Circumcision

14 Mar 2007

ARGH
However there are reasons men are born with foreskins, they actually HELP to keep the glans clean, at the correct ph and temperature, and along with the specialised sebum (called smegma - nice name ) produced to keep the area clean special glands in the foreskin produce antiviral and antibacterial enzymes and proteins to help form a natural defence against infections (similar proteins are also found in breastmilk - and we all know how much breastfeeding is advocated for the very same reasons).

Smegma is the natural lubricant of the foreskin.
Natural oils are secreted by Tyson's Glands under the rim of the glans and from the inner surface of the foreskin. These are necessary to prevent the foreskin from sticking to the glans and to allow it to retract freely. The oils are produced constantly and are thus replaced very quickly after washing.
Smegma consists of surplus oil, dead skin cells, stale urine, stale semen and miscellaneous dirt which have collected under the foreskin. Smegma is a 'waste product' and serves no useful purpose. If not cleaned away regularly it becomes hard and smelly. It is also a breeding ground for bacteria, which can lead to balanitis. Smegma has also been implicated in penile cancer. ( )
The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,which secrete cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens), and pheromones such as , which is also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids, destroys bacterial cell walls giving the secretions made by the penis antibacterial properties.
There are no histological studies that validate the claim that the sclerotic keratinisation of the epithelium of the surgically externalised, desiccated glans penis, meatus, or scar of the circumcised penis creates a barrier against infection. The higher rate of STDs in circumcised males might well be the result of the loss of preputial immunoprotective structures.
The loss of the protective, self lubricating, mobile, double layered prepuce exposes the glans and meatus to direct friction, abrasion, and trauma. Eyes without eyelids would not be cleaner. Neither is a glans without its prepuce. The surgically externalised and unprotected glans and meatus of the circumcised penis are constantly exposed to abrasion and dirt, making the circumcised penis less hygienic. The circumcised penis is more prone to infection in the first years of life than the intact penis.

In 1989 a report concluded that circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infections, cervical cancer in women and sexually transmitted diseases. Many doctors have since dismissed these findings. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that there are no medical benefits to justify circumcision - unless due to a deformity of the penis/foreskin itsself.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against infant circumcision.
This is a gross misinterpretation of the most recent statement of the Academy's Task Force on Infant Circumcision. Their statement made it clear that there are significant proven benefits from neo-natal circumcision. They also recognised that there are some risks (as with any surgical procedure) and that the net benefits did not warrant making routine infant circumcision a matter of public policy (in the way that immunisation is).
In no way did they condemn infant circumcision. They said it was a matter for the parents to decide, taking into account
( not only the medical benefits and risks but also religious and cultural factors. )
so i looked into it - agreed my initial quote and findings were wrong. however..
a quick search on the bmj will lead you to hundreds of reports - some conflicting (as is the way with all medical reports with answers both for and against circumcision. The main information being that the ONLY current reason for circumcision has been a reduction of HIV rates in africa in neighbouring tribes. However there are many many disputing articles to these theorys, as sexual practices, sexual traditions (promiscuity {sp} etc) were not taken into account. To conclude most of the reports do indicate that although there appears to be a link - many further studies need to be taken into account and that the best form of protection against these diseases is abstinance, fewer than 6 sexual partners and sex using barrier methods such as was an American circumciser in 1986 who first hypothesised that circumcision prevents HIV In an attempt to verify this theory, others have published numerous epidemiological surveys, conducted primarily in Africa.A review of these surveys, however, does not support their assertion. Of the 36 published studies examining the relation between the circumcised penis and HIV infection, 15 found a negative correlation,four found a positive correlation, and 16 found no statistically significant difference.

it is done in most cases without pain relief and it bloody hurts - you can google videos of child circumcision shown on websites both for and against - but the main feeling you get from the baby is that it bloody hurts like hell!

Not in this country every child who goes for circumcision in an NHS hospital are all given a penile block. Most of the time when children are crying is down to the anesthesia,
again agreed - under the nhs circumcision is undertaken with a penile block - which in itself it very painful (i have had a number of local anaesthetics and they all sting like hell, then you have the painful recovery time - so although the actual cut is painless the rest isnt! with regards to the cervical cancer, United States has both the highest number of sexually active circumcised males and the highest rates of genital cancers, STDs, and AIDS of any first world nation. To accept that circumcision is a really good idea, we first have to believe that nature made some huge design error in an anatomy that requires removal by force. This is a great leap of faith given the fact that not just umans but all mammals, both male and female, have volved over millions of years to end up with a pepuce. But for some reason known only to religious types and medicalised capitalism the only mammal to be benefited by summarily removing this omnipresent organ through surgery is the human male.
i took all my info from the bmj (various articles, in particular: Immunological functions of the human prepuce P M Fleiss, F M Hodges, R S Van Howe - which summarises over 97 other articles on the subject)

14 Mar 2007

Quote by devondelight
So the final concensus on here is that to prevent a child some physical pain we let women die of cervical cancer.

