BearBoi
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2007
- Posts
- 1,997
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
Re: End Routine Infant Circumcision
No, a first line of defence is condoms which are 99.9% effective. Preventative medicine has never extended to amputating healthy functional body parts.
The studies that promoted this knee-jerk response from the pro-circumcision community have already been cited in this thread. The two leading studies were conducted in Africa, the most publicised of which was conducted in Western Africa where the HIV rate was drastically disproportionate to the median population of intact men.
As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, this would be like going to China to study cancer rates and concluding that only Chinese people get cancer.
Just this past year the American Academy of Paediatrics formed a taskforce to study the handful of studies (many of which have not received peer review) regarding circumcision and its relation to STD transmission. The purpose of the taskforce was to decide if the information merited a change in their policy of not advocating routine infant circumcision as medically necessary.
They have not changed their policy.
To “know from experience” you would have to possess a point of reference; in this case, an understanding of what an intact penis feels like before having 30%-40% of the skin amputated.
Nerve endings such as the Dorsal Nerves, which are severed during circumcision, do not regenerate in the way you describe. I’d be interested in what led you to believe otherwise.
I avoid this point of continued debate for the simple reason that every individual is different, so the statement is ultimately moot. Some people are ticklish, others aren’t. Maybe some men are more naturally sensitive in one area of their penis, while others are more sensitive in another.
What I can say is that I know several men who made the decision to be circumcised later in life, and a few of them have told me that the difference in sensitivity is like this:
Run a fingertip along the palm of your hand. (Intact penis)
Now run a fingertip along the back of your hand. (After circumcision.)
I’m not saying this is the case for everybody, but clearly some people experience noticeable decrees in sensation.
Phimosis is now more commonly treated with a steroid based topical cream called betamethasone for 4-6 weeks. Corrective circumcision is declining in practice, and will one day be obsolete except in the most extreme of circumstances. By that time, they will probably have another non-invasive method of treatment. Medical science continues to march forward!
Balanitis is the inflammation of the glans (head) of the penis. Circumcised men can suffer this, too. The term you are searching for is balanoposthitis, which also affects the foreskin.
The inflammation has many possible causes, including irritation by environmental substances, physical trauma, and infection by a wide variety of pathogens, including bacteria, virus, or fungus—each of which require a particular treatment.
Untrue. Hygine is no more difficult than washing your bellybutton or butt-crack in the shower. It takes a few seconds.
So, on the assumption that a child will grow up to be unhygienic, you advocate surgically amputating a healthy functional portion of their sex organs while they are infants…
I don’t care if the procedure is preformed while floating on a cloud of cotton candy and concludes with an explosion of gumdrops. That isn’t my point.
My Body, My Choice: a very simple concept that was denied me.
There are several forms of female circumcision. Only 5% world-wide consist of the removal of sexual pleasure organs. The rest, which are perfectly legal in the vast majority of countries, largely consist of skinning back the labia hood -- a procedure which is physiologically on par with the removal of a boy’s foreskin.
Uh… thanks for sharing.
A good friend of mine hates guys with, in her words, “a disgusting Frankenstein-monster scar around their dick heads.” She much prefers intact men, or in her words, “men with all their parts.”
Different strokes for different folks.
Since the 1980s the American Cancer Society has repeatedly asked doctors to stop spreading this lie.
The fact is, penile cancer accounts for something like less than 1% of all cancer found in men over the age of 70. To suggest that circumcision prevents this would be like suggesting that having smaller breasts reduces the risk of breast cancer. All you’re talking about is reduced area.
The only study I know of which measured rates of penile cancer in circumcised vs. intact men was conducted in the Netherlands, and the findings stated that circumcised men almost exclusively developed cancer around their scar. Intact men developed it in patches similar to melanoma, which were largely easier to treat and remove.
The highest rate of circumcision in America was recorded in 1965, at 85%. Since that time it has dropped dramatically, and as of 2006 the national rate of circumcision across every demographic was 54%. The study was compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is an agency of the Centers for Disease Control.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to suggest that the vast majority of your peers are circumcised because you were born during the highest rate of routine infant circumcision the US?
And the reason Medicare does not pay for routine infant circumcision is because it is not deemed medically necessary. It falls into the same category as an elective, cosmetic surgery.
The only person who should decide whether or not to circumcise the penis is the owner of the penis. To deny the basic human right of self-governance, a right granted to all women without exclusion, is a violation of that human right.
Silence, blasphemer!
I may have been a little sassy now and then, but I don’t think I’ve ever been outright condescending. At least in this point you've truly bested me.
