Opinions about circumsicion

[Tristam]

I've never heard of a girl that had a preference for uncircumcised dudes, so if I had a kid I'd go with the circumcision.

Also, wasn't there some research done showing that circumcised males had less chance of contracting HIV?

[Kuya]

I've never heard of a girl that had a preference for uncircumcised dudes, so if I had a kid I'd go with the circumcision.

Also, wasn't there some research done showing that circumcised males had less chance of contracting HIV?

Over the last few years, observational studies hinted that circumcision may offer some protection against HIV transmission. While early studies provided positive data, they did not account for cofactors that may have affected the observational studies. For example, was it circumcision that decreased the risk of HIV transmission, or do members of certain cultures have fewer sex partners or engage in less risky sexual practices, both of which could also decrease HIV transmission? A review by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003 looked at circumcision observational studies around the world and found that none of them fully considered cofactors such as religious and sexual practices.

Plus with condoms, the differences between circumsized and non circumsized are all but relevent.

[Dolmen]

There are a bunch of psychotic people that run around screaming about a parent's choice regarding circumcision is wrong, blah blah blah, etc... People have even filed lawsuits against their parents and/or doctors over their infant circumcisions...

Anyways, I am completely for circumcision, and if I had a son then he'd be snipped once he's born. Reasons for circumcision:

• Less chance of Balanitis, various infections/inflamations.
• Lower chance of penile cancer.
• 50-60% reduction in the spread of HIV from female to male. (Study performed by World Health Organization)
• Reduced chance of Urinary Tract Infections in infants.

There are a lot more reasons for it, but for me these are enough. It's a choice, and once that foreskin is gone you don't miss it. Ultimately, I believe it's a lot cleaner. If I was a woman, there's no way I would want something with a hood inside of me unless they soaked it in paint thinner before hand.

(Sources can be found in the footnotes section at wikipedia.org, circumcision search).

[BRP]

Can I neither agree or disagree, as in I don't really care if doesn't harm anyone? Or would that be under "agree" as well?

[Dolmen]

I've never heard of a girl that had a preference for uncircumcised dudes, so if I had a kid I'd go with the circumcision.

Also, wasn't there some research done showing that circumcised males had less chance of contracting HIV?

Over the last few years, observational studies hinted that circumcision may offer some protection against HIV transmission. While early studies provided positive data, they did not account for cofactors that may have affected the observational studies. For example, was it circumcision that decreased the risk of HIV transmission, or do members of certain cultures have fewer sex partners or engage in less risky sexual practices, both of which could also decrease HIV transmission? A review by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2003 looked at circumcision observational studies around the world and found that none of them fully considered cofactors such as religious and sexual practices.

Plus with condoms, the differences between circumsized and non circumsized are all but relevent.

The WHO and UNAIDS groups deemed circumcision to help prevent HIV in 2007, post-dating the Cochrane Collaboration.

[Charla]

And some other things I think, but the sample size was small they could chalk up the whole difference to poor hygiene again. Oh, and if something goes wrong and it gets torn, then it'll probably have to get cut off anyway.

Just call it tradition and leave it at that.

[Plow]

There are a bunch of psychotic people that run around screaming about a parent's choice regarding circumcision is wrong, blah blah blah, etc... People have even filed lawsuits against their parents and/or doctors over their infant circumcisions...

Anyways, I am completely for circumcision, and if I had a son then he'd be snipped once he's born. Reasons for circumcision:

• Less chance of Balanitis, various infections/inflamations.
• Lower chance of penile cancer.
• 50-60% reduction in the spread of HIV from female to male. (Study performed by World Health Organization)
• Reduced chance of Urinary Tract Infections in infants.

There are a lot more reasons for it, but for me these are enough. It's a choice, and once that foreskin is gone you don't miss it. Ultimately, I believe it's a lot cleaner. If I was a woman, there's no way I would want something with a hood inside of me unless they soaked it in paint thinner before hand.

(Sources can be found in the footnotes section at wikipedia.org, circumcision search).

Wikis are not encyclopedias, and every single one of those claims is incorrect.

[Intense]

And to actually slice off a piece of your dick because girls like it seems insane to me.

But both men AND women do a lot to attract the opposite sex. Why would you work out, get your hair cut, wear certain clothes, get breast augmentation, or other similar surgeries?

Its all to attract the others, I think. Basically, most of peoples who lives are centered around looking attractive to other people. And if nothing else, circumsicion is juast another form of that vanity.

[Tristam]

There are a bunch of psychotic people that run around screaming about a parent's choice regarding circumcision is wrong, blah blah blah, etc... People have even filed lawsuits against their parents and/or doctors over their infant circumcisions...

