July 6, 2005

How good is circumcision?

This good.


P_J said...

Wow. I don't have WSJ subscription, so I have some questions about the study. Do we know:

Are the reported sexual behaviors the same among the test groups?
Were the participants circumcised as part of the study, or already circumcised?
Do we see anything like this kind of difference elsewhere (e.g., the USA, Europe)? Is there really a disproportionate rate of HIV among the uncircumcised?

I have no strong feelings about circumcision per se. It would be great news if true and repeatable, but this just doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it. It will be interesting to see the results of the parallel studies.

Kathleen B. said...

yay, an Althouse link for our local paper! I was just reading this article this morning.

jeff said...

Of course, keeping it in your pants is 100% effective...

John R Henry said...

I read the WSJ article and even Googled a few things that weren't in it. A couple of comments:

1) The study first needs to be published (it has not yet been) and reviewed and replicated. Not to say it is wrong, it just needs to be verified.

It may also be that it is being sensationalized for headline and grant value and may turn out to be something less.

Or not. We just need to wait and see the study.

2) The study only applies to female to male transmission. There was no change in male to male or male to female transmission.

3) Female to male HIV transmission in the US is miniscule. Circumcising all male babies at birth to get a VERY small drop in the AIDS rate does not seem right.

4) Circumcision is generally done on babies for no medical reason. In many cases, Jewish, Muslim, some Christian sects, it is done solely for religious reasons.

A grown man has a right to decide what to do about amputating part of his penis. He, and his wife, have no right to make this decision for a baby absent some specific theraputic benefit.

It's mutilation and it is wrong. EVEN IF it will reduce the female to male HIV transmission rate.

John Henry

Mark said...

I would like to see a survey of men circumcised at birth on whether they're happy about it.

I'd guess the unhappy customers are less than 5%. And, frankly, screw any other consideration.

Bruce Hayden said...

I will disagree that circumcism is done for no medical reason. Rather, this seems to be a continuing debate in the medical community between essentially male pediatricians and female ob/gyns.

I remember my ex's ob/gyn about 15 years ago on a rant on this subject. In her experience, and that of many of her co-workers, female partners of uncircumcized males had significantly higher fertility problems - supposedly caused by increased transmission of diseases that have no ill effect on men.

But then you talk to male pediatricians, and they concentrate on the pain caused by the operation (if done in the hospital, as it is done in a significant majority of cases).

I suspect that this may be the deep seated cause of many of my problems, though I have no memory of the operation, as I was less than a day old when it was done to me.

Bruce Hayden said...

John Henry points out that female to male transmission is rare in the U.S. However, a majority of HIV transmission today in this country is male-male, and if this is accurate, may indicate an increased avenue of infection.

yetanotherjohn said...

I was amazed by this. They say that this has been known for 20 years, but I have never heard of it. If the numbers are even close to right, it would seem to be a huge thing. The difference between 30% and 5% infection rates across regions tracking to this factor is a major issue.
Like any popular press reported study, I agree that we should view it with a grain of salt (the legacy media does tend to latch on to the dramatic and ignore the qualifiers or quality of the study). But it certainly seems this bears further investigation.

The idea that this wouldn't justify circumcision seems a bit far fetched to me. We injected foreign substances, at some miniscule but real risk, into our sons to prevent things like polio. Over their lifetimes, the chance of them getting polio (if everyone else keeps getting vaccinated) seems really low even if we hadn't vaccinated them. I have no regrets for doing that.
Likewise, we circumcised our boys as new borns. I thought it was a good idea because it had been done to my father and me with no ill effects and I saw no reason to break than chain. My wife thought it was a good idea because of her reading about the risks of infections and transmitting diseases. Now, I am doubly glad. As the boys seem to be firmly on the path to hetrosexuality, it would seem we have added a 70% improvement in their not getting AIDS.
It does puzzle me that they would find that it reduces woman to man transmission but not man to man transmission. I would be interested to find out why that is.

Diane said...

The fact of the matter is it’s done on infants who are given no choice in the matter. They are also given no anesthesia, and their foreskin is attached to their glans at this point so it has to be painfully ripped off.

