U.S. circumcision rate drops

can be unnecessary and potentially harmful. I'm 53 years old circumcised and proud and to the best of my knowledge the procedure has had no harmful side effects. Upon reflection I prefer to be circumcised.

If you know what I mean ...

:rofl:

Bake

...but I don't belive it's ethical to remove a healthy, normal part of a person's anatomy while they are in infancy, even if it's for the rationale of possibly preventing some extremely rare cancer.

My boys are both uncut (as are most boys here in Japan) and when they are old enough, they will have the choice of whether or not to do it.

something that makes a difference with advancing age and declining eyesight and manual dexterity. There are now multiple studies showing a lower transmission of HIV in circumsised males, so there are some health benefits, too.

However, every surgical procedure carries the risk of accident and infection. These are extremely rare in infant circumcision, but they must be considered by any parent when the decision is made.

This is a very personal and private decision that is made by parents for their newborn sons. Once risks and benefits are explained, along with the fact that every little boy wants to look like Daddy, everybody else needs to butt out.

Any teen-ager (and even boys of all ages) can do it ... quite happily, too.

:shrug:

PU

Cause I have.:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:)

with microdickele, I used a 12

...which, for some reason, was very near to where they performed the circumcisions. I could quite clearly hear every word said in the "treatment" room. I will never forget hearing one doctor's laughing voice, saying, "Oh, he didn't like that, did he?" as a newborn started screaming in pain.

:( :( i had two homebirths, and my sons' circs were done in the pediatrician's office the next day. i can still hear (and feel) the screams of pain when they were wrapped up in their papooses getting cut. :( i'd not do it again, if i had to do so. it seems barbaric to me now.

I know that was my one loudly voiced complaint when I did my neonatal rotation.

where the penis is innervated. During the procedure, the babies are given a sugar nipple that releases endorphins.
Rarely do they cry--in fact, they cry more during their admission bath than they do their circumcision.
But again, I only speak for education purposes, I don't have a dog in this hunt.
I've never had to make the decision and believe that whatever the parents choose for whatever reason, it's okay.
The procedure that I personally witness is not a traumatic one.

heel stick for PKU testing as they did for the circ. However, anesthetic could be used for the circ and old hell raiser Warpy wrote the whole thing up as abuse.

It's still up to the parents to make an informed decision. Other than informing them of risks and benefits, it's never been any of my business.

my obligation is fulfilled.
It's just not my decision.

We haven't had a good circumcision thread in awhile.

Damn. Talk about "it's none of yer friggin' business". Is this really a subject that will inspire a heated discussion?

I cannot imagine ever telling anyone -- even on an anonymous board -- the details of my private life; I find it harder to fathom that someone would actually be a big enough shithead to venture a criticism of me for this.

But, this is DU after all. We'll see what happens.

such as a wart removal would be. To others it is genital mutilation.
So with such a diverse spectrum of opinion--it gets very heated at times.
My philosophy (as one who assists in many circumcisions)--if you don't want one, don't get one.

gawd.

... the people who don't have one are often the most opinionated. :evilgrin:

I'll just leave this conversation to those without automobiles. :D

:rofl:

it may not matter to the partner. But it does seem that studies conclude that anything from HIV to staph infections decrease when men are circumcised.

Time will tell.

plus tips.

why is that so LOL funny! :)

:silly:
;-)

Just wondering....

:P

B-)

:P

Bad news for the genital mutilation crowd.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

:popcorn:

Waiting for the LTTE's.

is enough for me to get any future sons of mine circumsized.

