Should we routinely circumcize

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Sherlock Holmes

Should we routinely circumcize

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.

Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned? is there any credible science based justification for what is - to all intents and purposes - genital mutilation?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Mar 20, 2022 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #11

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 am If the foreskin is significant to anyone's sexual pleasure, I'm pretty sure they're doing it wrong.
How sure are you? Like many male participants here you are likely a victim of this mutilation and naturally cannot be expected to know what something feels like when you don't have that thing.

Besides how about staying on topic?

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #12

Post by Gracchus »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #10]

If you wear shoes, your feet are more sensitive when you go barefoot. Is it surprising that the glans, protected from friction by the foreskin would be more sensitive? :-?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #13

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 am If the foreskin is significant to anyone's sexual pleasure, I'm pretty sure they're doing it wrong.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:51 am How sure are you?
From about 60 years of experience. And being a biologist, I'm aware that the vast majority of sexual function is between the ears. From a neurological standpoint, the most erogenously sensitive part for a male is the frenulum, on the underside, just behind the glans penis. Is for me, and apparently, that's pretty much the way it is for all men.
Like many male participants here you are likely a victim of this mutilation and naturally cannot be expected to know what something feels like when you don't have that thing.


I can only say that I'm more than pleased by the way it works, and given the neuroscience of male genitalia, there's no reason to imagine that there's much of a functional role for foreskin. Not that it's all that big a deal, if one pays attention to cleanliness, but maybe there's an aesthetic deal for some guys, or even a psychological issue. Hard to say. The other issue is that much of what you perceive to be feeling in the penis, is actually referred response from the prostate and seminal vesicles, during orgasm.

I once had epididymitis, for which the doc had to push on my prostate to get a sample, (which is also therapeutic, relieving the pressure on the plumbing) and I was surprised to note a feeling of constriction around the head of the penis.
Besides how about staying on topic?
I think these are relevant considerations. There's nothing really wrong with not circumcising. But loss of function just isn't one of the drawbacks. There is some reduction in risk of penile cancer for circumcised men, but mostly for those with phimosis (inability to retract foreskin).

Results
We identified eight papers which evaluated the association of circumcision with penile cancer, of which seven were case–control studies. There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13–0.83; 3 studies). In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis.

In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer (summary OR = 2.71; 95% CI 0.93–7.94; 3 studies). There was little evidence for an association of penile intra-epithelial neoplasia and in situ penile cancer with circumcision performed at any age.

Conclusions
Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139859/

I have to say, I had no idea that there even was such a thing as bris envy.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #14

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:53 am
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 am If the foreskin is significant to anyone's sexual pleasure, I'm pretty sure they're doing it wrong.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:51 am How sure are you?
From about 60 years of experience. And being a biologist, I'm aware that the vast majority of sexual function is between the ears. From a neurological standpoint, the most erogenously sensitive part for a male is the frenulum, on the underside, just behind the glans penis. Is for me, and apparently, that's pretty much the way it is for all men.
Like many male participants here you are likely a victim of this mutilation and naturally cannot be expected to know what something feels like when you don't have that thing.


I can only say that I'm more than pleased by the way it works, and given the neuroscience of male genitalia, there's no reason to imagine that there's much of a functional role for foreskin.
Not having one means you'd not notice what role it serves.

The Importance of the Foreskin to Male Sexual Reflexes
The authors propose that the foreskin is the primary sensory tissue of the penis and that the foreskin’s ridged band is built to trigger ejaculation as part of a functional whole that also includes the frenulum, glans, and urethra. The study evolved from research which demonstrated specialized nerve end-organs in the ridged band, and from pre-tests showing that intact subjects are more likely than circumcised subjects to experience reflexes triggered by traction on penile skin, namely, erection of the penis and contraction of the bulbocavernosal muscle. The authors then developed a website which describes the foreskin’s anatomy and function and asks intact males whether, in their opinion, the foreskin and its ridged band play an important role in sexual intercourse. The overwhelming majority has firmly agreed, and, for every nine who found the foreskin more important than the glans to sexual intercourse, only five found the glans more important.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:53 am Not that it's all that big a deal, if one pays attention to cleanliness, but maybe there's an aesthetic deal for some guys, or even a psychological issue. Hard to say. The other issue is that much of what you perceive to be feeling in the penis, is actually referred response from the prostate and seminal vesicles, during orgasm.