It doesn’t matter if there is a vague health benefit. There is nothing to say that there is more of a benefit with it done at infancy than with it done at puberty with anesthesia and with the child’s permission. There is still no medical reason to do it at infancy. None. And there are *many* medical and quality of life reasons not to.

There you have it. Circumcision affects a man’s partner’s ability to orgasm from vaginal sex. Circumcision can negatively alter a baby’s ability to bond with his mother. Circumcision can interrupt and hamper breastfeeding. Circumcision can make an infant experience pain more acutely in cases of actual necessary medical procedure (iun this case, immunization).

Just because there is a potential correlation to a transfer of one STD for adults, doesn’t make the practice of infant circumcision any less harmful or reprehensible. At very most, after study, an *adult* might consider circumcision. This is *after* the glans has separated from the foreskin so there is no painful removal or possible harm to the organ itself. This is *after* the boy is old enough to be anesthetized. This is when an adult is actually facing the risk behavior—it’s not like an infant can be sexually active.

Do we take out a child’s appendix or a child’s tonsils at birth? We don’t. Why? Because it’s best to leave well enough alone until there is a definite need.

As for the argument that grown men seem happy with part of their penis cut off, let’s imagine a country where we cut off every man’s left hand at birth. Most men can function this way. Most men are happy with this. They don’t see people with a left hand. They don’t know what they are missing. It’s still wrong, it’s still harmful, and it’s still morally reprehensible because it’s done without their permission.

Lets say that you don’t believe the studies showing how circumcision is harmful. You think correlation for STDs proves causation. Can you at least grant that it *is* the infant’s body so the infant should be allowed to make this decision when they are old enough to experience the consequences? It is a violation of the infant’s basic rights—the right to decide what *elective* procedures are done to his body.

Kathleen B. said...

wow. who knew there was so much vitriolic anti-circumcision out there?

Diane said...

Can you blame people for being vitriolic about painful surgery done without the consent of the person who is being altered?

Certainly some are a little scary--I don't compare circumcision to a clitorectomy for instance--but I can see feeling passionately about it.

If you can't feel passionately about this, what can you feel passionately about?

Ann Althouse said...

Diane: The foreskin isn't "ripped" off. It's cut off with a scalpel. A clean cut with an exceedingly sharp knife is not all that painful. I've seen more than one baby circumcised at a bris. It's done openly and in front of crowds of people every day, and it's just not as bad as you're making it out to be. As for the parents making the decision for the baby, ask men who have been circumcised if they are glad their parents made that decision. I think you'll hear a lot of "yes." A man who is left to make his own decision will have to have the procedure when he understands what's being done, which is going to be what makes it hurt. I know there are some men out there who regret being circumcised. I saw that Penn & Teller show about circumcision. But, really, I think the vast majority of circumcised men are glad their parents had it done. And it really does cut down on disease. A lot. And -- face it -- it looks a lot better!

Mark said...

Another reason to do it at birth is that the kid doesn't know it's coming, which must eliminate most of the stress. I bet a tonsillectomy on an 8 year-old is a much tougher ordeal.

P_J said...

I don't have any strong feelings about circumcision, so I don't understand the anti-circumcision hysteria. It's nothing like cutting off a person's left hand - that's a ridiculous argument.

I don't see how infants have any "right" to decide what elective procedures are done to their bodies. Parents have the right to make those decisions unless and until they demosntrate that they are bad parents. Circumcision has not been shown to fall into that category.

Should we let kids decide if they want tetanaus or measles shots? I had my appendix out in 2nd grade - and I am grateful my parents made the decision for me, as I wasn't competent to do so at age 8.

No, I can't feel passionately about circumcision. I can feel passionately about reducing a horrible, wasting disease that ruins lives, destroys economies, and kills millions of the poorest, most desperate people on the planet every year. Circumcision isn't exactly the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa.

Bruce Hayden said...

Ann points out that the operation, as done, at a Bris, is as painless as possible. Though, not Jewish, I concur. The babies' outcry is quite a bit less than you hear for many other things that happen to them throughout their infancy - including innoculations.

Not Jewish, mine was done at birth by the attending pediatrician. They, being physicians, also typically use the most painless method available to them.