I understnad the opposition but after much research and asking as many men as I could my husband and I decided to have our sons circumcised.
-several older men told me they wish they had been circumcised because as they aged their forskins dried out and were prone to crack and bleed
-the sons of friends who were not circumcised often had UT infections
-the incidence of cervical cancer in women whose sexual partners were not circumcised is higher
-i have been concerned about reports that the rate of STDs is higher in uncircumcised men and their partners

years later i would add to the list
-although I am sure my sons would not mind cleaning the forskin area I am also sure if they had a problem they would not say anything until they were in unbearable pain because a teen boy would rather suffer than endure the embarassment if discussing his penis with an adult
-even though there is lots of info about condom use being so important re STDs an alarming number if young people do not use them, I see a growing trend of young people viewing HIV as a treatable condition one can live with

this is a difficult decision for any parent to make and the opinions on the issue are so varied and deeply felt that is a shame people lable you as irresponsible of cruel if you dont agree with their opinion who knows what the right choice is like most i made what i felt was the best choice for us and try to respect those who chose diffenently

Dammit, I could have gone on quite happily without ever knowing that.:scared::puke::puke::puke:

I'm not going to attack anyone for their choices but I just didn't think that it was necessary surgery. The studies indicating higher health risks for the uncircumcised have a lot of issues - many of the sample sizes were very small, or other variables weren't controlled well, or the diseases in question (cancer of the penis) are so rare the results aren't statistically significant.

It's not a big deal either way, imo, as long as the babies being circumcised are given local anesthetic.

Not saying it doesn't happen, but in the geriatric penises I have seen, circumcised or not, there is generally moistness.
If someone doesn't practice good hygiene--circumcised or not--UTI's are sometimes problematic.
I'd like to see the studies about STD's/cervical cancer in women. Again, hygiene would be the issue.
Circumcision should be a decision that is made on facts, preference and culture, not one that is made out of fear and misinformation.

My wife and I do not plan on having kids, but we were discussing this the other night with some friends. To her, it is astonishing that my circumcision doesn't make me angry. I don't think I would do it to a kid were I to have one, but my own doesn't bother me at all: I don't remember it and frankly if I lost any sensation it's news to me. In fact, were I more sensitive I would get nothing done. Add to that how many boys who are slobs about bathing up until sometime in college, and... i don't know.

I guess it's just funny that I was surprised she felt the way she did, and vice versa. I don't really see it as mutilation for males, although I suppose it could be seen that way.

(Not in the "Sopranos" sense, agent Mike. More in the "slap the evil-mother fucker around until he sees the error of his ways" sense.)

:rofl:

...in accordance the dictates of a 3000-year-old tribal deity?

ON EDIT: before the flame war starts, I am circumcised and I've never noticed any problems from it (then again how would I know?) And certainly it's nowhere near as bad as female ritual genital mutilation. But it remains mutilation of genitals, done for ritual reasons (no matter how much we have in recent years tried to find a scientific justification for it), and therefore something I think worth mocking on general principle.

What goes where, what shouldn't go where, when you shouldn't do this with that... wait, don't put that THERE!

reasons. I didn't have much to say about it at that age so off it came. :eyes:

I'm not bitter about it, my parents did what they were told was the right thing (not for any religious reasons) but I still recall after 58 years how awkward it was to explain to my friends just what, er, 'happened'.
:silly:

I guess the only difference between this type of mutilation and the adult type (tattoo's and piercings) is who makes the decision. But in the end, I guess mutilation is mutilation and a rose by any other name...

:shrug:

When I was born, I don't even think my mom was given a choice. Snip!

My wife & I went back and forth with it. Surprisingly enough, I was more in favor of it than she was. But when it came right down to it, after the very difficult birth of our son, we were agonizing over it in the hospital, and I said to her "You know, if thinking about it is causing us this much stress, let's just not do it".

The minute I said that, it was like this big fucking weight came off our shoulders. So we didn't do it. And we've never regretted it since. It's his body, not ours. I would never tell other parents what to do, but for us, I'm really glad we didn't circumcise our son.

Or Do You Work For Microsoft Designing Programming Best Practices?

(Sorry, That's A Way-Too-Nerdy Joke For The General Population)

Maybe you should ask that to the other HUNDREDS of members here that do it. Hey, start with 'The Magistrate', since it is him of which I honor in spirit by doing so.