I once had epididymitis, for which the doc had to push on my prostate to get a sample, (which is also therapeutic, relieving the pressure on the plumbing) and I was surprised to note a feeling of constriction around the head of the penis.
Besides how about staying on topic?
I think these are relevant considerations. There's nothing really wrong with not circumcising. But loss of function just isn't one of the drawbacks. There is some reduction in risk of penile cancer for circumcised men, but mostly for those with phimosis (inability to retract foreskin).

Results
We identified eight papers which evaluated the association of circumcision with penile cancer, of which seven were case–control studies. There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13–0.83; 3 studies). In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis.

In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer (summary OR = 2.71; 95% CI 0.93–7.94; 3 studies). There was little evidence for an association of penile intra-epithelial neoplasia and in situ penile cancer with circumcision performed at any age.

Conclusions
Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139859/

I have to say, I had no idea that there even was such a thing as bris envy.
What would be a medical reason for male circumcision?
The only undisputed medical reasons for circumcision are a tight foreskin that can’t be pulled back, and recurrent foreskin infections.

When the foreskin is too tight to be pulled back over the head of the penis (phimosis) it can sometimes cause pain when the penis is erect. In rare cases, passing urine might be difficult and immediate treatment may be required. Contact your GP if you’re concerned.
Phimosis is normal in babies and toddlers for the first two to six years. By the age of about two, the foreskin should start to separate naturally from the penis. Sometimes it takes longer but this isn’t usually a sign of a problem, it will detach later on. Never try to force your child’s foreskin back as it might be painful or cause damage.
Recurrent infection in the penis (balanitis) is when the foreskin and head of the penis become inflamed and infected. It's not usually serious but you should see your GP if you think your son has it.
These conditions can often be treated successfully with non-surgical treatments, which will often be tried first before circumcision is considered.

In rare cases the following conditions might require circumcision:

Paraphimosis – where the foreskin can't be returned to its original position after being pulled back. This causes the head of the penis to become swollen and painful. Immediate treatment is needed to avoid serious complications, such as restricted blood flow to the penis. Contact your GP if you’re concerned.
Balanitis xerotica obliterans – a condition that causes phimosis and, in some cases, also affects the head of the penis, which can become scarred and inflamed.
Repeated urinary tract infections (UTIs) – in very rare cases, circumcision may be recommended as a last resort treatment if a boy has repeated UTIs.
No veterinary services to my knowledge recommend circumcision for pets or farm animals, rather odd given the huge "benefit" some people believe it delivers and to think such a hinderance evolved too, who'd a thought!

Anyway its clear you advocate genital mutilation of children, that's all I wanted to establish.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #15

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 am If the foreskin is significant to anyone's sexual pleasure, I'm pretty sure they're doing it wrong.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:51 am How sure are you?
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:53 am From about 60 years of experience. And being a biologist, I'm aware that the vast majority of sexual function is between the ears. From a neurological standpoint, the most erogenously sensitive part for a male is the frenulum, on the underside, just behind the glans penis. Is for me, and apparently, that's pretty much the way it is for all men.
Like many male participants here you are likely a victim of this mutilation and naturally cannot be expected to know what something feels like when you don't have that thing.


I can only say that I'm more than pleased by the way it works, and given the neuroscience of male genitalia, there's no reason to imagine that there's much of a functional role for foreskin.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:10 pm Not having one means you'd not notice what role it serves.
After five offspring and a rather satisfying sex life, I'm pretty sure there's a reason I didn't miss it.
The authors propose that the foreskin is the primary sensory tissue of the penis
As you just learned, they are wrong. It's the frenulum that is the primary trigger.

The frenulum is located on the underside of the glans (or head) of the penis. It is a V-shaped band of skin that helps the foreskin comfortably contract over the head of the penis for mobility. It isn’t the only frenulum on our body, either—we actually have a few. The others are located under your tongue and underneath your upper lip. People with vulvas have frenula in their genitals as well.