I jokingly suggested above that most of my personal problems probably resulted from my circumcism almost 55 years ago. But, of course, this is nonsensical, as I had just survived the birthing process, and any additional indignity at that point would have been de minimis.

Bruce Hayden said...

I also concur with Ann that most circumcized men I know, including myself, are not the least bit resentful of having had it done, but, in many of us, happy.

Diane also, I would suggest, ignores other potential health benefits from circumcism.

Above and beyond male infection, the basic problem is that it is significantly more difficult to effectively clean an uncircumcized penis. Yes, if a man is consciencious, this is typically no problem. But many are not. Fact of life. A number of Ob/Gyn believe that this is the primary reason that their patients who have uncricumcized partners have a significantly higher incidence of infertility - resulting from infections that could have been prevented by better hygene.

Diane said...

1. My mother is a pediatric nurse. She assists with circumcisions regularly. I've watched her assist with circumcisions. I also worked in a daycare for twelve years so I have a lot of experience caring for infants. I do not speak in ignorance. I've seen these children being circumcised. I've seen the looks of abject horror on their little faces. My mother has told me about how much they cry and how difficult it is to get them to calm down afterwards. Ripped was a dramatic use of language, but the truth is it is forcibly removed when it could, given time, simply separate on its own. Many men have scars--and yes I've seen babies with parts of their glans cut off because the scalpel slipped. You have to cut a lot more with a baby than you would have to cut with a little boy.

2. My husband is uncircumcised. A man with a "whole" (as opposed to cut) penis is no harder to clean than a woman's private parts. For the sake of cleanliness we do not recommend cutting off a little girl's labia minora and labia major. I fail to see why we should cut of part of a man's penis.

3. The "surprise" factor. In my experience, surgeries are less stressful when you know what is going to happen. It's much more stressful, when, as a baby who has known nothing but peace, joy, and absence of pain floating in the womb for the past nine months, you are suddenly put in a strange room, surrounded by people you don't know, and they do something incredibly painful to your parts.

If you honestly think it's better than the stress a subjected to, say, a four year old, being told that they are going to numb up part of his penis, and cut it off, so he doesn't have to clean it, and his parents can hold his hand the whole time, then I can't really argue with that.

Diane said...

Pastor Jeff;

Of course it’s nothing like cutting off a person’s left hand! I am sorry I was unclear. My point was that everyone would agree that cutting off a person’s left hand is wrong. But in a culture where almost everyone has their left hand cut off, almost no men would complain.

As such, the argument that a person in our culture doesn’t mind as an adult if their foreskin is cut off, so it must not be a big deal, is false. We know it’s false because a much bigger alteration (cutting off the left hand) wouldn’t generate much of an uproar in a similar situation.

As for the Tetanus and Measles shots: They will experience the consequences for those as infants and small children. There is nothing to be gained (medically speaking) by waiting until adult-hood. There is everything to be gained from doing it to them as children, though, as children have developing immune systems. Immunizations improve their immune systems more readily as children for this reason.

Circumcision, on the other hand, will be easier as an adult, or even a small child. You can anesthesia them, and you don’t have to cut the foreskin from the glans. Also, an adult will experience the more direct benefits from circumcision. (i.e. the STD risk drops, and the hygiene.)

Sean E said...

"We know it’s false because a much bigger alteration (cutting off the left hand) wouldn’t generate much of an uproar in a similar situation.""

We don't KNOW that. You postulated that with no evidence whatsoever. Personally, I tend to think that eventually I'd be questioning why I can't drive a car with a manual transmission like those two-handed freaks in Europe can. I just don't buy your example at all.

I'm also quite sure that local anasthetic is commonly given these days.

This quote from www.circs.org pretty much seals the deal for me though:
"There are other problems uniquely associated with the uncircumcised state. Uncircumcised boys may catch and entrap their foreskin in the process of zipping or unzipping their clothes."

Alastair said...

Haha. So because of some infinitely small amount of people might be foolish enough to catch their penis in their fly... We should ritually circumcise all male newborns?
Or because some of your sons might be having unprotected sex with AIDs carriers? Come on? Wouldn't the smarter thing to do be teach your child not to have sex with an AIDs carrier and teach him to clean his penis instead of deciding to de 100% him ( http://www.blackmetalcult.com/dc.jpg like my picture I made)
and then decide to give him a false sense of security by not emphasising cleaning his most important possession? Or telling him he has a...what?....1/3 less chance of getting AIDs of a woman? "wow, that's sealed the argument for me! I can MAYBE have sex with my AIDs positive wife ONE more time without contracting the disease....maybe!"
Strong argument!

And not ONE person has brought up the desensitization of the glans...
To me that is the most important thing.
And if anyone is brave enough to bring up the 'cut guys last longer' argument... why not cut the whole head off? deprive yourself of some more please and last..FOREVER.

g_thomson said...

Diane seems to be one of those that likes to propogate the myth that circumcision alters all sorts of bizzare aspects of being a male. If you are circumcised at birth, there is no way to know the difference and sitting around 'thinking' what you are missing out on is just pointless. Likewise, an uncircumcised man saying that he is better off than his counterpart is really just wishful thinking. Is he? He'll never know. Without sounding sexist, women who offer their opinions on what is better for a man's part is like a man trying to tell a woman what's best for hers. What's more pleasurable for her is one thing, what's better for him is a whole other.

I was circumcised at 25, my choice. Do I wish it was done at birth? Yes. Why wasn't I? For all the same reasons most boys *are*, to look like their fathers. How many times did I see my father naked? Not enough for me not to be done, I saw far more of my friend's naked and they all were.

So what were MY experiences? You'd think having it done at 25 I would have a pretty firm grounding on before and after...

Problems with foreskins? Oh yes. Growing up in a society where most of my age group were circumcised, one notices those who weren't. Also in that young and ' sexually exploring phase', I also saw a fair mix. Of all those that I saw that weren't circumcised, over 60% had serious cases of Phismosis (where the foreskin can not be retracted) that needed to be surgically corrected in some way. Also, my father at about 40 developed serious and very painful infections due to his foreskin, despite us being a hygienic family. I myself developed sores/small ulcers from intercourse where the movement of the foreskin tore the inner skin and the trapped fluids caused minor infections. Having a foreskin is more work and can be problematic.

What do women prefer? I had numerous partners while with and without. In all honesty, not one really cared either way. My partners came from Australia, America, France, England and South Africa and South America, so we have a very broad spectrum. The American girl FWIW did not care, for those of you in the US. Of all the girls, some climaxed like crazy and some didn't, with and without so there is little or no correlation there. On oral, most girls did, foreskin or not and that all came back to do it again shows that they didn't really care. In conversations what did they say? The American girl said that she thought a circumcised penis looked more aesthetically pleasing, though liked my foreskin; the South American girl did not like a circumcised penis and an Australian, now my wife, really only likes a circumcised penis, though admittedly has had no 'hands on' experience with an uncircumcised one (funny enough, though being circumcised when I met her, she did not do oral for over a year - showing for her in anyway foreskin or not had nothing to do with it). In all we have a pretty broad spectrum of opinions which tell, me in anyway, that if a woman is well adjusted the status of your penis does not really matter nor poses any sort of sexual problem.

- For some women, circumcised does make a difference. When I had a foreskin I was seeing a French girl who had zero issues with my skin, probably as it was what she was used to. One day, during intercourse, we pulled my foreskin back (for the hell of it) and held it there. She said, within the first few movements, 'oh that feels really good'. From that point on, she always reached down on her own accord and pulled the skin back when we were having sex. That sort of says something, though I agree it probably is not this way for all women.

What do I prefer? 25 years with a foreskin, 10 years without. I hands down prefer being circumcised. Here's why:

- No matter how often you wash when you have a foreskin, your penis develops a smell.; whether or not that smell is unpleasant depends on who you are. Smegma does build up if you do not wash every day and it does smell and smell unpleasant. Sorry, that's the truth and sexual encounters, intercourse, oral or hand, can more spontaneous if you are not worried about whether your penis is going to smell or be slimy.

- Depending on the length of your foreskin (some are long, some are short, some are tight some are loose), sex with a condom is unpleasant and messy. The condom does not sit in place and with the glans (head of the penis) wanting to move in and out of the foreskin, the condom becomes very loose and stretched out. Not only that, but the condom also prevents the natural movement of the glans through the foreskin, so sex can be less than spectacular, more akin to wearing a rubber boot. The only way to do it is to retract the foreskin, apply the condom and hope for the best.

