|
lostgirl83 -> RE: Circumcision (7/8/2008 10:41:57 PM)
|
Oh ok Ill bite... I love a fun debate...
While you make good points about how there are more things to worry about in a child's life (considerably more important, and yes I have a child who happens to be a boy) than their ability to please their possible future sex partners, Im not sure I agree with the bit about Penile cancer and HPV.
Quite a few women suffer from breast cancer... following this logic I should run to the doctor and have my breasts chopped off because I'm at risk for cancer just by having breasts.
I won't deny the possibility of men who are uncircumcised being more likely to become infected with or transmit any STD just based upon the anatomy. Naturally the most common form of human papilloma virus thrives in a warm, moist environment so under and around the foreskin would be an ideal place for the virus to grow. However, at my annual checkup at the gyno I had been given information about the Guardasil shot (vaccine for HPV which I did end up getting and it hurt like a bitch just in case anyone was wondering) On the pamphlet (and Im sorry to say I do not own a scanner but if you google "HPV statistics in the united states" you can find several sites supporting these high numbers) it said 80% of sexually active adults in the United States have some form of HPV... when you consider a previous poster's claim that 75% of males in the United States are circumcised there is really no way that anyone can claim that men who are "uncut" are more likely to spread the disease. If you have unprotected sex you are at risk of contracting/carrying/spreading HPV period, foreskin or not. Compound that with the fact that currently there are no existing tests to diagnose men with HPV other than, obviously, a visual inspection so most of the men who contract the virus live their lives without even knowing they have it.
www.hpvforum.com seems to have a lot of up to date information if you're interested.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Emperor1956
OH I know I shouldn't....but here goes:
I am reposting a note I posted in 2007 on another circumcision thread. In THAT one, the OP asked the trenchant question "Should I circumcize my infant son now, or will that affect his ability to please the ladies when he's an adult?" The question was addressed to women and asked if they had better sex with uncircumcised men. Dumb question. But it drew the inane and incorrect responses about health care issues. So here we go again (and besides, I LIKED this post then, I like it now, and I pay exactly the same amount YOU do to post on CM so if you don't like my repost, stuff it!):
CT (and all readers, lest you think I'm singling anyone out): I'm a circumcized male, so I'm unable to "testify" as to the female response. That of course won't stop me from weighing in. At length, apparently.
First, you are making this decision based upon how well your unborn son is going to please women when he begins having sex? That's pretty speculative. Consider:
1. When the time comes to make a choice, he might not want to have sex with women. Does that change your calculus?
2. You might consider that circumcision would appear to be about item 787 on the list of the 800 things that make a good (heterosexual) lover. If you are worried about his prowess/success as an adult male when having sex, focus instead on the other 786 issues that affect female orgasm? In other words, you are looking at a very little tail wagging a very big dog (yes, all the unfortunate metaphorical imagery is intended).
3. There is no way to know if you made a good choice. He will be 19, angry and uncut, and hate you for the decision, or 19, angry and cut, and hate you for the decision.
Might I gently suggest, from my own experience as a father, that there are many more serious issues on the parenting horizon? Worrying about your kid's ability to please the ladies will not be a major concern as you try to get him past SIDS, colic, ADHD, VD, drugs, booze, driving, imitating "Jackass", crotch rot, puberty, compulsory military service, girls, boys, stupidity and the 1001 other things a parent worries about in between years 0 and 21 (and my mother tells me the worrying doesn't stop there).
Second, a digression regarding some of the other posts: some moron made statements about the "refusal" of doctors to perform circumcision in Europe. I've worked with physicians from all over the Western hemisphere and Asia, and I've never heard this. Give me a citation, or be quiet.
On the "nature put it there, leave it". Did you know that about 21% of American infants are born with extra toes or fingers, or the vestigial skin tags of them? "Nature put it there, leave it"? I hope your skanky finger child likes that. And by the way, the same is true of appendixes and tonsils. So when by God's will these organs get infected, lets leave them and let the kid die. Jesus would want that, right?
somethingdif, thank you for posting the SIECUS/NIH study. As I understand it, the mechanisms as to why circumcized men are more resistant to HIV are not yet understood, but the results are dramatic. [Emperor's 2008 addition -- In 2006, SIECUS/NIH posted a study that indicated pretty clearly that circumcised men are less likely to acquire HIV from Male to Female vaginal intercourse than uncircumcized men, and therefore less likely to pass on HIV to other female partners. It is a small point, as far more HIV infections (especially in the West) occur from IV needle sharing and men having sex with men. Nonetheless it is one reason that the statements above that "there is NO MEDICAL REASON for circumcision" are total bullshit. Read on.]
3. And finally, onestandingstill has it pretty clearly: Absent religious reasons for circumcision, the one advantage (and yes, there are disadvantages) is cleanliness. You have a ton of info [already posted in the thread] from those in the know about the smell and taste of cut vs. uncut penises. I won't go there. The issue I do think I can address is cancer and circumcision.
The debate over cancer and circumcision is huge, and you can find a study to support your personal view no matter what it is. There are no definitive statements as to the relationships between circumcision and (a) penile cancer or (b) cervical cancer in female partners. However, the current thinking is:
1. Re: Penile cancer. The occurence of penile cancer in circumcised men is very low, where as in uncircumcised men, it is uncommon, but it does occur more frequently. Penile cancer is virulent and nasty. There are those (pro-cut) who argue (without citing numbers) that more deaths occur annually from circumcision than from penile cancer, but there are also those (I think more rational) that argue that any reduction in penile cancer risk is worth it. You takes your chances.
2. Re: Cervical Cancer: The female partners of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer. This has been known anectdotally for centuries. With the identification of human papilloma virus as the key agent for cervical cancer (and if you, dear reader, don't know that story, stop worrying about penises and educate yourself on a health issue that really does matter) most of the studies seeking carcinogens in uncut men's secretions have been thrown out in favor of research on HPV. One competent recent study that I have read says the following in conclusion:
Bottom line
- Male circumcision is associated with reduced risk of genital HPV infection in men whether or not their female partners have cervical HPV or cervical cancer.
- Circumcision is associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners.
- In men with low-risk sexual behaviour and monogamous female partners, circumcision makes no difference to the risk of cervical cancer.
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/sep/vol49-sep-critical-1.asp
It is up to you (and by the way, the same moron I referenced above made statements about a woman having no right to make this decision for her son. Did that mean only daddies decide? Or no one should decide? I couldn't follow his argument. Big surprise). Anyway, it IS up to you and your partner. Absent religious belief, I think I'd still opt for circumcision for my son. Make an educated choice.
E.
OH YAH: back to July 2008: quote:
slaveboyforu: Routine circumcision started in the Victorian Era for several reasons.
Huh? except of course for Jews. Muslims. Most Asian cultures. Nice to see that your world view begins and ends with a small island in the Northern hemisphere. How incredibly limited can you get?
(edited to address major dumbness)
< Message edited by Emperor1956 -- 2/26/2007 4:48:52 PM >
|
|
|
|
