and method of urine collection) in a rigorous way. For example, because premature infants appear to be at increased risk for UTI, the inclusion of hospitalized premature infants in a study population may act as a confounder by suggesting an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infants. Premature infants usually are not circumcised because of their fragile health status.
In another example, breastfeeding was shown to have a threefold protective effect on the incidence of UTI in a sample of uncircumcised infants (3). However, breastfeeding status has not been evaluated systematically in studies assessing UTI and circumcision status.

Conclusion: It is misleading to speak of a medical “benefit” of a procedure when serious complications occur at a rate far greater than the problem the procedure was meant to address, when less invasive but effective interventions are available, and when the procedure results in a permanent loss of function. Any medical professional who seriously believes that circumcision is a worthwhile measure to prevent urinary tract infection is either ignorant of the data, in denial, or too economically dependant on the continued income provided by circumcision to be objective. Any medical professional who understands the scientific evidence but who agrees to circumcise because of the parents’ misunderstanding of this issue is acting unethically, since a physician’s primary duty is to act in the best interest of his patient (the baby in this case, not the parents). The physician’s duty is to inform the parents of the relevant facts and correct their misconceptions when their beliefs are based on an erroneous understanding of the scientific literature regarding urinary tract infection and circumcision.

Note that the protective effect of breastfeeding is roughly equivalent to that of circumcision but poses no risk.

The foreskin is there for a reason, it offers inmunological defenses agaisnt invasive bacteria.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/
The demonisation of the human male prepuce has been an unscientific process, even though some research, on the surface, might seem to support it. In the late 19th century, when male circumcision came into vogue in medicine in the United States, there was near universal acceptance among American medical professionals that circumcision was an effective treatment for such "diseases" as masturbation, headache, insanity, epilepsy, paralysis, strabismus, rectal prolapse, hydrocephalus, and clubfoot.1 Leading medical journals published thousands of case reports demonstrating these and other miraculous therapeutic benefits from preputial amputation. The notion that circumcision improves hygiene and prevents sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) originated at the same time in the context of the discourse over racial and moral hygiene. The peculiar American phenomenon of mass newborn (that is, involuntary) circumcision was a product of the cold war era. United States doctors readily embraced the concept of mass, involuntary circumcision just as they had embraced involuntary sterilisation and other eugenic measures--practices rejected by almost all other Western nations. Mass circumcision peaked in the 1970s, when almost 90% of male neonates in the United States were circumcised. Since then, the rate has declined but circumcision industry spokesman have added to the list of diseases that circumcision allegedly prevents and cures.

Historically, the most common reason given for circumcision has been that it prevents masturbation. Today, the most common reason given is that it inhibits the transmission of STDs, even though rigorously controlled studies have consistently shown that circumcised males are at greater risk for all major STDs than males whose penises are intact.2-6 Circumcision advocates are now claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS.

The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of urine.7,8 Ectopic sebaceous glands concentrated near the frenulum produce smegma.9-12 This natural emollient contains prostatic and seminal secretions, desquamated epithelial cells, and the mucin content of the urethral glands of Littré.13,14 It protects and lubricates the glans and inner lamella of the prepuce, facilitating erection, preputial eversion, and penetration during sexual intercourse.

Fussell et al have claimed that the prepuce is predisposed to colonisation by pathogenic bacteria, but they did not measure naturally occuring bacterial flora in living cohorts with undisturbed preputial microenvironments.22 They measured bacterial rates in dead, amputated, chemically treated prepuces inoculated with virulent strains of pathogenic bacteria--conditions that represent no known biological or behavioural reality.

Circumcision radically desensitises the penis and immobilises whatever skin remains.40 The loss of preputial mobility, primary sensory structures, orgasm triggering nerve endings, and the inevitable desensitisation of the glans may necessitate more vigorous and prolonged thrusting to achieve orgasm. For this reason a circumcised penis may be more likely than an intact penis to cause the breaks, tears, microfissures, abrasions, and lacerations in a vagina (or rectum) through which HIV in the thrusting partner's semen could enter the receiving partner's blood stream.