- Things get trapped under the foreskin. Form pubic hair and urine to body fluids during intercourse, they all get trapped under the foreskin. Trapped pubes are painful, trapped fluids, especially the next morning, are just gross. Waking up to spontaneous morning oral or sex is less than common when there is a unpleasant paste from the previous evening under the foreskin. Trapped urine is smelly! A circumcised penis is cleaner and easier to deal with.

- Sex is better. Yes, very selfish but sex with no foreskin, despite what all the anti circ lobby try to tell you, IS better for the man. This is not my imagined state of mind, it's fact. A doctor during a check up once asked what I thought and when I said it was better, he said that that was interesting because every man he encountered, circumcised in latter life, all said the same thing. But bare with me on this one, as I have to explain why it's better, based on lots of research, talking to doctors and having played extensively with my own penis before and after =):

The anti circ lobby digs up some pretty fanciful evidence about the foreskin, though I wonder how many of them actually have one? The foreskin has two sides, the inner and the outer. The outer is just like skin on the rest of your body, no more sensitive, no less. The inner IS more sensitive but only in a sexually aroused situation (which is why many men like having the area behind the head rubbed or stimulated during sex play) but only part of it and it is far from being packed with millions of mind blowing sexually specific nerve endings (there are also NO rigid bands as one older study claimed; can you imagine, a rigid band would prevent any sort of erection!!). The amount of the sensitive skin is also dependent and the length of the foreskin, a longer one will have more and shorter one will have less. In a circumcision, the 'proper way' to do it is to leave as much inner skin as possible, while removing the outer. This method, called sleeve reduction, sees the inner skin pulled back and joined to a reduced outer, resulting visually in either a colour change on the shaft of the penis or a slight scar line. The further towards the body the scar line the more inner skin that was left. A skilled surgeon will strike a balance of inner and outer, preventing the circumcised penis' skin from being too tight.

Where some of this hoo-har about loss of sensitivity comes from would be from men, circumcised later in life, who's surgeon removed all the inner skin and placed the scar as close as possible to the glans (head of the penis); either because the surgeon prefers to hide the scar, or the patient does not want to see one. In this case I fully agree, that yes, there will be reduced sexual sensitivity. The inner skin is an important part of the sexual function of the penis. To me, this sort of circumcision should be banned though I do feel it is the responsibility of parents to ask, and doctors to explain, just how a penis works and how a circumcision should be performed.

So what you have, in a good circumcision, is the sexually sensitive inner skin being exposed all the time. Where before this skin would only be exposed for a short period of time in intercourse, rubbing mostly against the head of the penis, it now has full contact with the walls of the vagina. In every way possible this is a huge improvement and for more pleasurable as the stimuilation is firm and direct. I personally have found no real difference in 'lasting power', something I feel is more linked to the brain and self control and in 10 years, my sensitivity has not decreased one bit. Where sex was ok, it is now fantastic, with every part of my partner's vagina able to be felt during intercourse as well as oral and hand jobs being far more intense and varied.

For the guys out there with a circumcision that fits the above description and feel that they are missing out on something, sorry, you're not. That's as good as it gets! The rest is in your head.

So there is my view. We are about to have a son and despite it now being the unpopular choice, we have decided that we are going to have him circumcised. Not to look like me, as I know that is the lamest excuse to do anything, but because from all the reading I have done and through my own personal experience, I know that there are benefits to circumcision.

I don't have an issue either way. If you have a foreskin and are happy then that is great. If you are a woman and like 'your man's ' penis this way or that, that's cool too. I know I have my likes and dislikes when it comes to the 'sexual' appearance of my partner. If though you are uncircumcised and unhappy, go and get it done and if you are already and think you are missing out (based on all the propaganda out there against), chances are your are not and sex is just not all what you have been, or are being, led to believe.

Dave said...

