Log in

View Full Version : Pro's and Cons of circumsision (healthwise)


Hauptmann Kauffman
September 14th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Risks of circumcision
• For 1 in 500 circumcisions there may be either a
little bleeding – easily stopped by pressure or, less
commonly, requiring stitches (1 in 1000), the need for
repeat surgery (1 in 1000), or a generalized infection
that will require antibiotics (1 in 4000). Although there
can be a local infection, often what seems like a local
infection is actually part of the normal healing process.
• Serious complications (requiring hospitalization) are
rare – approximately 1 in 5000.
• Mutilation or loss of the penis, and death, is
virtually unheard of with circumcisions performed by a
competent medical practitioner. Ensure your doctor is
experienced.
• If a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia runs
in the family, then the doctor needs to be advised
as circumcision may require special preoperative
treatment.
• Anesthetic is imperative, preferably a local, since a
general anaesthetic carries risks, and is unnecessary.
For age 0-4 months a local, not general, and for older
children or teenagers a mild sedative might be
considered in addition to the local. Young children who
wriggle can be gently restrained. For pain after the
anesthetic wears off , an oral analgesic medication is
often prescribed.
• Delay means stitches being used for circumcision of
older children, teenagers and men.
• So if circumcision is delayed past 4 months, total
cost will become increasingly greater.



Benefits of circumcision
• Eliminates the risk of phimosis, which affects
1 in 10 older boys and men. This condition refers to
a tight foreskin that cannot be pulled back fully, so
making cleaning under it, and passing urine, difficult.
Phimosis also greatly increases the risk of penile cancer,
and is the cause of foreskin and catheter problems in
nursing homes.
• Reduces by 3-fold the risk of inflammation
and infection of the skin of the penis. One in 10
uncircumcised men get inflammation of the head
of the penis and foreskin. This rises to 1 in 3 if the
uncircumcised man is diabetic. (Diabetic men also
have other severe problems.) In contrast only 2% of
circumcised men get this condition.
• Over 10-fold decrease in risk of urinary tract
infections in infants. Whereas risk of this is only 1 in
500 for a circumcised boy, 1 in 50 uncircumcised male
infants will get a urinary tract infection. This very
painful condition is particularly dangerous in infancy,
and in 40% of cases can lead to kidney inflammation
and disease; blood poisoning and meningitis can also
result.
• Over 20-fold decrease in risk of invasive penile
cancer, which has a high fatality rate. One in 600
uncircumcised men get penile cancer, which often
requires penile amputation.
• Uncircumcised men have 1½ – 2 times the risk of
prostate cancer, which affects 1 in 6.
• Reduces by approximately 3-fold the risk of getting
HIV (AIDS), during sex with an infected woman. HIV
enters via the vulnerable inner lining of the foreskin of
a healthy penis, but can also infect via sores anywhere
on the penis (caused for example by genital herpes). In
countries such as the USA that have a low prevalence
of HIV the risk of a heterosexual man being infected
with HIV sexually is generally low. His risk, especially
if uncircumcised, will be much greater if he engages
in unsafe sex with people of countries in which HIV
abounds.
• Circumcision also affords substantial protection
against sexually transmitted infections such as
papilloma (wart) virus, syphilis and chancroid.
• Circumcision reduces by up to 5 times the risk of
the man’s female partner being infected by chlamydia
or getting cervical cancer (which is caused by human
papillomavirus). The load of infectious bacteria and
viruses that accumulate under the foreskin is delivered
into the female genital tract during sex. Chlamydia has
more than doubled over the past 5 years and can cause
infertility (in both sexes), pelvic inflammatory disease,
and ectopic pregnancy.
• If not circumcised soon after birth, up to 10% will
later require one anyway for medical reasons.
• Credible research shows that most women prefer
the appearance of the circumcised penis. They also
prefer it for sexual activity. Hygiene is one reason.
• Most studies reveal no significant difference in
sensitivity between a circumcised and uncircumcised
penis.
• In general, sexual function is the same or better.

I hope this was helpful for all!:D

Source: http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/Guide_for_Parents-US.pdf

close
September 15th, 2007, 09:27 AM
great information

Hauptmann Kauffman
September 15th, 2007, 11:58 AM
I was surprised at the huge differences! I had no idea just how beneficial circumsision was! So, I thought I'd put this up:D

lardlad2002
September 24th, 2007, 08:44 PM
yah, but it feels better to masturbate uncircumcized.

Serenity
September 24th, 2007, 08:45 PM
And you know this...how? Surely not from experience?

Hauptmann Kauffman
September 24th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Nice, quick response Valtastic!!! IAMSAM is the one most qualified to answer that. It has been proven that the pleasure is the same. So no need to mope.

byee
September 24th, 2007, 08:54 PM
yah, but it feels better to masturbate uncircumcized.

Nice, quick response Valtastic!!! IAMSAM is the one most qualified to answer that. It has been proven that the pleasure is the same. So no need to mope.


IAMSAM, Sam i am! Someone called?

I think it's sorta natural to think that whatever kind of penis you have it must be better (or, maybe more accurately, the opposite, that whatever THEY have cannot possibly, hopefully, be better). Unfortunately, I have to say from first hand experience (I was cut at 15), that there really isn't a diff in pleasure. Sorry. They both feel identical, there's no diff.

Hauptmann Kauffman
September 24th, 2007, 09:03 PM
lol, nice pun! First HAND experiance!?! Nudge Nudge Wink Wink:P

MoveAlong
September 26th, 2007, 09:19 PM
Nice, quick response Valtastic!!! IAMSAM is the one most qualified to answer that. It has been proven that the pleasure is the same. So no need to mope.

