RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference?

RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 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 This is bad science. First of all cervical cancer is, primarily, caused by several strains of HPV. Virtually everyone who is sexually active has one or more strains, including the cancer causing ones, of HPV. The HPV vaccine may change that for future generations but not for us. Second of all these sorts of studies which track back from bad outcomes looking for correlations can be used to 'prove' virtually any correlation. In this case it is made clear that circumcision correlated with higher levels of education which likely correlates to higher income which indicates better access to healthcare for the circumcised man's partner. Which correlates to pap smears as recommended which correlates to early diagnosis which correlates to shorter treatment and those women being less likely to be undergoing treatment when a study which tracks women with cervical cancer is recruiting subjects. Finally look at that last bullet point. Women who do not have multiple partners and whose partner does not have other partners are less likely to come into contact with a cancer causing HPV strain. So really the study 'proves' that not coming into contact with the strains of HPV associated with cervical cancer is the best preventative measure possible. Therefore don't get your male UM's circumcised but do get your female UM's vaccinated, males should get vaccinated if/when it gets approved for them as well.

RobertCloud -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross quote: ORIGINAL: RobertCloud I am circumcised, I have not been with many women. For a 45 year old man, very few in fact, but not one woman I have been with has failed to have an orgasm. (No, they did not fake it... and yes, I am certain.) I'll just point out that female orgasms rarely have anything to do with a penis. I know... and I love learning every new way I can arouse a woman to that point. Each woman has some ways that are similar but also some that are different. Most of them were not even with penetration, but each had at least one during penetration as well.

domiguy -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:40:38 PM)
I have nothing to really add here ...but I find this thread fascinating! Good post!

Emperor1956 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:43:05 PM)
DomKen: We generally agree, except with your tag of "bad science". Read the entire article, the author absolutely talks about the shortcomings of the study. Also, your analysis of the data by explaining that partners of circumcised men may have a higher SES, therefore better access to health care, etc. is a possible explanation of the data, and even plausible, but the data still remains true: Circumcision is associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners. Explaining the outcome in a different way doesn't undermine the data. We absolutely agree on the value of the HPV virus for boys and girls. E.

DomKen -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:49:54 PM)
Actually the correlation of circumcision to standard of living can explain the lower risk of women with high risk partners. The same issue of early detection meaning early treatment could be the causative factor here as well. Without a longitudinal(sp?) study of a large number of women this correlation simply cannot be considered strongly supported. Also I hope you mean the value of the HPV vaccine not value of the HPV virus.

darchChylde -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 9:54:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross I'll just point out that female orgasms rarely have anything to do with a penis. darchChylde applauds that is one of the most beautiful and honest things i've seen in this thread... good thing that most of us posters (male and female) have brains and a few other assets; but i have to admit, i like my penis foreskin and all

RobertCloud -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 10:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darchChylde quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross I'll just point out that female orgasms rarely have anything to do with a penis. darchChylde applauds that is one of the most beautiful and honest things i've seen in this thread... good thing that most of us posters (male and female) have brains and a few other assets; but i have to admit, i like my penis foreskin and all I don't really think it matters one way or the other. If you have the foreskin or not. I don't, I am happy with my member as well. However, I do know from the experience of my father that the health risks are far greater. If you still have the foreskin and are happy with it, great... If not and you are happy with it great... As far as a mother and father deciding for their new born son. When I have a son, he will be, I will not let him face the health risks. Will he hate me for it? Doubtful. For like me, I have no clue what the difference is that I am missing and in truth I have found when talking to many women that if I had had it several would have turned me down. So more than likely he will thank me if he is in the US. If I left it on will he hate me for it. Possibly not, but then again, my father is not happy his parents did not have him circumcised. He does not hate his parents for it. He was not born in a hospital and therefore it was just never done. He wishes it was done because he has always regretted it. He has always had problems with it. Not all men do, but there are a percentage that even when they are as fastidious as my father is about cleanliness they still have problems. It was because of his problems that he was so adamant that when I was born that I was circumcised. Considering my own family's experience. My father's, my uncles' (plural), my grandfathers' (plural) I know where I stand on the issue in my future but it is from direct knowledge and not from some data collected that I do not know the people. I know the people involved here, and I know what they went through, and I saw it in their faces when they told me about their stories. I have no doubt that if my own son were to know what I know he would be thankful of my decision, and he will know, for when he is old enough to understand I will tell him so he can make the informed decision I do, when the time comes that he has to make the same decision.

justheather -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 10:27:54 PM)
If you have the inclination and the time, I would like to recommend for your reading list a book entitled Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery by David L. Gollaher. I recall one chapter addressing the promotion of RIC among by a certain Jewish commentator (European, and of a later century,I dont remember beyond that) for the purpose of decreasing or eliminating a wife's pleasure during sexual intercourse. This particular group believed that a woman should not desire sex for pleasure and that a wife of a circumcised man was easier to control and "in a more quiet state". I had already decided against RIC when I read this book. I found it fascinating from a historical perspective. Speaking of my own choice in the matter, Id like to just add that one hour, forty five minutes and seven years ago, I greeted my little male replicant face to face for the very first time.

Emperor1956 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 10:33:40 PM)
heather: What is "RIC"? And your post doesn't seem to make sense -- in the last line of the first paragraph it seems you used "uncircumcised" when you meant "circumcised"? But as I say, it makes no sense to me. E.