The prepuce is also richly vascular.37,41,42 The most vascular parts of the body are those least vulnerable to infection.

These factors may explain why circumcised males are more likely than their genitally intact peers to engage in high risk sexual behaviours (such an anal intercourse and active and passive homosexual oral sex) that lead to HIV and other STD infections.45

Epithelial Langerhans cells (ELCs), a component of the immune system, help the body recognise and process antigens, directing them to lymphocytes or macrophages. Weiss et al noted an abundance of ELCs in the outer surface of the neonate prepuce comparable with the general density of ELCs found in adult skin.44 They suggest that the relative paucity of ELCs in the inner mucosal surface of the neonatal prepuce results in a reduced immune response to cutaneous antigens and recommend universal neonatal circumcision to prevent HIV infection. This recommendation is untenable because the prepuce of virtually all neonates is fused to the glans, sealing the undeveloped preputial pouch from external contact.45,46 Furthermore, the newborn has just emerged from a sterile environment, where no ELCs are needed. There is no documentation of the comparable density of ELC in the mucous membranes of the surgically externalised glans penis, meatus, or the circumcision scar of the sexually active adult.47

Although circumcision proponents in the United States cite these studies when debating routine circumcision,84,85 African data are not applicable to developed nations.86 Circumcision status in Africa has an important but poorly understood cultural significance that proponents of circumcision have ignored. Circumcised and intact males live very different lives in the African regions investigated. Marck has shown that intact males in circumcising areas face severe discrimination in work, housing, marriage, and sexual relations. A significant percentage resort to prostitutes, increasing their risk of exposure to STDs.87 Ignoring these facts, some AIDS researchers have recommended intervening into African culture and promoting circumcision in circumcision-free regions. Implementing this recommendation would invite disaster. In many parts of Africa, circumcision causes most tetanus infections.89 The spread of tuberculosis through circumcision in developing countries is well documented.90 The risk of severe complications and death following circumcision rituals in Africa is high.91, 92 The common use of dirty instruments in group circumcisions only increases the risk of HIV transmission.93 Although the risk of circumcision related complications is higher in Africa than in the United States, no level of risk is acceptable when a healthy, and often protesting, "patient" has not consented.

In addition to its long term immunological handicap, neonatal circumcision immediately compromises the immune system making the circumcised male more vulnerable to infection, often with tragic consequences.94, 95 Even if the circumcisionist's studies were valid, the real and unavoidable risks of circumcision outweigh, both quantitatively and ethically, the alleged risks of intact genitalia. Amputation of the prepuce neither inhibits risky sexual behavior nor confers immunity after exposure to pathogens. This is demonstrated by the fact that the United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation.96, 97

Mass involuntary circumcision has failed to achieve any of the public health benefits its advocates have claimed for it; but even if it had achieved them all, there can be no scientific or ethical justification for depriving anyone of sovereignty over his own sex organs. Neonatal circumcision violates bodily integrity and imposes on an unconsenting individual a diminished penis for life. In the wake of the Nuremberg trials, it is inappropriate for doctors to persist in performing or advocating involuntary penile reduction surgery on healthy, normal individuals. The totalitarian concept of involuntary prophylactic surgery espoused by circumcision advocates has no place in modern medicine or the civilised world. The key to decreasing the transmission of STDs is education, not amputation.

[Kuya]

Sure, but comparing africans who have largely vaginal sex with women to americans who have largely anal sex with men is ....kind of flawed in general, if you ask me.

Then why use data that correlates lower HIV to circumsicion that is done in Africa, which has a completely different social reality than the US in order to justify circumsicion? The info i just posted addresses that. Notice how the US, with one of the highest percentages of circumsized men, also has one of the highest percentages of STDs?

Incoming more data lol.

[archibaldcrane]

Synopsis dude, brevity, c'mon.

[archibaldcrane]

Notice how the US, with one of the highest percentages of circumsized men, also has one of the highest percentages of STDs?

You know way better than to do that. Correlation =! Causation, and you know this.