Though relatively small, the frenulum is the most sensitive and sexually responsive part of the penis, followed by the glans, the shaft, and the scrotum. “The frenulum is where a ton of sensory nerve terminals end, so all those nerves in a small area is very important to sexual satisfaction, but it’s also the reason it’s so sensitive,” urologist Justin Houman, M.D., tells TheBody.

Given its sensitivity, be careful when stimulating the frenulum. Some recommend you use the same care and tenderness you would a clitoris. In fact, the frenulum-based orgasm is often compared to a clitoral orgasm, as both contain ultra-sensitive Pacinian receptors, which work to detect pressure changes and vibrations in the skin.

https://www.thebody.com/article/compreh ... ulum-penis

In fact, there is data regarding sexual function before and after circumcision. It's not what you seem to think it is:

Others used to believe that circumcision is an answer to premature ejaculation. It has long been thought that this theory is true, but today they know with confidence that there is no certain relationship between circumcision and early ejaculation.

So, is there any answer for men who are facing the difficulty of premature ejaculation? Some men, who have early ejaculation problems, can learn to manage their ejaculation, but they need knowledge, determination, and practice with their partner.

What Do Studies Have to Say?
A study done in 2005 showed that the time needed to ejaculate was equal in both cases: before and after the circumcision was done.

https://www.drmalpani.com/knowledge-cen ... jaculation

So, the data clearly shows no such differences.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:53 am Not that it's all that big a deal, if one pays attention to cleanliness, but maybe there's an aesthetic deal for some guys, or even a psychological issue. Hard to say. The other issue is that much of what you perceive to be feeling in the penis, is actually referred response from the prostate and seminal vesicles, during orgasm.

I once had epididymitis, for which the doc had to push on my prostate to get a sample, (which is also therapeutic, relieving the pressure on the plumbing) and I was surprised to note a feeling of constriction around the head of the penis.

I think these are relevant considerations. There's nothing really wrong with not circumcising. But loss of function just isn't one of the drawbacks. There is some reduction in risk of penile cancer for circumcised men, but mostly for those with phimosis (inability to retract foreskin).

Results
We identified eight papers which evaluated the association of circumcision with penile cancer, of which seven were case–control studies. There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13–0.83; 3 studies). In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis.

In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer (summary OR = 2.71; 95% CI 0.93–7.94; 3 studies). There was little evidence for an association of penile intra-epithelial neoplasia and in situ penile cancer with circumcision performed at any age.

Conclusions
Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139859/

I have to say, I had no idea that there even was such a thing as bris envy.
No veterinary services to my knowledge recommend circumcision for pets or farm animals, rather odd given the huge "benefit" some people believe it delivers
Actually, phimosis is a relatively common problem with stallions. So yes, that's an issue. The major health issue for humans, as you just learned, is an increased risk of cancer for uncircumcised men. To repeat myself; Not that it's all that big a deal, if one pays attention to cleanliness, but maybe there's an aesthetic deal for some guys, or even a psychological issue. Hard to say. The other issue is that much of what you perceive to be feeling in the penis, is actually referred response from the prostate and seminal vesicles, during orgasm. There's nothing really wrong with not circumcising. But loss of function just isn't one of the drawbacks. There is some reduction in risk of penile cancer for circumcised men, but mostly for those with phimosis (inability to retract foreskin).
Anyway its clear you advocate genital mutilation of children,
Actually, I don't. See above. I was asked about that for my first grandson, and I said that given adequate hygiene, there was really no medical reason to go either way. His parents chose not to, I think.
that's all I wanted to establish.
You've established something here; I don't know if it was something you would have liked to establish, however.
and to think such a hinderance evolved too, who'd a thought!
Like lower back pain, knee problems, impacted wisdom teeth, etc. If we were designed, that kind of thing wouldn't exist. But since we evolved from quadrupedal animals with large jaws and faces, (and relatively small penises), such things do evolve. Evolution isn't perfect; it just goes with the best of the available alleles.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #16

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:52 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:43 am If the foreskin is significant to anyone's sexual pleasure, I'm pretty sure they're doing it wrong.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:51 am How sure are you?
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:53 am From about 60 years of experience. And being a biologist, I'm aware that the vast majority of sexual function is between the ears. From a neurological standpoint, the most erogenously sensitive part for a male is the frenulum, on the underside, just behind the glans penis. Is for me, and apparently, that's pretty much the way it is for all men.
Like many male participants here you are likely a victim of this mutilation and naturally cannot be expected to know what something feels like when you don't have that thing.