Anyways, I am completely for circumcision, and if I had a son then he'd be snipped once he's born. Reasons for circumcision:

• Less chance of Balanitis, various infections/inflamations.
• Lower chance of penile cancer.
• 50-60% reduction in the spread of HIV from female to male. (Study performed by World Health Organization)
• Reduced chance of Urinary Tract Infections in infants.

There are a lot more reasons for it, but for me these are enough. It's a choice, and once that foreskin is gone you don't miss it. Ultimately, I believe it's a lot cleaner. If I was a woman, there's no way I would want something with a hood inside of me unless they soaked it in paint thinner before hand.

(Sources can be found in the footnotes section at wikipedia.org, circumcision search).

Wikis are not encyclopedias, and every single one of those claims is incorrect.

Despite its detractors, wiki is pretty darn reliable, especially for science. In a survey of scientific articles, the european journal nature reported very few factual errors with wiki, and there was no distinction in the total number of errors between wiki and any other print encyclopedia. /derail off.

All those facts he pulled were recently cited from sources like the Canadian Medical Association, even if you don't trust wiki, I'd put a little more stock in a national medical assoc. Are there many doctors who actively advocate against circumcisions?

[Kiro]

The only experiences I've had with uncircusized doodles is in frickin' doujinshi. And it looks gross. All the other ones I've seen, doujinshi or not, have been circumsized. It's just "the norm" for me I suppose.

[Kuya]

There are a bunch of psychotic people that run around screaming about a parent's choice regarding circumcision is wrong, blah blah blah, etc... People have even filed lawsuits against their parents and/or doctors over their infant circumcisions...

Anyways, I am completely for circumcision, and if I had a son then he'd be snipped once he's born. Reasons for circumcision:

• Less chance of Balanitis, various infections/inflamations.
• Lower chance of penile cancer.
• 50-60% reduction in the spread of HIV from female to male. (Study performed by World Health Organization)
• Reduced chance of Urinary Tract Infections in infants.

There are a lot more reasons for it, but for me these are enough. It's a choice, and once that foreskin is gone you don't miss it. Ultimately, I believe it's a lot cleaner. If I was a woman, there's no way I would want something with a hood inside of me unless they soaked it in paint thinner before hand.

(Sources can be found in the footnotes section at wikipedia.org, circumcision search).

Psychotic? How about this for psychotic?

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html
Modern, non-religious circumcision began in the Victorian era as a means of deliberately desensitising and denuding the penis in order to discourage masturbation, which doctors then believed was the cause of insanity, epilepsy, hysteria, tuberculosis, short-sightedness, and death.


In 1891, Jonathan Hutchinson, president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, in his article "On Circumcision as a Preventative of Masturbation," wrote:
Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to many patients of both sexes. [Jonathan Hutchinson. On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation. Archives of Surgery 1891;2:267-268]
Ironic to see where circumsicion first started.

As for Balanitis, using the same wikipedia you use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanitis
Prevalence
Escala and Rickwood, in a 1989 examination of 100 cases of balanitis in childhood, concluded that the risk "in any individual, uncircumcised boy appears to be no greater than 4%." (Escala, 1989). Øster reported no balanitis in 9545 observations of uncircumcised Danish boys (Oster, 1968). Balanitis in boys still in nappies must be distinguished from the normal redness seen in boys caused by ammoniacal dermatitis (Simpson, 1998).

While any man can develop balanitis, the condition is most likely to occur in men who have a tight foreskin that is difficult to pull back, or who have poor hygiene. Diabetes can make balanitis more likely, especially if the blood sugar is poorly controlled.


[edit] Circumcision
Some studies indicate balanitis to be more common in uncircumcised boys (Fergusson, 1988; Herzog, 1986; Fakjian, 1990; Leber, 2005; Waskett, 2005), but Van Howe found balanitis only in circumcised boys (Van Howe, 1997). Van Howe's study has been criticised for the fact that few boys were uncircumcised (Waskett, 2005).


[edit] Genital washing
Many studies of balanitis do not examine the subjects' genital washing habits. However, O'Farrell et al. report that failure to wash the whole penis, including retraction of the foreskin in uncircumcised men, is more common among balanitis sufferers (O'Farrell, 2005). Birley et al., however, found that excessive genital washing with soap may be a strong contributing factor to balanitis (Birley, 1993).
Ironic that is all goes back to proper hygiene.

As for penile cancer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_cancer
The American Cancer Society provides the following as risk factors for penile cancer:[2] human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, smoking, smegma, phimosis, treatment of psoriasis, age, and AIDS. The other etiologic factor most commonly associated with penile carcinoma is poor hygiene. There is some evidence that lichen sclerosus (also known as balanitis xerotica obliterans) may also be a risk factor.[3]
HA, smegma, which you reduce by..., oh that's right, proper hygiene.