And besides, your point to responding to my post with this non contextual immature stupid ass nonsense was for what now?

:P

Where. Every. Word. Is. Just. So. Damned. Important!

SPOCK!!!!



PB

I wish my parents had left the decision up to me. There is no way I would have had it done.

Here is some info on the subject:

http://parenting.ivillage.com/newborn/ncare/0,,j8v1-p,00.html


The Function of the Foreskin

The foreskin is an important part of the male body, with numerous protective, sensory and sexual functions.

Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance and cleanliness. The foreskin produces the moisturizer that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans. The glans itself contains no oil-producing glands to moisturize the skin.

Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, which is found in tears and in mother's milk. Specialized immune system components abound in the foreskin's outer surface. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins -- antibodies that defend against infection.

Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis. These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature and fine gradations of texture.

Coverage during Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all or partially back to the base of the penis, and can also slip forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum and glans are stimulated.

Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively, inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.

Page Six: Read the American Academy of Pediatrics' 1999 Press Release on circumcision

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry pal, your melodramatic nose lifting guilt trips don't quite cut it with me. Mind your own business. If you have kids or someday if you have them, then feel free to do parent them however the fuck you want. But it ain't none of your fucking business how I parent mine. Got it? Good.

the little biology lesson make you feel defensive? was your decision to slice and dice all about you, and not your sons? how absolutely selfish.

at least you were successful in eloquently dismissing the single most rational post on the entire thread that was based on the actual biology of the penis, and not some religous cult practice.

:sarcasm:

Then why did you so loudly boast of your parenting?

You were the one who put your decision out there for others to either applaud or criticize.

And then you take umbrage when someone does..

:cry:

At least nobody has mentioned Gardasil

smoking or eating meat, I think Circumcision is OK.

:hi:

They could start the "it's the same as female genital mutilation" trip they usually go off on!!!

:hide:

It's not like getting your ears pierced. It's something I've never understood.

...that the risks associated with anaesthetic, even a local, to an infant are significant enough (or were, a generation ago) that it wasn't considered worth the risk to save the baby from pain that he will not remember. Why the memory aspect matters is unclear to me, but that's how I've seen it phrased.

That infants (and children) do not remember pain, therefore they do not feel pain.
Fortunately, that myth has been debunked.

This is the best I can do.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-08-babies-pain_x.htm
>>>snip
So the young pediatrician-in-training took a look at what was going on in the operating room. He was shocked to discover that babies were having surgery with little or no anesthesia.

This was back in the dark ages of the early 1980s at Oxford University, esteemed home of the world's first anesthesiology department. It wasn't as if the Oxford surgeons were performing some sort of macabre experiments on infants. Operating on babies without anesthesia had been a common practice worldwide for nearly 40 years.

"At the time, it was the accepted notion that babies don't feel pain," says Anand, now a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences' College of Medicine. "It was also assumed that anesthetic drugs are probably too strong for them, and the babies will die if they're exposed to anesthesia."

That belief went back to the 1940s and 1950s, when doctors lacked the technology to administer precise doses of anesthesia and monitor anesthetized patients' vital functions, Anand says. Many babies died from anesthesia overdoses.

I think the argument is "they don't feel it" or "they don't remember it". Well, I took my son to the nursery after he was born, and the first thing they did was prick his foot for the glucose level- and believe me, he felt it.

After watching that, I was like "No, I don't think I'm gonna let them snip off the end of his johnson".

when we have to scrub all that birth stuff off of them...

The bath was annoying. The circumcision hurt... like a son of a bitch.

My first day as a father was spent holding him down while a pediatrician cut it off. If I had it to do over, I would not have it done.