I can only say that I'm more than pleased by the way it works, and given the neuroscience of male genitalia, there's no reason to imagine that there's much of a functional role for foreskin.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:10 pm Not having one means you'd not notice what role it serves.
After five offspring and a rather satisfying sex life, I'm pretty sure there's a reason I didn't miss it.
The authors propose that the foreskin is the primary sensory tissue of the penis
As you just learned, they are wrong. It's the frenulum that is the primary trigger.

The frenulum is located on the underside of the glans (or head) of the penis. It is a V-shaped band of skin that helps the foreskin comfortably contract over the head of the penis for mobility. It isn’t the only frenulum on our body, either—we actually have a few. The others are located under your tongue and underneath your upper lip. People with vulvas have frenula in their genitals as well.

Though relatively small, the frenulum is the most sensitive and sexually responsive part of the penis, followed by the glans, the shaft, and the scrotum. “The frenulum is where a ton of sensory nerve terminals end, so all those nerves in a small area is very important to sexual satisfaction, but it’s also the reason it’s so sensitive,” urologist Justin Houman, M.D., tells TheBody.

Given its sensitivity, be careful when stimulating the frenulum. Some recommend you use the same care and tenderness you would a clitoris. In fact, the frenulum-based orgasm is often compared to a clitoral orgasm, as both contain ultra-sensitive Pacinian receptors, which work to detect pressure changes and vibrations in the skin.

https://www.thebody.com/article/compreh ... ulum-penis

In fact, there is data regarding sexual function before and after circumcision. It's not what you seem to think it is:

Others used to believe that circumcision is an answer to premature ejaculation. It has long been thought that this theory is true, but today they know with confidence that there is no certain relationship between circumcision and early ejaculation.

So, is there any answer for men who are facing the difficulty of premature ejaculation? Some men, who have early ejaculation problems, can learn to manage their ejaculation, but they need knowledge, determination, and practice with their partner.

What Do Studies Have to Say?
A study done in 2005 showed that the time needed to ejaculate was equal in both cases: before and after the circumcision was done.

https://www.drmalpani.com/knowledge-cen ... jaculation

So, the data clearly shows no such differences.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 11:53 am Not that it's all that big a deal, if one pays attention to cleanliness, but maybe there's an aesthetic deal for some guys, or even a psychological issue. Hard to say. The other issue is that much of what you perceive to be feeling in the penis, is actually referred response from the prostate and seminal vesicles, during orgasm.

I once had epididymitis, for which the doc had to push on my prostate to get a sample, (which is also therapeutic, relieving the pressure on the plumbing) and I was surprised to note a feeling of constriction around the head of the penis.

I think these are relevant considerations. There's nothing really wrong with not circumcising. But loss of function just isn't one of the drawbacks. There is some reduction in risk of penile cancer for circumcised men, but mostly for those with phimosis (inability to retract foreskin).

Results
We identified eight papers which evaluated the association of circumcision with penile cancer, of which seven were case–control studies. There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.13–0.83; 3 studies). In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis.

In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer (summary OR = 2.71; 95% CI 0.93–7.94; 3 studies). There was little evidence for an association of penile intra-epithelial neoplasia and in situ penile cancer with circumcision performed at any age.