[edit] Risk
The lifetime risk of a man developing invasive penile cancer (IPC) in the United States is 1 in 600 if he is uncircumcised,[4] and more than 3 times lower if he was circumcised neonatally.[5][6][7]

This and other evidence suggests that childhood circumcision reduces the incidence of penile cancer.[8][5][4][9][10][11]

Studies have found that circumcision decreases the risk of HPV infection in males and thereby the risk of developing penile cancer.[12][13][14]

But Wallerstein found that the risk of penile cancer in Finland, Norway, and Denmark (all noncircumcising countries) is about the same (1 in 100,000 per year) as in the US. The American Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians say the use of infant circumcision in hope of preventing penile cancer in adulthood is not justified.[15][16]

The American Cancer Society stated in 1998:

"... penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and circumcision is strongly associated with other socioethnic practices that are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is that circumcision alone is not the major factor preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking."[2]

As for HIV:
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html
The programme showed US-based research on a freshly removed foreskin. No mention was made however that most Male Americans are circumcised neonatally[2]. This has not prevented the USA from becoming the industrialised country most burdened with HIV.[3] Furthermore, no mention was made of the likelihood that the foreskin was being removed because of disease and may not be representative of a healthy foreskin. The programme did not query the fact that the freshly cut foreskin, with a further cut in the lab, thus had cuts which were a portal of entry that did not exist in the intact penis. This work has not been published or subjected to the scrutiny of Peer Review.

The design of retrospective epidemiological studies on this subject, which did not examine any patients has been criticised.[5]

Many of the African studies did not directly verify the circumcision status of the study subjects. The circumcision status was guessed based on tribal or religious affiliation. Without actually examining the patients to determine their circumcision status, it is obviously impossible to conclude that circumcision does or does not have a protective effect.

Most of those studies that claimed a positive correlation between circumcision and reduced HIV incidence had a small sample size. If there had been only a small number of misclassifications of circumcision status, the results of those studies are no longer statistically significant. This is especially problematic in those studies that did not directly verify circumcision status (as above).

Most African studies fail to control for the practice of "Dry sex" which is a pervasive practice, purported to increase sexual pleasure, in sub-Saharan Africa. The practice is clearly associated with increased risk of HIV, but all epidemiological studies in Africa neglect consideration. Genital ulcer disease is another potentially confounding factor. More information on matters such as dry sex is available at http://www.cirp.org.

Female circumcision has been identified as a contributing factor to the spread of HIV.[6] The confounding effect of female circumcision, common in parts of Africa, has not been studied. Nor do published studies control for other potential cultural factors, although male circumcision is clearly a marker of cultural identity.

Many of the African studies used unrepresentative high-risk sample populations, such as clients of prostitutes, or visitors to a sexually-transmitted-disease clinic. These groups are hardly a representative sample of the population in terms of sexual behavior, general health and other factors.

And as for UTI, i've found no evidence to support your claim, but i did find this:

Women are more prone to UTIs than males because in females, the urethra is much shorter and closer to the anus than in males,[3] and they lack the bacteriostatic properties of prostatic secretions.

Those women who said uncircumsized men can give them UTI more easily seem to have goten it mixed up.

[Shuemue]

To paraphrase... my foreskin means my wanking feels nicer.

[Kuya]

It's amazing to me that most of what Dolmen posted went back to the same thing, proper hygiene. This is so amusing.

[Shuemue]

I've had foreskin for 33 years and my cock is just dandy.

[Obev]

What it all boils down to is you keep that knife away from my fucking penis.

[Shuemue]

What it all boils down to is you keep that knife away from my fucking penis.

This is 1,000,000% the correct answer.

[Kuya]

What it all boils down to is you keep that knife away from my fucking penis.

This is 1,000,000% the correct answer.

Ah the Brittish, what would i do without thee? Well, how about helping me fight your dick cutting hellspawn here.

edit: well i have no problem with the ones who understand that it is just tradition, have a problem with the uninformed ones who misuse scientific research and make up shit to justify it

[Intense]

What it all boils down to is you keep that knife away from my fucking penis.

This is 1,000,000% the correct answer.

Ah the Brittish, what would i do without thee? Well, how about helping me fight your dick cutting hellspawn here.

Do you support titty cutting?

[SephYuyX]

What it all boils down to is you keep that knife away from my fucking penis.

This is 1,000,000% the correct answer.

Doesnt really matter when your a few hours old.

[Atlasion]

I'm pretty much against genital mutilation of infants. You say it reduces chances of various diseases, fine. When the person in question is old enough, they can choose to get circumcised. A lot of these diseases are sexual related or develop in later life, so I don't see why an infant should be worried about them.