Can you estimate how long i have to live? how can you even make that statement? if your theory is correct then 90% of us are going to die of cervical cancer. these findings are not accurate and were made up of promiscious female activity within a certain faith, and most had one partner or were still virgins just previous to the tests being carried out and most didn't even know if there partners were circumcised or not, It was deemed that having 6 or more partners within a relatively close period doubled the risk of developing cervical cancer, these figures have since been dismissed since a high number of people who practise safe sex have been diagnosed with cervical cancer, But bear in mind these figures also conclude that women who have gone through child birth twice or more pose the same risk, Do you suggest we don't have children? that would sort out having to circumsize them! but even if they hadn't do you honestly think its a better option to have your child circumsised rather than use condoms, Im no expert but if you can get cervical cancer when using condoms then doesn't that crush the theory? who knows! but my advice would be if your going to have multiple partners then you should be practicing safe sex rather than blame un-circumcised males. The findings your using as an urgument were females having sex with multiple partners without protection, they should think them selves lucky thats all they got. surely its a better option to learn children proper hygene rather than opting for circumcision unless of course its being done purely for there religious beliefs at which i'm also totally against :shock: By the way this isn't a personal thing so don't take it that way i'm mereley suggesting your facts are way wrong.
If you still think your statement is correct then have a good read at the below link, below it is the summary if you dont have the time.

It is now clear that the major risk factors for both penile cancer and cervical cancer are the use of tobacco,22,31 which spreads carcinogens throughout the body via the bloodstream, and the presence of the human papillomavirus,35 which is communicated through sexual activity.
Abraham Wolbarst's promotional claims that circumcision prevented penile cancer were false and mislead the medical community for Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer in men and it does not prevent cervical cancer in the female partner.
However, phimosis, or a non-retractile foreskin, is a risk factor in adult males who are sexually active, because a non-retractile foreskin is more difficult to clean. There are many non-traumatic, non-distructive methods for conservative effective treatment of phimosis available to the male with phimosis. Circumcision is neither required nor recommended to treat phimosis. Cancer may form on the circumcision ,24
A new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine offers protection against both penile and cervical Fear of cancer cannot be used to support the practice of male circumcision.

15 Mar 2007

Okey dokey I concede I am wrong ignorant and bigoted in my view ... glad we got that cleared up.
One total unequivicable and abject apology to the whole world for offending it.
DD

15 Mar 2007

Quote by devondelight
Okey dokey I concede I am wrong ignorant and bigoted in my view ... glad we got that cleared up.
One total unequivicable and abject apology to the whole world for offending it.
DD

ithink that this is one of those emotive and difficult debates to have, and as there is alot of conflicting information out there, even many of the reports on the bmj are very conflicting. It is one of those things that we all have to make our minds up about after viewing and reading the information available to us at any given time, trying to ensure there are no loopholes in the information presented and to look at the bigger picture.

31 Aug 2007

I am circumcised and I am very glad I was cut. I find it hard to understand the debate about it and how vehement some people are against it. I think they are much more valuable causes to fight for. At the end of the day it's a matter of choice - would we refuse a woman to have breast implants. If a man can't pull back his foreskin, should he have painful sex for the rest of his life. Or his someone prefers to have an exposed helmet - why not? His choice. I find it clean, it looks good and manly but again it's an opinion.

31 Aug 2007

I am going to voice my thoughts here without reading through the replies/comments made so far (I managed to read the first page but that's all). Two things I want to say.
First thing ..... As you most know I hail from across the pond (picture should be a clue doh) where circumcision is actually a 'normal' procedure. Well, let me rephrase that, it was 15 years ago when I had my son in the area of the south I lived in. It had nothing to do with religion (I am catholic .... yep, even lied in confession a time or three). I look back and can honestly say that I was very ignorant as a new, young mother and kind of just went along with what was the 'norm'. Do I feel I 'mutilated' my son? No. Do I feel I have caused him lasting mental or physical harm? No. Do I wish I had been more informed of the options? Yes, of course I do. I had my ex hubby ask my son once recently if he wishes I had not let the doctor do that and his response was "Ewwwwwww ...... I'm glad she did" So, I guess it is also dependent on what your 'norm' is.
Second thing ..... I had never seen an uncircumcised penis (how polite that sounds) until the last year and I have to say that I prefer circumsiced . Sorry, just the way I feel.

31 Aug 2007

was circumcised for medical reasons at 40 yrs,under general anaesthetic. hurt like hell for three weeks.
celibate for 6 wks. yrs later still wish i had my foreskin back. definately not as sensitive. if u never had one, maybe you dont miss it, but i do.
i`m sure guys without foreskins can also be not so hygenic, how hard is it to skin back and wash ?

1 Sep 2007

There's lots of medical arguments for and against circumcision, but the decision rests solely with the parents. If it's what they choose, then that's what happens.
It comes down mostly to a right to choose what people feel is best for their offspring. Any grown man would be made of stone if he didn't wince at the thought of having a sharp object anywhere near his foreskin, but so far there doesn't appear to be anyone who had it done in infancy has said "Oh I wish it hadn't been done". (Might have missed that somewhere... correct me if I did)
When done as a baby, do men grow up missing that part of them that they never knew was there? Their parents obviously had some reason for doing it, be it for medical reasons, religious grounds, because it was the "norm" or whatever made them do it in the first place. Do we have the right to make that decision for them though?
They're not our children, and these days, in the developed world, it's a fairly safe procedure. I say fairly safe, because I've seen the result of it going wrong. It's not pretty, but it works and what penis is really considered a work of art? So if parents make that choice for their child, why should anyone stand in their way?
It still does what nature intended in the way of urination and reproduction, either cut or uncut. Some ladies like cut, some prefer uncut. Some men get it done later in life for medical reasons or out of hygiene or preference reasons. Whatever the reasons though, either the parents or the man makes that decision, and last I checked we still live in a society where there is that freedom of choice.
You can raid your textbooks for arguments for or against, but to be honest, there's about the same pros and cons either way if you do your research well enough.
My view? Personally I like cut, but I'm not too worried to be honest. I wouldn't dismiss someone on the grounds of having a foreskin. That would just be silly.