Doctors and circumcision

As one of the critics points out about HIV, they're cherry picking the data. I'd like to see an analysis of real data limited to 1st world populations only. My inkling is that standards of sanitation make a real difference.

Criticize all you like, I'll go with the opinion of experts myself. These recommendations are backed by all sorts of research and are not issued lightly. Uncut America versus the AAP? Puhleeze!

Agenda #1 v agenda #2

the AAP

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19072761

Here's an interesting and what i perceive as a more balanced than usual article. I take particular note of German and Dutch opinions cited in the article. Rather the opposite than what is given by a group of undoubtedly AAP circumcised members. Don't say their status will not influence what they say on the matter, cause it most likely will, even if they are not conscious of it.

The only way there will be a really true unbiased decision one way or another, is when Alien scientists conduct their studies and finding. And by Aliens I mean in the X-Files sense, not South of the Border aliens. 😃 😃

If you'll pardon the pun, the results on benefits or not of circumcision are not really clear cut yet.

It is quite clear that there are many conflicting opinions from many otherwise normally respected institutions and associations and such. Possibly some of the reasons for these conflicts has to do with personal agendas, possibly also because the results are virtually equal one way or the other but can be skewed by personal prejudice and beliefs.

This should be an indication by the way, that we are dealing with a social issue, one that concerns tradition and personal beliefs.

But don't forget, it's just a glans ing blow. Oh I'm sorry. When I hear puns it's like an old warhorse smelling blood. I guess I'll get the shaft.

Okay ignore scientific opinion if you like. After all there are those who believe the earth was created in seven days too.

It was your source that pointed out possible bias.

"increased resistance to a number of STDs. These include HIV, Papillovirus, Herpes virus and others"

One should however not forget that this increase of resistance is only a very partial protection. The AIDS epidemics flared in San Francisco at a time when almost all American males were circumcised.

The only real protections are to use condoms and limit partners.

The situation is different in sub-saharan Africa, where condom use is not in the social mores, and condoms may or may not be available.

"increased resistance to a number of STDs. These include HIV, Papillovirus, Herpes virus and others"

One should however not forget that this increase of resistance is only a very partial protection. The AIDS epidemics flared in San Francisco at a time when almost all American males were circumcised.

The only real protections are to use condoms and limit partners.

The situation is different in sub-saharan Africa, where condom use is not in the social mores, and condoms may or may not be available.

You'd also want to consider the level of sanitation and hygiene. Broken skin makes infection more prevalent. If you have a population that has broken skin due to deficient hygiene along with diminished barrier use, STD transmission will be greater.

If you want to justify contemporary American circumcision, you need to study contemporary Americans.

Talking about broken skin and hygiene.

Consider being circumcised in places with abundant and noxious insect life such as Africa for instance. Foreskins protect the more sensitive and functionally important glans against insect bites which may or may not become infected or harmful, certainly irritating and debilitating. Foreskins also protect against thorns, sharp leaves and grass and also from sunburn for that matter. At least in times when less clothing was worn in some regions of Africa.

Kevlar foreskins? Now there's a thought. It brings to mind laminating ones drivers license. I think people tend to wear clothes so it's a moot point. Jds my friend I couldn't find the white paper of the academy. Sorry. What I was able to find was contaminated with some nonsense.

What you found called out the academy for some questionable science

Kevlar foreskins?

Nope, not Kevlar foreskins, but foreskins being Nature's poor boy version of a Kevlar protection for the very sensitive glans.

I'd rather be stung by a wasp or mosquito on the foreskin than on the glans - I'm sure you get the idea, though I'd prefer neither.

Agracier, I just wanted to tell you that I really really like you. I think you are funny, very smart, mature, and logical. I also greatly respect you for standing behind what you believe in. This issue will never be solved and there will always be pros and cons to both sides equally. But having a mature, well thought out, and intelligent debate over issues shows us even though we may not see eye to eye, it's all good, it's not personal, it's fun, and it allows you to see, if you are willing to listen, what the other side believes in and why. I also think it's healthy to do so. You Rock!

Mashie

Here it is:

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx

I see a lot of correlation but little proof of causation. The other thing I couldn't find was data on the populations studied.

The white paper was more of a position statement and suggestions for selling the procedure and care of the child, circumcised or not.

I'm going to stray into anecdotal material here forgive me. When I was a pediatric intern oh these long years ago I did about fifty circumcisions. We used the Plastibel technique and we didn't give any anesthesia. It was my observation that tightening the ligature produced about fifteen seconds of crying from the newborns and then they went back to sleep. It was hardly a traumatic procedure in my opinion. It didn't produce half the distress that parturition and delivery did.

funny, very smart, mature, and logical. ... it's all good, it's not personal,

It's not personal with me either. And thanks for the post. Very nice and sincere. I appreciate it.

I sometimes feel like I am back in High School here, as in writing (short) essays or engaging in debates where you were made to be as logical and straightforward as possible while remaining polite and unemotional. Good fun indeed. And I do indeed hear better arguments pro circumcision than I did from my father, who warned me for the umpteenth time just before i got married, that if I didn't watch out, I'd get infected and my prick would either fall off or have to be amputated ... seriously. That concentrates the mind on the subject ... ha ha

Anyone hear of koro or shrinking penis syndrome ? Check it out. I'm just a fund of trivial knowledge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koro_(medicine)

I haz that. Mine's secondary to age related increase in suprapubic fat ;P

OK - this thread was degenerating into - Religious, political, and other “prone to huge arguments” , which is against the Rules and undesirable anyway.