:)

Link: http://parenting.ivillage.com/newborn/ncare/0,,j8v1-p,00.html


* MYTH NUMBER 2: CIRCUMCISION IS PAINLESS

"Studies clearly confirm that newborns feel pain -- something most mothers already knew."
--Dr. Alan Fleischman, New York Academy of Medicine, 1996

For years, doctors, parents and religious leaders claimed that newborns felt no pain during the circumcision process. But research conducted over the last decade points to fallacies in this assumption.

According to author and pediatrician Dr. Dean Edell, considerable evidence shows that newborns experience extreme pain and significant stress during a circumcision. "When I was in medical school, doctors tried to teach me that babies don't feel any pain," Edell said.

In its March 1999 statement against routine infant circumcision, the 55,000-member American Academy of Pediatricians also declared, for the first time, that pain relief is essential during circumcisions. The task force cited considerable new evidence showing that newborns circumcised without local anesthesia experience significant pain and stress -- as measured by changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and levels of oxygen and stress hormones in the blood.

The decision should be up the the kid when he gets older. I was circumcised and I wish I hadn't been. I hear it cuts down on sensitivity by around 30%. I would rather my parents have left the decision up to me.

Dr. Dean Edell has talked about this before. He is against it as well.


Link: http://parenting.ivillage.com/newborn/ncare/0,,j8v1-p,00.html

Now if we could just abolish female genital mutilation, we'd have a nicer world.

  All you have to do is look at a picture of one botched circumcision, just one, and the thought occurs "For 9 months we did everything we possibly could to make sure this baby was as healthy as possible. Now, we're supposed to cut our little boy's penis for some questionable medical benefit? Fuck that noise!"

  You could make a better case for giving babies appendectomies at birth than circumcising them, IMO. I have a few adult friends who are uncircumcised and I asked them if they have any problems with their uncut members. None of them had any problems.

  Leave children's genitals alone! They are fine just the way they are! Really!

PB

nt

Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&r...

If I have a son, I'll tell him about condoms instead.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


The slippery slope argument notwithstanding ,a 50% decrease in the transmission of HIV sounds pretty good to me...

to reduce chanced of getting a disease when there is a perfectly good alternative available that doesn't involve cutting off a part of a person's body.

The fact that there are 40,000 new cases of HIV in the United States each year, there are an estimated three million cases of sexually transimitted diseases each year as welll, and there are still 1.3 million abortions in the United States suggest otherwise...

You should be applauded for your desire to raise a sexually responsible young man... That seems to be the exception and not the rule...

My understanding was that this study was specific to areas in Africa where there is problem with sanitation.

Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2




Here's my position... Whether or not to have your child circumcised is an intensely personal position which should be made after consulting your own conscience, your spouse, your physician, and clergy if you desire...

The problem with the debate is the intersection of politics and science...Those opposed to circumcision ignore the benefits of the procedure while those opposed to the procedure ignore the potential risks...

so long as you maintain proper hygiene and practice safe sex?

There are 40,000 cases of HIV , 3,000,000 cases of sexually transmitted diseases, and 1.3 million abortions each year so there are a lot of people not practing safe sex...

There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence that the some men are eschewing the use of condoms because they believe HIV/AIDS can be effectively treated...

And in the instance of the human pappiloma virus it seems that hygiene or lack therof is not the main contributor to the harboring of the virus in uncircumcised men in the United States...


Respectfully, I see this debate as the "global warming" debate stood on its head... If a lot of scientists people say the Earth is warming, and if it continues to warm at the pace it is warming the polar ice caps will melt, and cause a cascade of unpleasant and dangerous events I'm going to take their word for it and act accordingly...When it comes to circumcision, if a lot of scientists say circumcision can help slow the spread of HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, the humanpapiloma virus, and penile cancer I'm going to act accordingly too... You seem to believe that only the risks are tangible and the benefits aren't...

obviously there are benefits, but if you're raising a kid in a more fortunate part of the world, the benefits aren't going to have the same impact or relevance as they would in a place where lack of hygiene etc is more of a problem..
If hygiene isn't the issue, why would an uncircumcised male be more likely to carry hpv than a circumcised male? Correlation doesn't always equate to causation..