[Tyche]

This is demonstrated by the fact that the United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation.96, 97

I love these kinds of meaningless stats. You know the US has the oldest legal drinking age this side of the hemisphere, and yet it has the highest rates of alcohol related accidents.

You have to prove that it's because of the circumcision that the US has the highest rates. Otherwise, it'd be like me saying "The U.S. has more immigrants than any other nation and we produce more pollution that any nation". Is that a direct result of the immigrants? No, but the way you word it can make it seem that way. It isn't a direct correlation.

Edit: Fuck, i got beat.

[Deejay]

This is demonstrated by the fact that the United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation.96, 97

I love these kinds of meaningless stats. You know the US has the oldest legal drinking age this side of the hemisphere, and yet it has the highest rates of alcohol related accidents.

You have to prove that it's because of the circumcision that the US has the highest rates. Otherwise, it'd be like me saying "The U.S. has more immigrants than any other nation and we produce more pollution that any nation". Is that a direct result of the immigrants? No, but the way you word it can make it seem that way. It isn't a direct correlation.

Edit: Fuck, i got beat.

So on that note. How can anyone say that foreskin leads to a higher risk of communicable diseases when it's obviously not the case in America? It's a 2-way street.

[Kuya]

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

No laboratory or clinical research had been done on the subject at the time. Regardless, Wolbarst's hypothesis about smegma and cancer found its way into early medical textbooks. In the 1950s a few experiments were done to test the hypothesis by injecting horse smegma into wounds made in the backs of mice. There were clinical studies that attempted to induce cancer by introducing smegma subcutaneously and intravaginally: No carcinomas could be induced.

The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy2 in 1963. His results were: "The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated."

Preston established quite clearly that there was little evidence to support a relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer, cervical cancer, or cancer of the prostate in 1970 but he was unable to identify the causative agent at that time,6 while Leitch7 did the same in Australia.

Gellis (1978) said there are more deaths from circumcision than from cancer of the penis.8

Boczko et al. found numerous reports of penile cancer in circumcised men, thus conclusively disproving Wolbarst's false claims of protection from penile cancer by circumcision.9

In "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy," Edward Wallerstein writes14: "If infant circumcision reduces penile cancer we could expect to see proportionately less penile cancer in circumcising nations as compared to noncircumcising ones. No such difference is found." Wallerstein reports that, for various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was 0.8 for the United States (which circumcises), and 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of which do not). None of these differences is statistically significant. Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer.12

The link between the presence of human papillovirus (HPV) and genital cancer was established in the 1980s.15,17,18,19,20,21 Hellberg et al. (1986) identified tobacco use as another risk factor for cancer of the penis. Poland identified the human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16 and 18 as the cause of penile and cervical cancers in 1990. Cervical cancer has epidemiologic similarities to venereal disease. The human papilloma virus is spread by sexual contact.29 DNA sequences from HPV have been identified in more than 50 percent of cervical cancers tested by 1989.26

In February 1996, representatives of the American Cancer Society stated in a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades."

To paraphrase Dr. George Denniston: Cancer of the penis is very rare, with a lifetime risk of between 1/600 and 1/1300. It strikes mostly older men. Even if circumcision could prevent it completely (which it does not), about a thousand foreskin amputations would be necessary to prevent one cancer of the penis. A thousand infants would be mutilated, and several would die to prevent that one case of cancer. Who could scientifically advocate foreskin amputation for this reason?

There are many documented cases of penile cancer in circumcised men. To reduce the risk of penile cancer, men are best advised simply to use reasonable hygiene, practice responsible sexual behavior, and to avoid handling tobacco.

The ACS states that penile cancer is extremely rare in Europe and North America. The cancer only occurs in 1 in 100,000 men. Penile cancer usually occurs well beyond age 50, although it can occur earlier.

Vaccine. A newly developed human papillomavirus (HPV) bi-valent vaccine is expected to offer protection against all forms of ano-genital cancer, including penile cancer, when it becomes available.59

Circumcision does not provide protection against penile cancer. Even if it did, it would no longer be necessary due to the expected availability of a HPV vaccine.