How has it been proven? Because one person has told you and you assume that it is fact? A scientific fact is an ovservation that has been repeatedly observed. In this case, I believe it is a matter of opinion and I respectfully accept that.

Ah Sam, you've taken my spotlight. No matter though, I'm happy with being the ghost in the archives :P

And again most of these observations in the first post are things that I don't exactly agree with, and I don't really care about. Some of them are true, others are a little tipsy, like this one:

Reduces by approximately 3-fold the risk of getting
HIV (AIDS), during sex with an infected woman. HIV
enters via the vulnerable inner lining of the foreskin of
a healthy penis, but can also infect via sores anywhere
on the penis (caused for example by genital herpes). In
countries such as the USA that have a low prevalence
of HIV the risk of a heterosexual man being infected
with HIV sexually is generally low. His risk, especially
if uncircumcised, will be much greater if he engages
in unsafe sex with people of countries in which HIV
abounds.


You should know if the person you're having sex with is HIV+ or not and the absence of foreskin shouldn't be a factor even worth considering because you should be safe anyay, because it's the same disease, it has the same effect and you can still get it either way.

Other than that, the info is OK. I just don't really care for it.

Dolphus Raymond
September 26th, 2007, 09:20 PM
Hate to bump this, but I want to point out that this is from an incredibly biased source. Basically, they've taken the most friendly statistics for circumcision and juxtaposed them with the most conservative statistics against. "Sexual function is better" is less proven than "sensation is worse," but the former is presented as fact, and the latter is debunked.

I could find an anti-circumcision site that uses the same set of studies to reach the opposite conclusion. But I won't, because that's intellectually dishonest. I can list a number of things this study neglects. What about excessively tight circumcisions? The loss of the sexual function of the foreskin? Are those who are circumcised, but unhappy about it, "healthy"? The point of medicine is to make people happy about their bodies...if they aren't, and it can't be reversed, it's a failure of medicine. Period.

Basically, don't believe everything you read. A study by the University of Washington said that both of them are nearly balanced in pros and cons. Personally, that's why I believe it's unethical not to leave it up to the child.

MoveAlong
September 26th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Hate to bump this, but I want to point out that this is from an incredibly biased source. Basically, they've taken the most friendly statistics for circumcision and juxtaposed them with the most conservative statistics against. "Sexual function is better" is less proven than "sensation is worse," but the former is presented as fact, and the latter is debunked.

I could find an anti-circumcision site that uses the same set of studies to reach the opposite conclusion. But I won't, because that's intellectually dishonest.

Basically, don't believe everything you read. A study by the University of Washington said that both of them are pretty balanced in pros and cons. Personally, that's why I believe it's unethical not to leave it up to the child.

I agree with Dolphus (there is no one that will ever replace you, that's why I love you!! :P)

byee
September 28th, 2007, 10:51 AM
Hate to bump this, but I want to point out that this is from an incredibly biased source. Basically, they've taken the most friendly statistics for circumcision and juxtaposed them with the most conservative statistics against. "Sexual function is better" is less proven than "sensation is worse," but the former is presented as fact, and the latter is debunked.

I could find an anti-circumcision site that uses the same set of studies to reach the opposite conclusion. But I won't, because that's intellectually dishonest. I can list a number of things this study neglects. What about excessively tight circumcisions? The loss of the sexual function of the foreskin? Are those who are circumcised, but unhappy about it, "healthy"? The point of medicine is to make people happy about their bodies...if they aren't, and it can't be reversed, it's a failure of medicine. Period.

Basically, don't believe everything you read. A study by the University of Washington said that both of them are nearly balanced in pros and cons. Personally, that's why I believe it's unethical not to leave it up to the child.

We're not off to a good start here, Dolphus Raymond. I sure hope you're not going to come here alot and try to create the same free-for-all you've got going at your site. Perhaps you've noticed the lack of debate and argument here.

I agree that you shouldn't believe everything you read (esp online, where anyone can sound very official and very convincing). However, once again, I find myself not so much in disagreement with the topic of circ, but rather the not so subtle ways you manage to get your negative opinion across at the expense of potentially disturbing some of our members ("Excessively tight circumcisions", "Loss of sexual function of the foreskin", etc.). Based on these fright tactics, it's no wonder that there are cut guys out there who doubt themselves and their parents! The fact is, that 'gliding action', the 'sexual function of the foreskin', those 'jillions of nerve endings', all sound far more delicious than they really are. When you masturbate (or have sex) all you feel is that 'great' sensation, you really don;t feel something unique like 'gliding'. it just feels good. And that 'good' feeling is the same with or without the foreskin there. You do not know this, I do. And although my N= 1, it's still 1 more than you (or anyone else here) have. Dismissing it as 'anecdotal' might make you feel better, but not our audience (50% who are cut).

The UW study that (hurrrah!) indicates the equal balance of pros and cons is exactly why it's perfectly reasonable for parents to exercise their parental judgement in making this decision for their sons. It's interesting that you find the opposite true, I believe it reveals alot about your opinion of parenting in particular and marriage in general. But not much of the consequence of the decision.

There's no need for debate, the purpose of the thread wasn't to precipitate an argument, or elicit your opinion. Your choice to respond with the info you did was completely unnecessary and shows really bad judgement. And that's the hostility I spoke of last nite. It shouldn't be okay to hurt others in order to prove that foreskin is ok. They're not missing anything.

Maverick
September 28th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Sam you really need to chill out. Your personal attacks on Dolphus really are uncalled for and you're being quite rude.

I'd say more but I have to go to class in a few minutes but before I go I'm closing this before this gets even more ridiculously out of control.