Zensee -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 10:41:37 PM)
Hard to believe we are debating the genital mutilation of male infants for the dubious purpose of (only possibly) giving more pleasure to their female partners (what about their own pleasure - guess that doesn't count for much perhaps). Even worse to hear "science" being trumpeted in favour of barbarism. That's even lamer than the religious argument. Hey parents IT'S NOT YOUR BODY! It's really that simple. Z.

justheather -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 11:00:17 PM)
E: RIC is Routine Infant Circumcision. You are correct, I meant to say "Circumcised" which I have corrected. It's late. The gist of the chapter in the book was that this particular commentator-- Moses Maimonides-- on circumcision and its place in the Jewish culture felt that if for no other reason, it was important that men be circumcised so that their women did not experience orgasm from sex.

amayos -> RE: Circumcised or intact, is there a difference? (2/26/2007 11:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress My partner and I are discussing circumcision of a future child. We have read many things from many view points, but we are wanting your input based in real life experience if you would be so kind. I think it's strange anyone would even be considering the practice of circumcision in this day and age. Biology has given us our parts for a reason. In the case of the foreskin, it protects and lubricates the glans and enhances male pleasure through additional erogenous sensors, among other functions. As a circumcised male myself, I found it rather unfortunate my parents' only motive for cutting that part off of me during my infancy was out of conformity to popular ignorance. So much of the science behind the reasons for removing the foreskin amounts to little more than the moronic logic of it's dirty, so cut it off.

darchChylde -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/26/2007 11:16:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RobertCloud quote: ORIGINAL: darchChylde I don't really think it matters one way or the other. If you have the foreskin or not. I don't, I am happy with my member as well. However, I do know from the experience of my father that the health risks are far greater. If you still have the foreskin and are happy with it, great... If not and you are happy with it great... i agree with you one hundred percent on the above point, which is one reason in my posts on this topic i never gave advice to cut or not to cut but only spoke from personal experience, i don't know what i would do if i had to make that decision for my son, i've only had a daughter and lost her, and doubt i will ever desire to have any more children and have been seriously considering a vasectomy as that loss almost killed me and i don't care to find if i have the strength to survive another such loss; so i doubt i will have to worry about it

bludemonn -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 12:29:52 AM)
If men were meant to be circumcised we wouldnt need the Jewish for christ sake! its unnatural and im starting a movement against the penis affected!!!

seeksfemslave -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 2:49:05 AM)
I have no HARD opinions either way, but what I have read is that religious considerations aside, the reason for so much circumcision in the US is that it is a nice little earner for the medical profession. I do think that the genitals are not the most attractive feature, of either sex !

nicebuns -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 3:18:58 AM)
sorry, I lost the post and will have to redo it

ernurse48 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 3:28:40 AM)
My opinion is not from a scientific viewpoint but from a clinical perspective from my own observations regarding circumcised male infants versus uncircumcised male infants. While most of my career has been in the Midwest, I did spend two years in AZ. While in AZ I noticed a much higher population of uncut male infants. I think this was due to two things; 1) a higher percentage of a different culture that doesn’t cut, and 2) the public aid insurance did not pay for it. What I did learn while working with the higher numbers of uncut male infants is that there is a large number of males that come into the ER with Urinary Tract Infections (UTI). Prior to working in AZ, I had never catheterized an infant male. The first time I was give an MD order to cath a little boy I was shocked and even more shocked when it came back positive for a UTI. From then on it was common practice to cath infant males who were brought to the ER with a fever and we found no other source of an infection. This has always been common practice with little girls but not boys. I must also say that I have never seen an infant male that has been circumcised come back positive for a UTI. Now, I am working in Chicago in a very ethnically diverse area and have again seen little boys with UTI”s that seems to be directly related to a lack of circumcision. Keep in mind that not all uncut little boys get a UTI and the correlation of those that do is generally due to poor hygiene on the part of the parents, grandparents, day care providers etc either through lack of knowledge or general laziness. In addition the procedure of catheterizing an infant is likely as traumatic as being cut. At least circumcision is a quick procedure when compared to cathing. I observed circumcision when my sons were cut and though it was tough to see, I find it much harder to cath infants. I would do anything to prevent my child from having to be catheterized. I won’t even go into the increased use of antibiotics used for treating UTI’s and the increase of antibiotic resistant infections from overuse of antibiotics. Both of my sons are cut and have no issues with it, though I think they may have if they had been different from their peers. One of my daughters is soon to have a little boy and has opted to have him cut. I support her decision wholeheartedly. From a woman’s prospective, I would have a hard time being with a man who was not circumcised. I am sure it’s my bias and the fact that I have not been with an uncut man. So there you go… my opinion from a clinical prospective, as a woman and as a parent of two sons. You have my complete respect for doing your research and making an educated and informed decision, no matter what choice you make. Btw… congratulations on the upcoming event!!!

meatcleaver -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 3:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emperor1956 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. The British Medical Association refute both these claims and compared British stats to N. American stats, British men being 90% uncircumcised and American men 90% circumcised (if I remember rightly), there is no difference in infections or desease that can be associated with being uncircumcised. As for the HIV study, if I remember right this was done in Africa where infrastructure and sanitation is a problem due to poverty. However, HIV is a life style issue and not an issue about being circumcized or not.

meatcleaver -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 3:34:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Then the true gem reason to whack a chunk of my infant son's genitalia. "Dont you want him to look like his father?" True idiocy. Sinergy I think you have hit on the real issue.

Zensee -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 3:36:04 AM)
News Flash 2: I am agreeing with seeks! It is 99% fast money for doctors. There are also risks associated with unncecessary circumcision; the results of botched procedures and complications. It may be small but it is significant for those who experience it. "Sorry son, you have no cock because we thought it needed a little trim and the surgeon was off his game that day." Hope you never have to have that conversaton with your boy. And the, "our son doesn't seem to mind" argument is a meaningless rationalisation. It's not like they have any comparison they can make. And the "it doesn't hurt" bullshit? Oh please. Life has plenty of surprises and trauma in store for your UMs, why should they start life with needless mutillation at the hands of people they should trust? Z.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02