Ho et al. 36 have established that co-factors such as cigaratte smoking may be necessary to advance HPV infected cervical epithelial cells toward a cancerous condition. Ho et al.37 have also suggested that high levels of antioxidants in the blood serum may provide some protection, although more study is needed.

Walboomers reported that HPV DNA is found in more than 99.7 percent of cervical cancer cells in 1999. HPV infection is a necessary condition for cervical cancer.48

The known etiologies of cervical cancer are: early onset of sexual activity, number of sexual partners, smoking, and the presence of HPV.27 Based on currently available evidence, it would be mistaken to suggest an association between cervical cancer and the presence of the foreskin in the male partner.

The New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Castelsagué and others in 2002. That article purported to show that circumcision reduced the risk of infection to the wives of circumcised men. This article has experienced severe and unrelenting criticism due to numerous methodological flaws, its conflict with other published research, and other research by the same authors that showed that different types of HPV were found in husbands and wives.51 52 53 54 55 56 Editorial problems previously had been reported at the New England Journal of Medicine. The publication of this flawed article may have been the result of those editorial problems.

See the NOCIRC position statement for more information on cervical cancer and circumcision.54

Menczer reports that genetics, not male circumcision, limits the incidence of cervical cancer in Jewish women.57 The argument that Jewish women have a lower incidence of cervical cancer because their husbands are circumcised appears to be destroyed by this finding.

Vaccine. Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary condition for the formation of cervical cancer.48 A bi-valent vaccine that offers substantial protection from infection with HPV has been successfully tested.60 It is expected that approval of this vaccine will receive approval from regulatory authorities and that when it will greatly reduce the incidence of HPV infection, cervical cancer, and death when vaccination against HPV becomes widespread.61 Male circumcision has never been proved to offer any real protection against HPV infection in the female partner, but even if it did, it still would not be necessary because the vaccine will offer protection.63

Summary
It is now clear that the major risk factors for both penile cancer and cervical cancer are the use of tobacco,22,31 which spreads carcinogens throughout the body via the bloodstream, and the presence of the human papillomavirus,35 which is communicated through sexual activity.

Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile cancer were false and mislead the medical community for decades.34 Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer in men and it does not prevent cervical cancer in the female partner.

However, phimosis, or a non-retractile foreskin, is a risk factor in adult males who are sexually active, because a non-retractile foreskin is more difficult to clean. There are many non-traumatic, non-distructive methods for conservative effective treatment of phimosis available to the male with phimosis. Circumcision is neither required nor recommended to treat phimosis. Cancer may form on the circumcision scar.16,24

A new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine offers protection against both penile and cervical cancers.64 Fear of cancer cannot be used to support the practice of male circumcision.

And Beckwin mentioned that circumsicion had no negatives, so here:
http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21& ... l&ref=1137

Meatal Stenosis

Meatal stenosis is the name given to the narrowing of the opening of the urethra. In the majority of cases, this is the opening at the tip of the penis. This narrowing is enough to affect urine flow.

Meatal stenosis is not common. It is very rare in girls.

Meatal stenosis is most common in circumcised boys. Boys are not born with meatal stenosis. Some time after circumcision, irritation or inflammation of the opening leads to the formation of scar tissue. This causes the narrowing of the opening.

Meatal stenosis may occur at any point in childhood, but symptoms are most often noticed between 3 and 8 years old.

You might notice your son dribbling or spraying urine, straining to urinate, or having a very narrow urine stream. The stream may leave the penis at an angle.

Boys with meatal stenosis will often urinate more often, and take longer to urinate. Sometimes they have blood in the urine (hematuria).

Urinary tract infections are a bit more common in boys with meatal stenosis. Often they complain of burning or discomfort with urination, even in the absence of a urinary tract infection.

How can it be prevented?
Decreasing irritation to the tip of the penis may prevent some cases of meatal stenosis. This might include avoiding irritating detergents or fragrances, wet or rough underclothes, and some kinds of diapers.

Leaving the foreskin intact is another way to prevent meatal stenosis.

[Kuya]

Notice how the US, with one of the highest percentages of circumsized men, also has one of the highest percentages of STDs?