To say that ones circumcision was carried out for religious reasons, and similar comments, is fine.

What is not fine is the invocation or condemnation of deities, and discussions along racial lines.

Several posts have been removed.

BigK - Moderator

The only time the word circumcision was uttered during a doctor's appointment was when I was seeing a urologist about a minor case of BXO I was experiencing - and even then it was only mentioned in passing as a last resort. Fortunately it cleared up eventually! I would really have hated to have lost my foreskin - best part of my entire penis IMHO.

I am officially Dutch, but I was born in Houston, Texas in 1976 and hold dual citizenship. Being that my parents were both born and raised in Europe, they elected to leave me uncircumcised. The only people there who are routinely circumcised are Jewish, which we are not. I am personally very happy that they left uncut because the intensity I feel during sex is amazing.

I have never had any doctor recommend that I undergo surgery and become circumcised. My current urologist always tests the elasticity of my foreskin as a routine part at the beginning of every exam by fully retracting it and she has always been satisfied with what she sees.

At the age of 12 my mother took me to the doctor to have my "tip snipped" (her words - "it is just the pink colored wrinkly skin that the doctor needs to cut off). Sounded painful but she assured me that the pain would be brief and it needed to be cut off so that my foreskin could be slid back to permanently expose my glans. On the exam table the doctor inspected my foreskin and concluded that my foreskin needed stretching. The doctor inserted a hemostat into the tip of my foreskin and opened it. OUCH!!!!! Some injections of a nerve block were necessary. OUCH!!!! again. Finally my foreskin and penis was numb so the doctor re-inserted the hemostat, opened it WIDE (3 times the diameter of my penis) and slowly pulled the hemostat out until my foreskin slid off. The doctor repeated the procedure several times. I was bleeding. Finally he felt my foreskin was loose and slid it back to totally expose my glans. The doctor bandage my foreskin in the retracted position and sent me home with an explanation to my mother that I needed to return in two weeks. If my foreskin was permanently retracted, no further procedures were required. If my foreskin slid forward covering my glans, my foreskin would need to be circumcised. Two days later at home my mother removed the bandage. My foreskin slid forward covering my glans. My mother commented "keep your foreskin retracted so that adhesions would not form". I agreed but it was very uncomfortable with my glans rubbing against my underwear so I slid it forward when she was not looking. Two weeks later she asked me if my foreskin was retracted and if I needed to return to the doctor. Not wanting to endure any more procedures on my foreskin, I told her that my "foreskin was retracted and that my glans was fully exposed." (Actually my foreskin had re-tightened making it difficult to retract). Threw out my teen years I was required to have annual physical exams that involved examination of my penis and retraction of my foreskin. I was always fearful that my foreskin would require being circumcised. Fortunately, nothing was said about circumcision.

At the age of 31, I worked for a large industrial company that had their own in-house doctor. I received a call from the nurse that the doctor needed to see me. It was time for my annual physical exam. I was familiar with the routine. "Drop your drawers". The doctor thoroughly examined me for a hernia, palpated my testicles, palpated my penis shaft, retracted my foreskin, and spread the lips of my meatus slit opening. The doctor commented that my foreskin needed to circumcised as it was somewhat tight. He would do it for free as I was a company employee and would sign for a week off of paid sick time. I was reluctant. He assured me that it was best to do it now so that I would not get an infection. He told me that I would have problems later on If I did not have my foreskin removed. I told him that I would give it some thought. I pulled up my pants and got out of there as fast as I could. When my next physical came, I refused to participate.

I am uncircumcised as well as my two sons. Our family doctor has never made a suggestion of circumcision for any of us - she only stressed the importance of keeping the glans under the skin clean.

Early 30s, uncircumcised, from USA here. The only time it's been mentioned was the most recent time I was at the doctor's office, late last year. Went in for a checkup + STD tests since I had just gotten out of a relationship and was about to start dating a new woman. My doctor is an American woman, early-mid 40s. She asked if I had any trouble retracting the foreskin or pain during intercourse (answer: no). She also asked me if I was aware of the recent research showing that circumcision provided some level of protection against HIV, and gave me a printout from the CDC about it. I asked if they were recommending it now, and she said it's not that simple. That if I were a smoker, she would "absolutely recommend" that I stop smoking, full stop. But, whether to recommend circumcision rests on a lot of personal factors - whether I'm having sex with multiple women, not using condoms, etc. If I am, then yes, it's recommended. If not, it can range from "possibly a good idea" to "probably not necessary". She told me to read the sheet, think about my personal risk factors, and we'd discuss it the next time I was there.

Hello Panda Man, I have an interest in seeing the sheet from the CDC recommending circumcision. Can I find this online? email a copy to me?

Here's the CDC recommendation.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjNv-bFtbHKAhUK12MKHUAYA3AQFggOMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fhiv%2Fpdf%2Fprevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEjcP4gFMMjrNpkUIV8M3EQymFdIw&sig2=G0QSVWl0KbnRfm1uVPfLEA

Here's a summary

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjNv-bFtbHKAhUK12MKHUAYA3AQFggKMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.m.webmd.com%2Fa-to-z-guides%2Fnews%2F20141202%2Fcdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons&usg=AFQjCNHeu794hekZYSjSV5OhITt9CYE0PQ&sig2=6tiGpOnpqsCL2IBAKrNhag

Hello liquidsky, Thank you for the CDC recommendations.

Actually it was a different document - the PDF that is linked here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-0003