Circumcision

[ChrisL]

I don't think that's the case with guys. They don't seem to have a problem enjoying sex after having a circumcision.

---
Unless the circumcision is botched.
Most of the men in this world, who are natural, don't seem to have problems enjoying sex as demonstrated by millions of years of propagation.

I still wonder if circumcised men have a greater need for Viagra/Cialis/etc after reaching age 50 and esp 60 ...
.

wonder away----there is no such evidence in all this time. As to BOTCHED CIRC----there are ALSO hazards in maintaining a foreskin.
...

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

 

[irosie91]

I don't think that's the case with guys. They don't seem to have a problem enjoying sex after having a circumcision.

---
Unless the circumcision is botched.
Most of the men in this world, who are natural, don't seem to have problems enjoying sex as demonstrated by millions of years of propagation.

I still wonder if circumcised men have a greater need for Viagra/Cialis/etc after reaching age 50 and esp 60 ...
.

wonder away----there is no such evidence in all this time. As to BOTCHED CIRC----there are ALSO hazards in maintaining a foreskin.
...

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

at issue is the MANNER IN WHICH CIRCUMCSION is done in south Africa. A study which came out of SAUDI ARABIA ------which I read----several years ago----
found that the MANNER OF CIRCUMCISION was at issue------persons
INCOMPLETELY circumcised in the Islamic manner -------were not as protected
from HARBORING the HIV virus as were persons circumcised in early infancy----
Islamic circumcision happens at about age 12-----and ends up OFTEN with
that which I, singularly, call "RAGGED EDGES" Calls for TRAINING in
the art of circumcision are now ONGOING

 

[irosie91]

---
Unless the circumcision is botched.
Most of the men in this world, who are natural, don't seem to have problems enjoying sex as demonstrated by millions of years of propagation.

I still wonder if circumcised men have a greater need for Viagra/Cialis/etc after reaching age 50 and esp 60 ...
.

wonder away----there is no such evidence in all this time. As to BOTCHED CIRC----there are ALSO hazards in maintaining a foreskin.
...

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

right----not just HIV----also PAPILLOMA VIRUS-----the agent often at issue in
cancer of the cervix and anal wart. As to Keeping "cleaner" --that is conjecture---but probably true

 

[PK1]

---
Unless the circumcision is botched.
Most of the men in this world, who are natural, don't seem to have problems enjoying sex as demonstrated by millions of years of propagation.

I still wonder if circumcised men have a greater need for Viagra/Cialis/etc after reaching age 50 and esp 60 ...
.

wonder away----there is no such evidence in all this time. As to BOTCHED CIRC----there are ALSO hazards in maintaining a foreskin.
...

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

---
To keep it cleaner? LOL!
It's easy to practice cleanliness; just wash up the private parts BEFORE having sex ... applies to both women & men.
However, with men, it's easier to SEE what one is getting ...

.

 

[ChrisL]

wonder away----there is no such evidence in all this time. As to BOTCHED CIRC----there are ALSO hazards in maintaining a foreskin.
...

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

---
To keep it cleaner? LOL!
It's easy to practice cleanliness; just wash up the private parts BEFORE having sex ... applies to both women & men.
However, with men, it's easier to SEE what one is getting ...

.

Yes, and some people don't do that. That is the reality of the situation, especially in third world countries where they sometimes don't have a shower or bath in their home, or sometimes may not even have a home.

 

[PK1]

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

---
To keep it cleaner? LOL!
It's easy to practice cleanliness; just wash up the private parts BEFORE having sex ... applies to both women & men.
However, with men, it's easier to SEE what one is getting ...

.

Yes, and some people don't do that. That is the reality of the situation, especially in third world countries where they sometimes don't have a shower or bath in their home, or sometimes may not even have a home.

---
Therefore, perhaps we (WHO) should have a health policy that advocates circumcision for only poor, unclean families irregardless of senseless religious & other cultural factors?

.

 

[ChrisL]

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

---
To keep it cleaner? LOL!
It's easy to practice cleanliness; just wash up the private parts BEFORE having sex ... applies to both women & men.
However, with men, it's easier to SEE what one is getting ...

.

Yes, and some people don't do that. That is the reality of the situation, especially in third world countries where they sometimes don't have a shower or bath in their home, or sometimes may not even have a home.

---
Therefore, perhaps we (WHO) should have a health policy that advocates circumcision for poor, unclean families irregardless of senseless religious & other cultural factors?

.

It's an individual choice, or course.

 

[irosie91]

wonder away----there is no such evidence in all this time. As to BOTCHED CIRC----there are ALSO hazards in maintaining a foreskin.
...

---
Based on what I've observed in this thread, you & Chris appear to exhibit confirmation bias. Perhaps you have Jewish backgrounds, or simply carry US cultural views.
As a scientist, I try to be objective, with a natural viewpoint, i.e., why go against nature unless it makes sense (not cents).

I've read claims that "the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than intact men", but have not seen the methodological details to be convinced.

However, there are many medical views opposed to circumcision that are more credible (also from biased site):
"when the father of the expected baby was circumcised, 81.9% of respondents were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision. When the father of the expected child was not circumcised, 14.9% were in favor of pursuing elective circumcision."

"the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis."

"Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising.
Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically."

"A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. ...
the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes."

"Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men."

Etc, etc ...
Medical Studies on Circumcision
.

It is actually recommended in places like Africa to slow the spread of disease. Also, the difference in "feeling" has been reported as being negligible.

---
Did you read the citation in my link that negates your Africa claim?

A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794
.

And there are plenty of OTHER studies that say just the opposite. They say that they have found there is a decline of spread of STDs with circumcision because it is easier for the men to keep it cleaner and there are less places for infection to fester.

---
To keep it cleaner? LOL!
It's easy to practice cleanliness; just wash up the private parts BEFORE having sex ... applies to both women & men.
However, with men, it's easier to SEE what one is getting ...

.

very practical but-----not entirely REALISTIC