Originally Posted by Bizarre Jester
yeah, this is a very controversial topic. There are pros and cons to both sides. The biggest argument for circumcision is that it can prevent infections/phimosis/other nasty stuff. The biggest argument against it is that the boy doesn't get to chose, as it is usually done shortly after birth.
Let us allow the journals do some talking;
"There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses."
+ http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/74/5/368
If you want my opinion, though, I would say that it ought not to be hard to say;
"Hey little Johnny, please go soap up in the shower and wash your penis"
Barbaric? Seriously? It's not like you're cutting the kids whole organ off, just a piece of skin. Would you guys honestly be so against it, if you didn't hear so much garbage/bashing about it on the internet from people who don't know what they are talking about.
It is, without a doubt, a painful experience for the child. This is undeniable and you can see it for yourself in the videos. This is a major reason for many people to not have the procedure done.
Although it is true the majority of the males in the world aren't circumcised. The numbers are highly exaggerated. It isn't just the USA that does it. It is also done (actually more) in all Middle Eastern countries, a huge chunk of Africa, and South East Asia. I looked this up, I am not just making up false info like "some people" do.
The prevalence, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) is 30% with 70% of them being Muslim.
+ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication...596169_eng.pdf
"Eighty-five percent of the infants in the study population were circumcised. White and African-American male infants were much more likely to be circumcised than those of other races (odds ratios [ORs], 7.3 and 7.1, respectively, P < .001). Compared with self-pay patients, those covered by private insurance were 2.5 times more likely to be circumcised (P < .001). Logistic regression showed that rates for obstetricians and family physicians were not significantly different. Increased odds of circumcision were found if the mother received an episiotomy (OR = 1.9, P < .001) or cesarean section (OR = 2.1, P < .001). Circumcised infants stayed in the hospital an average of one fourth of a day longer than did those who were not circumcised (mean difference, 0.26 days; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.36). "
+ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561711
- "...3703 male infants born during 1990 and 1991 at four US sites..."
True but increased sensitivity also means premature-ejaculation.
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Increased sensitivity does harm ones chances of lasting longer.
Increased sensitivity vs. bedroom endurance
Hm..
This is not true. At all.
First of all, with foreskin, the male can actually feel how erect he is during intercourse. The more erect you are=the more further back the skin is. You obviously cannot do this if you do not have the foreskin. In this sense, a male with foreskin could easily control their erection more effectively.
Also, consider the evidence;
"The distribution of the IELT in all the five countries was positively skewed, with a median IELT of 5.4 minutes (range, 0.55–44.1 minutes). The median IELT decreased significantly with age, from 6.5 minutes in the 18–30 years group, to 4.3 minutes in the group older than 51 years (P < 0.0001). The median IELT varied between countries, with the median value for Turkey being the lowest, i.e., 3.7 minutes (0.9–30.4 minutes), which was significantly different from each of the other countries. Comparison of circumcised (N = 98) and not-circumcised (N = 261) men in countries excluding Turkey resulted in median IELT values of 6.7 minutes (0.7–44.1 minutes) in circumcised compared with 6.0 minutes (0.5–37.4 minutes) in not-circumcised men (not significant). The median IELT value was not affected by condom use."
+ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
"All 15 men who participated in the study between September 1999 and October 2000 were available for followup. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 36.9 ± 12.0 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the BMFSI composite scores of reported sexual drive (p >0.68), erection (p >0.96), ejaculation (p >0.48), problem assessment (p >0.53) or overall satisfaction (p >0.72).
...
Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure.
+ http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retri...22534705650975
~
|
|
Bookmarks