I really have to disagree with all the anti-circ hysteria, it's nonsensical lunacy, and I can say this from personal experience. Regretably, I was one of those very few who escaped the circumciser's scalpel, and have grown up with a foreskin. From the time I was able to understand words, I was constantly being reminded to constantly wash and clean under my foreskin, and every time I took a bath, I was continually pressured to free the adhesions from the glans. Years passed, and the adhesions were becoming increasingly difficult (and painful) to resolve, and smegma began to rear it's ugly head. Finally, at about age 10 or 12, the adhesions freed themselves up, and I began to question why my penis was so different from my friends'. I was explained the whole "mutilation process" as my mother like to refer to circumcision, but through talking with friends about our different experiences, I began to form an idea that I somehow got dealt the worse end of a deal.
Eventually, when the internet became prevalent in my household, I researched circumcision extensively, and began to discover the many added benefits from the procedure. I constantly pleaded with my parents to get done, but my mom always refused. This is one thing that really pissed me off, because my dad has a dick, and knows what it's like to have one (he's cut), but my mother does NOT have to live with one, and in my mind is in NO position to have a say over my father about what I should have to deal with regarding a penis. In any event, I lived with a foreskin for the remainder of my "underage" years, and finally when I turned 18, I decided to get the procedure done. This was not decided from a purely cosmetic standpoint, but from many problems that had developed from having a foreskin (hygene, frenulum-breve, and sex w/ a foreskin problems, which I won't get into here). In any event, I am currently recovering from this surgery, which took place a week ago, and I can tell you it's an extremely stressful and painful process. There are many stitches to deal with that yank at nerved areas, and poke at other parts, and there is always the problem of keeping it bandaged up, not to mention the cosmetic result is not as good as it would have been if I were cut as a baby. I WOULD HAVE MUCH RATHER HAD THIS DONE WHEN I WAS A NEWBORN! Please...if you're having a baby boy, DO NOT LET THE ANTI-CIRC'ERS GET TO YOU. I've had what is considered "normal" things to expect with a foreskin, and let me tell you, it's just not worth dealing with.

siriusblackp said...

g_thomson has got to be a hoax! These silly faux didactic stories are made by men who haven't the slightest clue what a foreskin is. All of gthomson's experience with his foreskin was discovered on a web site somewhere, and now he's mourning his missing foreskin, lost at birth, by telling us how great his cut penis is. The next post by Dave is even worse: he hauls out these medical terms he got out of some book, claims he had 'em all, but now he's cut and so glad. Come on guys: quit mourning your missing foreskins and leave the rest of us - and your childredn - alone!

baggins said...

I was circumcised when I was 24 for purely cosmetic reasons. This might not be a popular reason for being circumcised, but I always preferred the look of a circumcised penis and one day saw an add from a clinic offering a host of different procedures, one of which was circumcision. The price was quite reasonable and for the first time I seriousely considered getting it done. A few months later I came across the add again and decided to go for it. I hadn't researched the benifits or drawbacks of circumcision - it didn't occur to me that there would be a big debate about it!
I have had sexual experiences both before and after the operation (which was ten years ago now).

My experience is that intercourse is much better now - my glans, including the corona and frenulum area are constantly exposed and stimulated and I find that very pleasurable - much more pleasurable than when the head just slid around in the foreskin, only poking out at the end of each "stroke"! I also find the tight feeling of the skin pleasurable (I am quite tightly circumcised). The one draw back with circumcision is that masturbation is not as easy as it was.

In terms of sensativity my glans is not very sensative when I am not aroused, but becomes very sensative when I am. After ejaculation it is too sensative to stroke. This is the case whether the head was touched reaching ejaculation or not (and occasionally, if I don't have lubrication around, if I masturbate I do so without touching the glans). Within a few minutes the glans starts to return to normal sensativity. This is not just a "brain" thing - there must be a release of chemicals on arousal which makes the penis more sensative.

I also have to agree with other posters about the smell of an un-circumcised penis. It is very distinctive and difficult to keep away even if you are very clean. I have alwasy showered very morning but still noticed the smell quite regularly. Circumcision is the only way to stop the smell returning.

I have never had much interest in circumsision, other than prefering the look of it. I would now say it was the right choice for both asthetic and functional reasons.

Vince said...

