Emperor1956
Posts: 2370
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
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 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.
(edited to address major dumbness)
< Message edited by Emperor1956 -- 2/26/2007 4:48:52 PM >
_____________________________
"When you wake up, Pooh," said Piglet, "what's the first thing you say?"
"What's for breakfast? What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?"
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
"It's the same thing," he said.
|
RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread