circumcision

tott666: [quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]JONB:
You are also forgetting that many foreskins are quite repugnant: some look like collapsed 5-man Army tents drooping from the head, other have foreskins so long they extend well beyond the head, narrow down and form miniature elephant trunks. *Women also tend to be more sensitive to aesthetic and hygiene issues than male slobs. *[/quote]

While it seems fairly obvious you don't like intact dicks:

Referring to medical studies is sort of useless in this case because there are always other studies which will contradict the ones you choose to quote. I sometimes wonder if there are real, professional, unbiased research when it comes to circumcision... So many findings have been disqualified because of methodological flaws. It's like the researchers are too passionate about this issue to remain objective.

Anyway, what if we apply the aesthetics point above to women? Some women have less than perfect breasts. Is it alright to demand that your girlfriend get a boob job? What if her inner labias are droopy and look odd? OK to ask her to get them taken care of?

Gord: TOTT666:
You should have read more carefully. The crux of the matter in what you responded to was THE ADDED HEALTH RISK TO WOMEN of regular sex with UNcut men. Drooping labia or less than perfect breasts pose no such risk to men.

Further, you mention conflicting medical studies that contradict the results I have presented. Like JONB, you fail to make specific reference to ANY such material. I quoted at length from a journal article, and gave a complete citation so that others could go to a medical library and easily find it and check it out for themselves. Vague, unsupported remarks are what JONB would call "anecdotal". In all my reading, I have not encontered an actual medical study refuting the health benfits of circumcision, except for the APA Policy Statement mentioned much earlier, and which is explained by the aversion physicians have to creating liability, given the existence of the risks that accompany ANY surgical procedure. Cicumcision is, of course, an elective procedure to boot.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]JONB:

2 issues, oldest first:

(1) You remarked that I am "unwilling" to discuss AIDS. Â*I don't recall sidestepping this issue at all. Â*You called my explanation of the cut vs. uncut viral acquisition issue in Africa an "ad hoc [excuse]". Â*I responded in considerable detail, explaining both the African observations, the African medical study, and the repeat of the study in the USA substantiating the work in Africa.[/quote]

I said that the idea that it must be as an infant in order to prevent AIDS is an ad hoc hypothesis to "explain away" countries like Nigeria, where some 90% of the men are circumcised but there's a higher rate of AIDS than in the US.

Of course, the very idea of circumcision preventing AIDS is a non-causal correlation. I mean, there's a strong correlation between my age, the speed of the newest Intel processor, the price of a kilogram of rice in Mexico, and the distance between the Earth and Halley's comet, but not even an astrologer would claim these are all related.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]What exactly are you referring to as "avoiding" the issue???? Â*As the topic here is circumcision, further discussion of the many other aspects of AIDS , though obviously FAR from unimportant, would be out of place here.[/quote]

Well, since the topic is circumcision, then the very fact that I provided a counterexample proves that circumcision does not prevent AIDS is on-topic. Why don't American Indians get AIDS as much as other races, despite having those foreskins you so despise? Why doesn't Europe have as high an AIDS rate as the US?

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02](2) Marriage conditional on circumcision: Â*Today's women are better educated, and you have once again, not fully read my material, or cannot retain it.[/quote]

What? The idea that a woman will only marry a man if he's circumcised? That means she's shallow. Same if a man makes a woman get her boobs done.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]I say AGAIN, studies have shown a causal relationship between women having sex regularly, as in marriage, with uncut men, and increased risk of cervical cancer, which no woman with half a brain would want to encourage when the risk can be drastically reduced by the snip.[/quote]

Increased risk of cervical cancer? Now why exactly would every species of mammal's male produce something that increases the risk of cervical cancer on a part of the body that goes into the vagina? I'd think that in all that time, any carcinogenic properties the penis had would've been wiped out by natural selection. Yet the foreskin's existence continues into the holocene.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]You are also forgetting that many foreskins are quite repugnant: some look like collapsed 5-man Army tents drooping from the head, other have foreskins so long they extend well beyond the head, narrow down and form miniature elephant trunks.[/quote]

And some circumcised penises have keloids on them and thus can't even enter the vagina. Scar tissue is far uglier than any foreskin.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]Women also tend to be more sensitive to aesthetic and hygiene issues than male slobs.[/quote]

Funny, circumcision is almost invariably practiced by patriarchies, some of which even have arranged marriages. You apparently know even less about anthropology than you do about biology.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#89 date=04/29/03 at 19:40:02]In view of the number of times you have made remarks which need not have been made had you chosen to PROPERLY READ AND RETAIN what I've already explained in detail, I do not propose wasting more of my time responding further, unless you have something quite significant not already touched upon, AND WHICH YOU CAN SUPPORT WITH ACCEPTABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, not just abitrary unsupported and distorted personal views reflecting your personal agenda.[/quote]

Evolution is an "arbitrary and distorted personal view" that reflects my personal agenda? Medical associations are "arbitrary and distorted personal views"?

My source regarding American Indians and HIV:

http://www.avert.org/usastatr

Yes, I know that Indians are a small minority. But if you divide it by the general population, we still don't get HIV as much as (generally circumcised) Caucasian men (.13% of Indian men versus .34% of white men). Before you get out your calculator, that's a factor of 2.6. We are no more virginal then white men; the average sexarche for American Indians is 13.6 for boys and 14.2 for girls. (Edwards, S., Among Native American Teenagers, Sex Without Contraceptives is Common, Fam Plann Prospect, 24,4,:189-91)

The rest of what I said can be found in just about any textbook.

[quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=84#91 date=04/30/03 at 08:56:24]TOTT666:
You should have read more carefully. Â*The crux of the matter in what you responded to was THE ADDED HEALTH RISK TO WOMEN of regular sex with UNcut men. Â*Drooping labia or less than perfect breasts pose no such risk to men.

Further, you mention conflicting medical studies that contradict the results I have presented. Â*Like JONB, you fail to make specific reference to ANY such material. Â*I quoted at length from a journal article, and gave a complete citation so that others could go to a medical library and easily find it and check it out for themselves. Â*Vague, unsupported remarks are what JONB would call "anecdotal". Â*In all my reading, I have not encontered an actual medical study refuting the health benfits of circumcision, except for the APA Policy Statement mentioned much earlier, and which is explained by the aversion physicians have to creating liability, given the existence of the Â*risks that accompany ANY surgical procedure. Cicumcision is, of course, an elective procedure to boot.[/quote]

spd: I'm uncut and love it. Does cause a few problems during puberty and you have to stay cleaner than the average dick but I still love it. I do know this, if you're uncut and an adult don't even consider getting cut. I had a friend who at about 38 decided to have his cut. His wife thought it would look better. He said he suffered the most intense pain of his life and it took weeks to end.

chipster: spd, not everyone had such a painful experience as did your friend. Here I have copied a post from Felipe last fall:

Three weeks ago today I was circumcised. I live in Barcelona in Spain, although I was raised in the UK. I got it done 'cos I had balanitis for 10 years and despite trying every kind of cream and ointment, sex was often painful (especially the next day) and a put off (juts the thought of having a sore dick made me soft). The operation was relatively quick and not at all painful...although I have a certain aversion to knives, the sensation was not very nice, but there was no pain. The only pain I have experienced was during the first three nights and the night hard-ons, as the stitches got stretched a little. However, no real problem.

After all the swelling has gone down, (after a week), I have almost healed 100%, and I have started to jerk off again. Actually, I feel like when I was 12, you know, when you first realize what your dick can do!!! It looks so different, and since it is 'bare' all the time, I feel turned on 100% the time! Amazing. So, if any of you are considering the 'cut' don't worry about the pain, the stitches etc., as this is just myth (although there are bad cases i know). if you need it done, go for it!!

For the rest, any of you had similar situations? You know, late circumcision (I am 35). If so, how did you get on? How do you feel with your new 'friend'?

freeballer_au: I'm cut, but not by choice, it was common accepted practice at the time. I can't see any sensible reason to do it to a child and cause him any unnecessary pain at an early age. For genuine reasons such as being too tight - yes. You hear of the complete messups some doctors make and that is something that can't be repaired. As an adult you can make up your own mind. I cringe at the thought of having that done to me now.
How many females would willingly have the equivalent butchery carried out on themselves or their daughters for no reason other than "SOCIETY" demanded it.
7x5

ORCABOMBER: [quote author=freeballer_au link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=80#96 date=06/10/03 at 1925]
How many females would willingly have the equivalent butchery carried out on themselves or their daughters for no reason other than "SOCIETY" demanded it.
7x5[/quote]
Not to stirr up another argument but you have a really good point, okay, so they're different, but I think that choice should be an important factor, but then again, would some unknowing women choose to be circumsised?

Trackers: Well my b/f's dick is cut. I have heard all kinds or stories about uncut dicks, and some of them just sound terrible. I agree with lilAmy though, uncut dicks do look quite different.

Dag: [quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=0#14 date=12/30/02 at 15:53:15]I've seen pretty cut cocks. I've seen ugly cut cocks. I've seen pretty uncut cocks. I've seen ugly uncut cocks. Guys, look at your cock. Are you satisfied with your circumcisional status? Yes? Great; lucky you! No? Hell, change it! The technology is available. Not satisfied, but can't afford the surgery? Sorry, dude; work with it. I'm uncut, but I would also enjoy my cock if it were cut. The absence of presence of the foreskin makes no difference to me.[/quote]


DMW,

1st off - I love the way you write!

