Channel 7's 'Sunday Night' - To Snip or Not to Snip?

[Phteven]

PB, one of the larger and more exhaustive studies was conducted in NZ which isn't exactly a a 3rd world nation. One of the governments currently reviewing its circ recommendations is the US, once again not a 3rd world nation.
The factors leading to increased transmission of disease have nothing to do with how often circed men clean their smegma out.
For me dismissing such a large body of evidence is kind of like saying that we don't need driver education or air bags because we have seat-belts.
As I said previously safe-sex education is a great idea however it has a history of failure.

[Pretty Butterfly]

""Meanwhile, researchers are debating whether the findings in Africa strengthen the case for circumcision to help halt HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in western countries. Last week the UK's Health Protection Agency warned of a dramatic increase in cases of syphilis, while HIV and other STDs are also on the rise. Auvert doubts that there is a strong case. "All these factors imply it's very important for Africa, but it's not so clear for the rest of the world," he says. "You need high HIV prevalence to make circumcision programmes worthwhile."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says it is not yet ready to shift from the conclusion it published in 1999 that any evidence of medical benefit is too weak to merit routine circumcision of babies. However, Jack Swanson of the McFarland Clinic in Ames, Iowa, who co-authored the policy, says the academy would be revisiting it in the next two years to take account of the latest evidence from New Zealand, Africa and elsewhere. "Maybe it will lead to a change," he says.""


This is what I meant. I wont do it for medical reasons, when so far there is no where near enough evidence, for me, to justify it.


That said, if it is deemed a good medical practice, then so be it. If it is in their best interest, and not just a bit of a maybe, then of course I will reconsider.

[Me+him+bub]

im not for or against so i asked my DF if he would like our upcoming son to get it done and he said no ( DF isnt circumcised ) I looked at it as im not a male, i wouldnt know how i would feel in the future and he said he is happy with his bit of "skin" and he "likes" it whatever that means! but I have now decided against doing it to my little boy, its like little baby girls who get their ears pierced at 3 months old, they also have no choice and i wouldnt do it if i was having a daughter, its her choice when she is older. and whats stopping men getting it done later on in life if its apparently less painful, they get tattoos and piercings which also hurt, and my "child" wont be sexually active so why does he need it done at such a young age? and why were they born with it in the first place? its like saying well lets just remove everyones appendix at birth INCASE it gets inflamed, same thing lets remove the foreskin at birth incase it gets infected, just do it if it gets to that point. Im still on the fence but when in doubt say no, so i will be regarding my unborn son.

[Inertia]

... and why were they born with it in the first place? its like saying well lets just remove everyones appendix at birth INCASE it gets inflamed...

Well, its actually interesting you mention this. We are all born with an appendix, but it has long been a redundant organ that the human body no longer uses. Its still there though.

And I guess thats my big question. We all know that like an appendix it might have problems later on leading to its removal, but I keep reading "its there for a reason" .... I am yet to find out what that reason is. Its the one little factoid actually missing from this whole thread.

why is it there?

[Freya]

Well, its actually interesting you mention this. We are all born with an appendix, but it has long been a redundant organ that the human body no longer uses. Its still there though.

And I guess thats my big question. We all know that like an appendix it might have problems later on leading to its removal, but I keep reading "its there for a reason" .... I am yet to find out what that reason is. Its the one little factoid actually missing from this whole thread.

why is it there?

Love to know the medical answer to this too.

Im not buying the increased sexual pleasure bit, Im sure there are plenty of circ'ed men out there who will swear they do JUST fine in the bedroom

[NaeNae]

Im not buying the increased sexual pleasure bit, Im sure there are plenty of circ'ed men out there who will swear they do JUST fine in the bedroom

FWIW - my xf was uncirc and my DH is circ. from MY experience my DH seems much more sensitive then my xf. I don't buy into that theory either.

AnnaT did you have to request anesthetic or was it just done that way?

Nae x

[Freya]

Standard procedure for the 3 surgeons who did my sons. Scares me to think some Drs dont use it.

[Schmickers]

Well, its actually interesting you mention this. We are all born with an appendix, but it has long been a redundant organ that the human body no longer uses. Its still there though.

And I guess thats my big question. We all know that like an appendix it might have problems later on leading to its removal, but I keep reading "its there for a reason" .... I am yet to find out what that reason is. Its the one little factoid actually missing from this whole thread.

why is it there?

The foreskin of the penis protects the glans of the penis from injury. Damage to the glans of the penis has the potential to affect sexual functioning, whereas damage to the foreskin is less likely to have that affect. Thus, if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, animals with a good protective foreskin were more likely to be able to succesfully breed in the event of some sort of damage to the penis. Most mammals have some sort of foreskin - in fact, in many mammals, most of the penis is internal unless it is erect.

It probably evolved when we spent a fair bit of time on all fours, to protect the head of the penis (which dangles down in an all fours position) from damage, but given that along with developing the ability to walk upright, we also started wearing clothes, including underwear, it still has a role in protection of the head of the penis against rubbing and chafing. Having said that, though, I think that is is very difficult to make generalisations on how circumcision affects the sensitivity of the glans of the penis in terms of sexual function, unless you can find a few thousand men willing to be circumcised and do surveys on how sensitive their penises are during sex beforehand and afterwards.

Several thousand volunteers to be circumcised for research? Hands up?

[Amie]

yes these "debates" keep coming up. but BB is here to educate be it for or against. long term members know what we all believe on these subjects so we should know not to attack any one for thier choice.
BUT there are newbies that havent seen these debates come up every few months so if the information can be presented then let it be presented over and over.

I agree. As I was reading through all the posts I found myself getting a little annoyed at the long-term BB members sighing about the necessity (or rather, lack thereof) for "these kinds of topics" to be threaded and re-threaded. Some of you might have long-standing opinions, but a huge part of BB is providing information and a platform for exchanging ideas. God forbid someone new comes along...

[Phteven]

God forbid someone new comes along...

I'd love it if something new came along.
Long-term members have just as much right to express their opinion as anyone else and if their opinion is that something is boring then they are free to say so.

[Amie]

Long-term members have just as much right to express their opinion as anyone else and if their opinion is that something is boring then they are free to say so.

Couldn't agree more. It was the questioning of the need for these topics to be repeated that bothered me.

[Pretty Butterfly]

Here is one article, but its not the actual study I read about years ago. I will try to find the actual study...




A Risky, Painful, and Unnecessary Procedure
The sad truth is that throughout most of the 20th century, the American medical community has focused on finding reasons to remove the foreskin of newborn males instead of acknowledging Mother Nature's wisdom in including this highly sensitive tissue. Happily, more and more individuals are questioning circumcision's necessity and acknowledging its potential harm. Since 1980, the national circumcision rate has dropped by 30 percent, and an increasing number of physicians are finding the courage to refuse to perform the procedure.

This is precisely what happened in England, a nation formerly obsessed with circumcision. In the 1940s, following the release of information that supported leaving male babies fully intact, England's circumcision rate plummeted almost overnight to less than I percent. Similar information is beginning to gain ground here in the United States, so I'd like to share it with you.

To start with, babies feel pain the same way adults do. But the prevailing wisdom at medical schools has long been that newborns can't feel pain and therefore don't experience it during their circumcisions. When I was a medical student, this is what I heard from my professors as well, although common sense told me it wasn't true. I watched placid newborns begin to scream and gasp in pain as the circumcision procedure began. Fortunately, it is finally accepted as a medical fact that circumcision is extraordinarily painful for newborns, who are born with full nocioceptive (pain sensing) ability.

Furthermore, routine newborn circumcision has no health benefit. Though a wide variety of health advantages have been attributed to circumcision--decreases in the incidence of cervical cancer, AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and male urinary tract infection--the most up-to-date research has refuted all these justifications. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 1999 saying there is not sufficient scientific data to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Given this, the number of insurance companies willing to pay for the procedure is also decreasing.

Though circumcision is relatively easy to perform, like any surgical procedure it has risks. The most common complication is hemorrhage, which is reported in as many as 2 percent of cases. Though rare, more disastrous complications can and do occur: "degloving" of the penile skin, which requires skin grafts and results in loss of sensation; destruction of the penis; and death from hemorrhage or infection.

Because there are no proven benefits for the procedure in the first place, these complications are all the more tragic. As respected obstetrician and gynecologist George Denniston points out, "Circumcision violates the first tenet of medical practice: 'first, do no harm.' According to modern medical ethics, parents do not have the right to consent to a procedure that is not in their son's best interest. The removal of a normal, important part of the male sexual organ is not in their son's best interest.' "

Uncircumcised is the Norm
The vast majority of the world's men, including most Europeans and Scandinavians, are uncircumcised. And before 1900, circumcision was virtually non-existent in the United States as well--except for Jewish and Muslim people, who've been performing circumcisions for hundreds of years for religious reasons.

Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation, similar to the way that female circumcision was promoted and continues to be advocated in some Muslim and African countries to control women's sexuality. As the absurdity of this position became apparent, new justifications, such as the prevention of cervical and penile cancers, received the blessing of the medical establishment. But these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.

Also contrary to popular belief, the uncircumcised penis requires no special care. Many parents get hung up about how to "clean" the uncircumcised penis in an infant. Some are even told to retract the foreskin forcibly. This can cause pain and scarring, and it isn't necessary. The foreskin often does not retract naturally until a child is older--sometimes not until he is a teenager--but a boy can easily stretch and retract his foreskin gently over several months' time.

The Pleasures of Natural Sex
I've always felt that the male foreskin, one of most richly innervated and hyperelastic pieces of tissue in the male body, is there for a reason. Until recently, I didn't know exactly what that reason was. But now, thanks to Kristen O'Hara's well-researched book, Sex as Nature Intended It, I finally understand the reasons for the design of the penis and foreskin and how this design ensures optimal penile function, including this organ's ability to satisfy the female sexually. Most American women have not personally experienced the sensation of sex with an uncircumcised man because the majority of men in this country, especially those born before 1980, have been circumcised. But Kristen O'Hara's long-ago affair with an uncircumcised man was the spark that touched off years of research, the result of which is her eye-opening book. Consider the following:

The primary pleasure zones of the natural (uncircumcised) penis are located in the upper penis, which includes the penis head, the foreskin's inner lining, and the frenulum--the hinge of skin that connects the foreskin to the head of the penis. When a male is circumcised, some of the most erotically sensitive areas of the penis are removed: the foreskin that normally covers the head of the penis (the glans) and some or all of the frenulum.

The frenulum contains high concentrations of nerve endings that are sensitive to fine touch. The glans was designed by nature to be covered all the time except during sexual activity. Upon erection, both foreskin layers unfold onto the upper penile shaft, leaving the highly innervated frenulum, glans, and inner lining exposed and readied for sexual activity. This is one of reasons why the penile tip is the focus of sexual excitement.

New scientific evidence shows that highly erogenous tissue equivalent to the female clitoris is located in the core of the penis, beneath the corona (the hook-like head of the penis) and coronal tip. This sensitive tissue extends all the way down the length of the penile shaft to the pubic mound, where it branches and continues into the pelvis and onto the pelvic bone in a manner analogous to the anatomy of the female clitoris. Though the penis contains nerves that are sexually excited by pressure, its tip contains the greatest density of these nerves and is therefore the most sexually responsive part, just as the tip of the clitoris is the most sensitive part. And like the tip of the female clitoris, the tip of the penis is sexually stimulated by the pleasurable sensations created by the massaging actions of the movement of the foreskin upon it during intercourse.

During intercourse, these exquisitely sensitive nerves of the upper penis both excite a man sexually and control the rhythm of penile thrusting. "When the natural penis thrusts inward, the vaginal walls brush against the erotically sensitive nerves of the glans, the foreskin's inner lining, and the frenulum, causing these nerves to fire off sensations of pleasure;" writes O'Hara. "The inward thrust of the penis keeps these pleasure sensations ongoing, but after these nerves have fired, the penis senses a reduction in pleasurable feelings, so it stops its inward thrust and begins its outward stroke in search of stronger sensations.

"During the outward stroke, the foreskin's outer layer slides forward to cloak the nerves of its inner lining, while the inner lining itself covers the frenulum" she continues. "Once covered, these nerves are allowed to rest from stimulation until the next inward thrust. As the foreskin moves forward on the shaft, it bunches up behind the coronal ridge, and may sometimes roll forward over the corona, depending upon the length of the stroke. This applies pressure to the interior tissue of the corona and coronal ridge where nerves that are excited by pressure send a wave of sexual excitement throughout the upper penis. The natural penis receives pleasure sensations from one set of sensory nerves on the inward thrust and a different set of nerves on the outward stroke. It can maintain a continuous stream of highly pleasurable sensations by maintaining the right rhythm"

And intriguingly, because the area of sexual sensation is so localized in the tip, the penis only has to travel a short distance to excite one set of nerves or another. In other words, it doesn't have to withdraw very far to receive pleasure on the outward stroke. This allows the penis to stay deep inside the vagina, keeping the man's pubic mound in close and frequent contact with a woman's clitoral area, which increases her pleasure and a sense of closeness.

As part of the research for her book, Ms. O'Hara surveyed approximately 150 women--enough to make the study statistically reliable. Here's how one survey respondent described sex with a natural partner:

"Sex with a natural partner has been to me like the gentle rhythm of a peaceful but powerful ocean--waves build, then subside and soothe. It felt so natural, as if it were filling a deep need within me, not necessarily for the act of sex, but more in order to experience the rhythm of a man and woman as they were created to respond to each other."

The Sexual Consequences of Male Circumcision
After circumcision, the exposed head of the penis thickens like a callus and becomes less sensitive. And because erotically sensitive areas of the penis have been removed, the circumcised penis must thrust more vigorously with a much longer stroke in order to reach orgasm through stimulating the less sensitive penile shaft. In her study of women who have had sexual experiences with both natural and circumcised men, O'Hara notes that respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Seventy-three percent of the women reported that circumcised men tended to thrust harder, using elongated strokes; while uncircumcised men tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter strokes, and to maintain more contact between the mons pubis and clitoris.

O'Hara's research makes the following sexual comparisons between the natural and circumcised penis.
The natural penis may be more comfortable for the vagina than the circumcised penis. The coronal ridge of the natural penis is more flexible; O'Hara likens it to the resiliency of Jell-O. The circumcised penile head is considerably harder--overly firm and compacted like an unripe tomato. This is because circumcision cuts away 33-50 percent of penile skin. As a result, the skin of the penile shaft can get stretched so tightly during an erection that it pulls down on the skin covering the glans, compressing the tissue of the penis head. The abnormally hardened coronal ridge can then be very uncomfortable to vaginal tissue during intercourse.

Women sometimes experience a scraping feeling with each outward stroke and even report discomfort after intercourse or even the next day. The brain makes pain-relieving endorphins that may partially block any discomfort during intercourse itself. As a gynecologist, I can tell you that painful intercourse is a very common symptom in women, many of whom blame themselves or who feel that something is wrong with their sexual response.

The give of the natural penis, by contrast, allows for more bend and flex of the organ in the vagina, adding to a woman's pleasure and comfort. The abundant skin of the natural penile shaft further cushions the force of the coronal ridge in the vagina. In addition, the mobile skin of the penis is "grasped" by the ridges of the vaginal mucosa and held in place. The bunching and unbunching of penile skin during intercourse enhances a man's pleasure, but it also excites the woman. As one of O'Hara s survey respondents reported: "What I noticed was that my natural man got a lot of pleasure from deliberate, slow insertion and backing out because his foreskin would fold back and forth, which would excite me also."

Circumcised sex may cause the vagina to abnormally tense up and decrease its lubrication. Women report more problems with lubrication when having sex with circumcised men, possibly because of irritation from the harder tip and involuntary tensing against it, and also because the longer stroke length tends to remove lubrication from the vagina. Often an artificial lubricant is necessary.

Intercourse may also be painful for the circumcised man because his penis scrapes against the ribbed structure of tensed-up vaginal walls and becomes over stimulated from constant pressure. The degree of discomfort, if any, will depend upon the tightness of the man's shaft skin, the vigor of his thrusting, the duration of intercourse, and the amount of lubrication.

Circumcision may cause a man to work harder to achieve orgasm, resulting in emotional and physical distancing from his partner. When a circumcised man has sex, he may have to concentrate intensely on the erotic sensations he is receiving while simultaneously blocking out any uncomfortable sensations. Survey respondents often reported that their circumcised partners seemed to have to work too hard to achieve orgasm. And because of the erotic tissue that has been removed, he can't enjoy the sensations leading up to orgasm or his partner's responses.

O'Hara makes a compelling argument that circumcised intercourse may frustrate the primordial subconscious that seems to know "real sex ain't this way." She also suggests that each circumcised experience has the potential to buildup negative memory imprints so that over time, repeated sexual encounters with the same partner may lead to negative feelings between the two that carry over into everyday life. If this sounds like an extraordinary leap, consider the question that O'Hara asks in her book: "Other things being equal, which couple is more likely to stay together--one enjoying delicious, satisfying sex or one whose sexual pleasure is being compromised in many ways?"

[Madissun]

I agree. As I was reading through all the posts I found myself getting a little annoyed at the long-term BB members sighing about the necessity (or rather, lack thereof) for "these kinds of topics" to be threaded and re-threaded. Some of you might have long-standing opinions, but a huge part of BB is providing information and a platform for exchanging ideas. God forbid someone new comes along...

I must admit i agree. Im a little surprised that there are members who are complaining about old topics re-surfacing. As everyone keeps saying, if you don't want to be a part of a thread, then don't! But old topics will always come up... Even if the info isn't new to you, it still might be to someone else.

I read this thread yesterday, looking for new information after watching the program in question, and hoping to have my fears vanquished (which i did, thanks to Schmickers ) I wanted to reply at the time, but found myself too frustrated to do so. So i stepped away and came back today, only to find the same things being said.

I guess i dont understand why other topics can re-surface, but not this one? Im certainly grateful for the information i've read here.

[Inertia]

Im not buying the increased sexual pleasure bit, Im sure there are plenty of circ'ed men out there who will swear they do JUST fine in the bedroom

I think you can easily count my DH as someone who seems to do just fine with his circ'd manhood. LOL

The foreskin of the penis protects the glans of the penis from injury. Damage to the glans of the penis has the potential to affect sexual functioning, whereas damage to the foreskin is less likely to have that affect. Thus, if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint, animals with a good protective foreskin were more likely to be able to succesfully breed in the event of some sort of damage to the penis. Most mammals have some sort of foreskin - in fact, in many mammals, most of the penis is internal unless it is erect.

It probably evolved when we spent a fair bit of time on all fours, to protect the head of the penis (which dangles down in an all fours position) from damage, but given that along with developing the ability to walk upright, we also started wearing clothes, including underwear, it still has a role in protection of the head of the penis against rubbing and chafing. Having said that, though, I think that is is very difficult to make generalisations on how circumcision affects the sensitivity of the glans of the penis in terms of sexual function, unless you can find a few thousand men willing to be circumcised and do surveys on how sensitive their penises are during sex beforehand and afterwards.

Several thousand volunteers to be circumcised for research? Hands up?

So much of this sounds like it had a purpose before we adopted wearing clothes. So it is entirely possible that it has became redundant too?

On the difficult of telling how it changes sensitivity, I think that is an entirely moot point when discussing circumcision in newborns. Men who have been circ'd all their lives know no different and are quite happy with their sex lives as they are.

[Just Me]

Im not buying the increased sexual pleasure bit, Im sure there are plenty of circ'ed men out there who will swear they do JUST fine in the bedroom

Along those same lines - of the men that I know that are circumcised - mainly my brothers - they do not seem to regret having that decision made for them and infact from what they say, are quite happy to have been circumcised. They actually found that woman on SN calling it a 'primal wound' highly offensive.

I know other men who are circumcised and quite happy to be so because they also think it is the best decision for their baby boys as well, based on their own experience.

I don't really think people chose to circumcise their sons because they want to hurt them - I think the decision to circumcise, or not to circumcise for that matter, is made by the parents to do what they really think is best for their child. We made that decision for our son because we love him and felt it was best, just as people who chose not to circumcise also make that decision out of love for their child. I guess that is why I think it is a bit cruel and judgemental to hear people refer to circumcision as 'child abuse'. I don't think anyone would circumcise if they believed that it was not what was best.

[~Saram~]

My DS is circumcised - done at 7days old with a local anathestic gel - I was not allowed to be in the room when it was done and yep he was upset for the rest of the day and then it never bothered him again - did we have good reasons for it - not really. it is a family thing - all the men on DH side are done including my nephews. To be honest as others have said I really didn't lean one way or the other - I fel it was a decision resting mainly on DH shoulders and I would support either way - having said that I did research beforehand and found for TODAY"S circumstances there were more benefits towards getting it done than not. Also I found it interesting years later to read anthropological research that shows that civilisations arising in dry/sandy or dusty environments developed rituals of infant circumcision - why??? Because they found that when left intact in these environments it generally lead to problems in adolescents and adulthood. Obvioulsy jewish/hebrew ancestory as well as African and Aboriginal Australians all had circumcision rituals -

[Schmickers]

So much of this sounds like it had a purpose before we adopted wearing clothes. So it is entirely possible that it has became redundant too?

Well, as I said, I disagree. I think that it still serves a purpose to protect the penis from damage due abrasions while wearing tight clothes or underwear. It also protects the penis from damage for people who play sport or are engaged in physical labour. Everyone knows how much it hurts to take a blow to the testicles, but I can tell you, getting hit hard in the penis (for example, your protector slipping during a game of paintball) can be extremely painful as well. So I believe that it's protective function is still important. The research does suggest that the mucosa of the glans penis thickens and keratinises in people who are circumcised.[/QUOTE]

But all that said, no, I don't buy into the whole "decreases sexual pleasure" argument either, and I don't think it's a valid reason not to circumcise.

On the difficult of telling how it changes sensitivity, I think that is an entirely moot point when discussing circumcision in newborns. Men who have been circ'd all their lives know no different and are quite happy with their sex lives as they are.

Indeed, this is true. This is why I don't buy into the decreased sexual pleasure argument, because as I said above, the only way to really test that theory would be to get a whole heap of men, get them to rate their experience of sexual pleasure, circumcise them, and then do the survey again. I don't think you'd get many volunteers...

[kawazuki]

Well, its actually interesting you mention this. We are all born with an appendix, but it has long been a redundant organ that the human body no longer uses. Its still there though.

And I guess thats my big question. We all know that like an appendix it might have problems later on leading to its removal, but I keep reading "its there for a reason" .... I am yet to find out what that reason is. Its the one little factoid actually missing from this whole thread.

why is it there?

in saying that, a recent study which hasnt been released to the public yet shows that the appendix actually does have a purpose in retaining good flora and bacteria for teh bowel, and aids in regenerating balance in the bowel, post upset stomach etc. they also found people without an appendix have been know to suffer form irritable bowel sydrome, or unexplaind diahorreah and constipation. sorry for teh side track.

but on the topic of Circumcision, we had to get our 9 yo son done at teh begining of teh year, as his mother never taught him how to clean it, retract it properly so at 9 his foreskin was only 30% retracted when it should be around 80%, he continually wet the bed, had a constant niggling UTI which couldnt be fixed with medication, he didnt clean it even after being educated by my husband, drs and myself, he couldnt hold onto his wee because off teh constant infection and we had many accidents, at 9 you could imagine how embarressing this would of been for him. he caused social issues as we were confident in him sleeping at friends houses, or going on long trips with friends as he couldnt control his bladder properly.
yet 5 months later, hardly wets the bed, only after stressfull situations like talking to his mother, we can now go on long drives as he can hold his wee if he needs to till we get to a toilet, the rush and instant need to wee has gone, he is more confident as he is worried about wetting himself or his bed.

so we will not blink an eye lid if this bubba is a boy and we will be getting him done at birth.

yes the procedure cost us alot of money, but what price do u put on yoru childs health and confidence?