No, a first line of defence is condoms which are 99.9% effective. Preventative medicine has never extended to amputating healthy functional body parts.
The studies that promoted this knee-jerk response from the pro-circumcision community have already been cited in this thread. The two leading studies were conducted in Africa, the most publicised of which was conducted in Western Africa where the HIV rate was drastically disproportionate to the median population of intact men.
As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, this would be like going to China to study cancer rates and concluding that only Chinese people get cancer.
Just this past year the American Academy of Paediatrics formed a taskforce to study the handful of studies (many of which have not received peer review) regarding circumcision and its relation to STD transmission. The purpose of the taskforce was to decide if the information merited a change in their policy of not advocating routine infant circumcision as medically necessary.
They have not changed their policy.
To “know from experience” you would have to possess a point of reference; in this case, an understanding of what an intact penis feels like before having 30%-40% of the skin amputated.
Nerve endings such as the Dorsal Nerves, which are severed during circumcision, do not regenerate in the way you describe. I’d be interested in what led you to believe otherwise.
I avoid this point of continued debate for the simple reason that every individual is different, so the statement is ultimately moot. Some people are ticklish, others aren’t. Maybe some men are more naturally sensitive in one area of their penis, while others are more sensitive in another.
What I can say is that I know several men who made the decision to be circumcised later in life, and a few of them have told me that the difference in sensitivity is like this:
Run a fingertip along the palm of your hand. (Intact penis)
Now run a fingertip along the back of your hand. (After circumcision.)
I’m not saying this is the case for everybody, but clearly some people experience noticeable decrees in sensation.
Phimosis is now more commonly treated with a steroid based topical cream called betamethasone for 4-6 weeks. Corrective circumcision is declining in practice, and will one day be obsolete except in the most extreme of circumstances. By that time, they will probably have another non-invasive method of treatment. Medical science continues to march forward!
Balanitis is the inflammation of the glans (head) of the penis. Circumcised men can suffer this, too. The term you are searching for is balanoposthitis, which also affects the foreskin.
The inflammation has many possible causes, including irritation by environmental substances, physical trauma, and infection by a wide variety of pathogens, including bacteria, virus, or fungus—each of which require a particular treatment.
Untrue. Hygine is no more difficult than washing your bellybutton or butt-crack in the shower. It takes a few seconds.
So, on the assumption that a child will grow up to be unhygienic, you advocate surgically amputating a healthy functional portion of their sex organs while they are infants…
I don’t care if the procedure is preformed while floating on a cloud of cotton candy and concludes with an explosion of gumdrops. That isn’t my point.
My Body, My Choice: a very simple concept that was denied me.
There are several forms of female circumcision. Only 5% world-wide consist of the removal of sexual pleasure organs. The rest, which are perfectly legal in the vast majority of countries, largely consist of skinning back the labia hood -- a procedure which is physiologically on par with the removal of a boy’s foreskin.
Uh… thanks for sharing.
A good friend of mine hates guys with, in her words, “a disgusting Frankenstein-monster scar around their dick heads.” She much prefers intact men, or in her words, “men with all their parts.”
Different strokes for different folks.
Since the 1980s the American Cancer Society has repeatedly asked doctors to stop spreading this lie.
The fact is, penile cancer accounts for something like less than 1% of all cancer found in men over the age of 70. To suggest that circumcision prevents this would be like suggesting that having smaller breasts reduces the risk of breast cancer. All you’re talking about is reduced area.
The only study I know of which measured rates of penile cancer in circumcised vs. intact men was conducted in the Netherlands, and the findings stated that circumcised men almost exclusively developed cancer around their scar. Intact men developed it in patches similar to melanoma, which were largely easier to treat and remove.
The highest rate of circumcision in America was recorded in 1965, at 85%. Since that time it has dropped dramatically, and as of 2006 the national rate of circumcision across every demographic was 54%. The study was compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is an agency of the Centers for Disease Control.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to suggest that the vast majority of your peers are circumcised because you were born during the highest rate of routine infant circumcision the US?
And the reason Medicare does not pay for routine infant circumcision is because it is not deemed medically necessary. It falls into the same category as an elective, cosmetic surgery.
The only person who should decide whether or not to circumcise the penis is the owner of the penis. To deny the basic human right of self-governance, a right granted to all women without exclusion, is a violation of that human right.
Silence, blasphemer!
I may have been a little sassy now and then, but I don’t think I’ve ever been outright condescending. At least in this point you've truly bested me.
.