"I've seen pretty cut cocks. I've seen ugly cut cocks.
I've seen pretty uncut cocks. I've seen ugly uncut cocks..."

"Guys, look at your cock" >> and I am
"Are you satisfied with your circumcisional status?" >> NO!

"Yes? Great; lucky you! No? Hell, change it! The technology is available." >> I know and have tried foreskin restoration.

"I'm uncut, but I would also enjoy my cock if it were cut. The absence of presence of the foreskin makes no difference to me." << Very well put indeed!

Cheers - Dag

bigckhead: Sure there is many theories to explain why mostly 80% of the americans boys are CUT.

I think that's mostly for hygenic reason than religious believes or WASP origins.

I'm living on the other side of the Big Pound in Europe,
specially in France where more than 80% of the men are
Uncut except for medical reasons or religious habits ( Jewish or Muslims).

Sure it's often difficult to live its difference and being part of a minority (CUT / UNCUT, WHiTE / NON WHITE, ATHEIST or BELIEVER...).

Here in Europe, CUT men are the minority, i know a lot of gay guys and some women who prefer having sex with an UNCUT cock rather than a CUT one even if it is cuter than the uncut one ;-).

So i think people tend to think "normality" as "majority" ...

Just be tolerant and enjoy the pleasure you can give to your sexual partner. As we know all, love blinds...

For sure, any time i went at the urinals in USA, many guys couldn't refrain themselves to look at my Uncut Cock, even if they were Str8. I don't know if it was due to the fact of being Uncut or having a Huge mushroom on a beer can sized cock ;)

When i was young i had some troubles due to my over sized cockhead. Hopefully my father and the physician gave me the choice of being circumcized or doing daily streching exercices of the foreskin....
They both gave me the consequences of the operation... unpainful but cut, or staying uncut but having some painfull exercices to be done daily. I didn't want to be different than my other friend. So i prefered to make the exercices explained by the physician and my father in order to strech the foreskin enough and avoiding being cut.

It was very painfull the first months... but after some time i find that it was very 'pleasant' ;D

I'm thankfull to my father and the physican for letting me the choice !


PS: sorry if my english sounds sometimes funny ... it's just that i'm only a French guy trying to write some english ;-)

Not to fear, it'll be brought up again-and again-and again- and again- and again...


Some interesting comments in this thread.

Whether you are circumcised or uncut you need to be comfortable with who you are and your cock. To people who are cut and unhappy I say they should look into restoration procedures. For those who are uncut and either unhappy or have tight foreskin problems then again do something about it. If there's an issue people need to be proactive and deal with it not just moan about it on lpsg. We have too much of a moaning victim culture in western society.

RE: AIDS prevention.

It is scientifically proven that circumcision reduces the odds of catching AIDS *VIA THE PENIS*.

Circumcision of the penis has no effect on the oods of catching aids via ANUS.

So in countries where AIDS is primarily a homosexual disease, circumcision has no effect because men catch it via their anus if they don't via their penis. And use of condoms makes a far greater difference in preventing spread of aids at both ends. (penis and anus).

In africa, AIDS is a heterosexual disease and is spread due to widespread promiscuity. Circumcision reduces rate of spreading by about 60%. It only helps control the growth of the epidemic. Lifestyle changes would make even bigger differences (wearing condoms, no longer sleeping with many many women etc etc).

I don't know what your relationship to medicine is, but the Hippocratic Oath says, "First do no harm." That means, don't prove that circumcision is harmful to health, prove that the benefits outweigh the risks. All medical organizations in the US and Canada and Europe say that regular infant circumcision (that is without a disorder to ameliorate) has no medical value (!)

You do not remove a healthy functioning part of the body, which has a proven function, which protects and gives pleasure, because of a minute statistical chance of preventing certain conditions. You simply teach hygienic steps (washing and condom use) to prevent them. In Southern Africa, where sanitation and condom use is way reduced, there may be an argument involving AIDS transmission. Here, we should be using condoms, period. The minutely increased risks to women from the foreskin are almost all in dispute when sanitation is factored into the studies. Circumcision is the only operation that people perform because it has minute statistical benefits.

And by the way. In the US where circumcision is 85% at least, we have higher rates of STD's, including AIDS than, most of the European countries where circumcision is below 5 %.

Please stop using pseudo-science to justify your cultural/religious prejudices. Why not say, "I am too limited by my culture to absorb the fact an intact body is preferable to a scarred and reduced one," or, "God told me he wanted me to cut off a piece of my penis, and limit my sexual pleasure for the rest of my life, as a proof of my devotion to HIM."