I was circumcised when I was 6 months old. My Mom is very proud of it. I was told that I did not cry during circumcision and they did not put any diapers either (only bandage on the penis). My Mom frequently used to examine my penis and loved to undress me to inspect it. When my Mom's sisters and their daughters were around I felt embarrassed because they were curious to see me. Otherwise I am happy with my circumcision status. My parents thought leaving me undressed will help to overcome my shyness.

Richard Whole said...

Diane: You did not have to apologize for the use of the term "ripped." You were being accused of saying the foreskin was "ripped" off. You said nothing of the sort. You said the foreskin was still attached to the glans in infants such that it had to be ripped from the glans before being cut off. I think that's an accurate description.

cutin69 said...

Siriusblackp said "g_thomson has got to be a hoax" I don't think so! as my experience is almost exactly the same. I spent 27 years of my life uncircumcised, the latter two years as a married man.
Now with respect to all the ladies out there, and all those circumcised in infancy also the uncircumcised. You opinion can't relay count as you have only experienced one side of the wall, not both sides, you can only assume what its like.

The anticirc's fall into A class of their own, as they seem to pick out the bits to suit their cause & twist the truth.
If something is posted that is pro circumcision, then you get bombarded with 10 different guys attacking your pro circ post, all their postings coming from the same IP address, written by the same person.

I remember a debate at school over this subject, 60% of the class was circumcised the remainder was not. When asked, If we could turn back the clock and have it over again what would we choose.
The result was only one in the class of 35 that chose to have a foreskin, the rest chose circumcision and those who had been cut were happy with their status.
When the uncut were asked, if they had the opportunity to have a circumcision now! most chickened out, the general feeling was it would be too painful. Or, I wish it had been done when I was small.
(we were 15/16 year old's at the time)

What changed my mind were the same reasons as that of g_thomson.
Hot African summer, working as a rep. driving most of the day, popping in to see the girl after work, aware of the smell in your pants! No thanks!
Now 37 Yrs down the line.....If it grew again over night, I would still choose to have the smelly appendage cut off tomorrow,it dose not improve sex, most of the time it just got in the way at the wrong time.
Most of the guys that have had themselves circumcised, and had it both ways, all seem say: I wish I had been done as a kid, or I should have had it done years ago.
It is a big morel boost and improves self confidence.
By the way I still have mind blowing orgasm's. It takes a bit longer than it did 30 Yrs ago, but it still works just the same.

We had our son circumcised in infancy, the circ. rate where we now live is +-5% He has had many uncut friends,undoubtedly gone threw the experimental stage with them and has gathered experience with the uncut boys. He has often stated that he is glad that he is cut & that it was done when he was small & didn't remember it.


Unknown said...

Yes Ann, the foreskin is torn from the glans. As medicalized in the U.S., the foreskin is first torn with a blunt probe from the glans. Then the foreskin is pulled forward and crushed over a bell or through the jaws of a clamp, and amputated (the word used by the American Academy of Pediatrics in their medical description of circumcsion.)

It's more obvious in a Jewish circumcsion - the way my foreskin was amputated without my consent. First the skin is pulled forward, then a shield is slipped over the skin, and the entire prepuce and a good deal of shaft skin is amputated in front of the shield with a sharp knife. This leaves the inner foreskin skin fused to the glans. The second part is to tear the foreskin off the glans to the coronal groove, and cut it off there, usually with a sharp fingernail. In particular, the CHABAD manual states:

"One must exert one's utmost influence to ensure that the mucous membrane is torn[20] as a separate operation [from cutting the foreskin]"

The third part is to suck the blood. It's still done frequently, and the NYT reported on a couple of boys who died from neonatal herpes, and another with acute renal failure. Modern Jews suck the blood through a tube.

There. It is torn, whether with a blunt probe, or just the good old fashioned way. Circumcised men and their female proxies don't want to admit it, because it sounds as bad as it really is.

The exact same operation can be carried out on a female, where only the prepuce of the clitoris is removed, as is universally done in Islamic Indonesia. The benefits, according to Indonesian doctors, are the same: better hygiene, fewer infections, men like it, and no loss of sensation, and it certainly looks better.

The circumcision "hysteria" is created entirely by those who keep insisting that they have the right to amputate sexual tissue from other people. Get circumcised. Hell, get circumcised twice! Just make sure you are doing it to your own penis or clitoris.