Simple mechanics.

This leads to more risk of exposure for both parties.

In developed countries, where clean water and soap are cheap and easily accessable and where there is a culture of good hygiene, the difference in HIV transmission rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men was within the statistical margin of error.

I at one point dated someone who didn't have quite enough skin left because of his circumcision. It's a fold of skin and there's no way to know until sexual maturity how much of that skin will be needed when he eventually has erections. I won't go into any more detail about this problem but I bet there's info available if you google. My guess is that there are other potential problems that could happen because of it as well.

Somehow men are surviving all over other continents without being circumcised. I don't think there's any risk to keeping the foreskin, and I'd feel terrible if I had it done and there was some problem as a result.

Also, babies go through enough right after birth. And during, I imagine. I'd have to have a really good reason to put a tiny baby through something else.

The world could use more people like you.

It is funny that you started this thread, since I just stumbled on this blog article this morning:
----

Ronald Bailey has a post on Sexual Pleasure vs. Sexual Health: The Circumcision Trade-Off. The argument is that circumcision reduces the risk of getting AIDS but also reduces sensitivity and so pleasure.

I have no idea how good the evidence is, but it strikes me that there is a serious logical problem with one step in the argument—from less sensitivity to less pleasure. The limiting factor to duration of sexual intercourse, under most circumstances, is male endurance; one can plausibly model the process as a rising intensity of pleasure up to the point of orgasm, with total utility equal to the area under the curve. If so, greater sensitivity simply means that you reach the same maximum sooner, reducing the area under the pleasure curve.

And that's without even considering the utility of the other participant in the process.

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
:P

Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2

Not this shit again! So many more important things to talk about. (Pun not intended, I just figured out that it could be a pun though, so if you think it's funny, well then good on ya.)

It's just me.

But my admittedly unscientific data gathering revealed that They Aren't.

Sure, parents need to decide on their own.

But I wonder whether grown men concerned about their numbness might have had sexual dysfunction, whatever their parents had decided.

I would suspect the data suggests that the opposite is the problem of most men...

What can I say, that extra skin does nothing for me as a woman... I prefer to see the mushroom....

Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

pay for it. He's 19 now and no request has been submitted.

Anyone who has one will tell you they're quite literally atttached to it :P

I've never understood the 'cleaning' bit for adults. Sure, as a kid it's important to keep it clean, but it's important to keep clean period. Then you grow up, and the foreskin kinda goes away as you.... grow to fit. As an uncircumcised adult there is nothing to 'clean under'. It's just skin on the .... how do I put this politely.... shaft. If that skin wasn't there I can't imagine .... well I just can't imagine.
:blush:

I suppose the Right had (has?) its obsession with sex in the White House, so we are left with people (including many women posters, apparently) obssessed with this?

See, that's the problem. The parents leave the kid out of the decision-making process.

After all, women who are circumcised have less sex because they don't enjoy it, so therefore they catch less diseases.

And while we're at it, we should also consider circumcising infant's lips because that way they will be less likely to have herpes later in life and let's face it, it's so much easier to keep one's teeth clean when the lips are out of the way.

These arguments are analogous to the ones you see in this thread in support of genital cutting. Few mention the ethics of removing part of someone's normal physical body in order to attempt to reduce the statistical incidence of disease.

Clearly, the practice of infant circumcision is unethical for the same reasons that female circumcision is unethical. The consent of the person undergoing the procedure is not considered important and the intent of the cutters is clearly suspect.

as binding their feet, making them wear rings around their neck... Wearing burkas, and of course in certain regions of the country what you are talking about is practiced without any anesthesia, while the young girl is held down, while of course the young boys get to keep their skin.. Those are just a few, I am sure I can come up with many more...


Please don't equate one with the other.. Women's plates are already filled with the horrors of being women, we don't need any more indecencies put upon us...