You know way better than to do that. Correlation =! Causation, and you know this.

You are correct. Which makes it even stranger that people mention that foreskin=numerous diseases, when the equation here is clearly mistaken. However, i did not mean that circumsicion causes STDs, there are those who argue it is though. What i meant was, that circumsicion is then not quite the preventative measure for STDs as many mistakenly believe.

[Tyche]

This is demonstrated by the fact that the United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation.96, 97

I love these kinds of meaningless stats. You know the US has the oldest legal drinking age this side of the hemisphere, and yet it has the highest rates of alcohol related accidents.

You have to prove that it's because of the circumcision that the US has the highest rates. Otherwise, it'd be like me saying "The U.S. has more immigrants than any other nation and we produce more pollution that any nation". Is that a direct result of the immigrants? No, but the way you word it can make it seem that way. It isn't a direct correlation.

Edit: Fuck, i got beat.

So on that note. How can anyone say that foreskin leads to a higher risk of communicable diseases when it's obviously not the case in America? It's a 2-way street.

It works both ways, you have to prove that circumcision has a large effect on how much of a risk you are put in. Without that proof, you can't make the correlation, as that article did. THat article doesn't say what percentage of the people with STDs, AIDS, cancers, etc come from people who aren't circumcised. They just provide a meaningless correlation (as I did) with no meaningful backing.

[Beckwin]

the cancer-causing irritating substances that normally build up under the foreskin.

Yeah, I can't see any reason at all why circumcision might be an OK idea. lol. No one is arguing that it's necessary, but just based on that statement alone, it doesn't seem like a terrible thing to do.

This is demonstrated by the fact that the United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation.96, 97

we also have shitty sex education, probably the shittiest among first world nations. this is highly irrelevant to the discussion because it simply makes no distinction between circumcised and not in terms of transmission/susceptibility.

circumcised men tend to have certain other lifestyle factors associated with lower penile cancer risk: they are less likely to have many sexual partners, less likely to smoke, and more likely to have better personal hygiene habits.

the irony there made me giggle.

Most public health experts recommend that uncircumcised men practice good genital hygiene by retracting the foreskin and cleaning the entire penis. If the foreskin is constricted and difficult to retract, a doctor may be able to cut the skin to make retraction easier.

So this acknowledges possible difficulties requiring medical intervention in order to maintain proper hygiene. k.

The data has been so clear that the World Health Organization now recommends circumcision as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection. But circumcision does not protect men 100 percent — the studies in Africa have suggested it is 50 to 60 percent protective.

Note that many drugs etc aren't even 50-60% effective. We're also looking at vaginal vs. anal, etc. But no, the WHO is entirely wrong and one CDC study on 2,000 urban MSM of specific minority groups proves that.

Kuya, I don't think anyone is arguing that circumcision is a necessary procedure; people are just saying that it does have some merit (however slight you want to deem it, idc) in terms of hygiene and minor health benefits. And I don't think anyone pro-circ is offended by or in worry for the health of uncut dudes, and the same applies to the decisions they choose to make for their children. And not cutting at an early age is a decision with repercussions: if the child grows up and wants it for cosmetic/body image reasons, he has to go through a lot more pain and recovery, and also if he developed tight foreskin problems at any point, the situation would be the same. As much as you might want it to be the case, you can't take a noble hands-off stance by choosing to not have it done for your child.

[archibaldcrane]

Basically, it comes down to this:

Anyone claiming that there are no potential downsides to circumsicion is full of shit. Same for those claiming there are large downsides.

Anyone claiming that there are no potential downsides to not being circumsized is full of shit. Same for those claiming there are large downsides.

The reality is, it's really not going to matter much either way, and for the vast, vast majority of people, they are happy the way they are. It's pretty much a non-factor in most people's lives. What should be agreed upon is that if you're going to get your son circumsized, you should get an experienced doctor to carry out the procedure to reduce the risk of complications. If you are not going to get your son circumsized, it is important that you teach him proper foreskin care and cleansing techniques to reduce the risk of complications.

And that's about it. It's really...just...not that big of a deal.