Conclusions
Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139859/

I have to say, I had no idea that there even was such a thing as bris envy.
No veterinary services to my knowledge recommend circumcision for pets or farm animals, rather odd given the huge "benefit" some people believe it delivers
Actually, phimosis is a relatively common problem with stallions. So yes, that's an issue. The major health issue for humans, as you just learned, is an increased risk of cancer for uncircumcised men. To repeat myself; Not that it's all that big a deal, if one pays attention to cleanliness, but maybe there's an aesthetic deal for some guys, or even a psychological issue. Hard to say. The other issue is that much of what you perceive to be feeling in the penis, is actually referred response from the prostate and seminal vesicles, during orgasm. There's nothing really wrong with not circumcising. But loss of function just isn't one of the drawbacks. There is some reduction in risk of penile cancer for circumcised men, but mostly for those with phimosis (inability to retract foreskin).
Anyway its clear you advocate genital mutilation of children,
Actually, I don't. See above. I was asked about that for my first grandson, and I said that given adequate hygiene, there was really no medical reason to go either way. His parents chose not to, I think.
that's all I wanted to establish.
You've established something here; I don't know if it was something you would have liked to establish, however.
and to think such a hinderance evolved too, who'd a thought!
Like lower back pain, knee problems, impacted wisdom teeth, etc. If we were designed, that kind of thing wouldn't exist. But since we evolved from quadrupedal animals with large jaws and faces, (and relatively small penises), such things do evolve. Evolution isn't perfect; it just goes with the best of the available alleles.
No health authority in the developed world (other than some found in the US) routinely recommends brutal surgery on children that are not sick, it is simply child abuse, mutilation and just as the eugenicists did decades ago, some people today defend the barbarity, actually unable to see it for what it is.

So, here's a few more facts for ya:
  • Originally, the goal of circumcision was to desensitize the penis to curb masturbation. Dr. Kellogg, inventor of the corn flakes, was a major promoter of the procedure.
  • The foreskin, similar in sensitivity to a clitoris, is a highly erogenous, functioning part of the male anatomy. It's purpose is to protect the glans, or the head of the penis from abrasions and to keep dirt and bacteria from the urinary tract.
  • The average adult foreskin consists of 1½ inches of outer skin, 1½ inches of inner mucosal lining – totaling a length of 3 inches – and is 5 inches in circumference when erect. This amounts to a surface area of 15 square inches, or a surface area equivalent to that of a 3" by 5" inch index card.
  • Circumcision is not routinely practiced in most countries. In fact, The United States is the ONLY country where circumcision is done routinely for non-religious reasons. Aside from being a Muslim and Jewish cultural practice, it is a very American practice.
  • After reviewing 40 years of research, it has been determined by the American Academy of Pediatrics that routine infant circumcision cannot be recommended. In fact, no professional medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision, nor do they state it is medically necessary.
  • When the foreskin is removed, the head of the penis can develop a thick layer of skin to protect it, making it much less sensitive. As a result, circumcised men are 3 times more likely to have issues with erectile dysfunction.
  • Circumcision can reduce a baby's risk of getting an urinary tract infection (UTI) by 1%. In other words, in order to prevent 1 UTI, 100 circumcisions would need to be performed.
  • It has been claimed that circumcision can reduce one's risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. The United States has one of the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS, yet we are the only country that routinely circumcises male babies.
  • A foreskin doesn't separate from the head of the penis until adolescence, sometime between 3 and 15 years of age. Until this separation occurs, you only need to clean the outside of the penis. You clean it just as you would any other part of your body. In fact, a newly circumcised penis, which has an open wound, may be more difficult to clean and care for during diapering.
  • 117 babies die each year as a result of circumcision complications.
  • The foreskin and penis is a highly vascularized area that contains a significant amount of blood flow. A newborn only has a total of 11.5 ounces of blood. That's just shy of a cup-and-a-half. A newborn only needs to lose 1 ounce to hemorrhage, and 2.3 ounces, which is a the amount in a shot glass, to bleed to death. You can read more about it here from DrMomma.org.
  • According to the CDC, circumcision rates have fallen to 55.4% in the United States.
  • A Mohel, a person specially trained in circumcision techniques, can perform the circumcision, even on non-Jews. It has been argued the Mohels perform the procedure more quickly and gently than in clinical settings.
  • Cortisol levels, a stress hormone, are 3-4 times higher during circumcision than prior to the procedure, which can contribute to post-op breastfeeding challenges. It is also thought that the pain and trauma from undergoing circumcision may impact the child's response to pain or stress throughout their life.
  • Canadian investigators report that during vaccinations at age 4-6 months, circumcised boys had an increased behavioral pain response and cried for significantly longer periods than did intact boys. For more information about this click here.
  • Foreskins are harvested to make high-end face creams and are often used for cosmetic testing to determine a product's safety.
  • Anti-circumcision activists are referred to as intactivists.
From here.

You and other circumcised adults are the least relevant to this discussion since you don't have a foreskin you cannot speak personally as to its utility or significance.

If you'd had your legs amputated at birth I doubt your opinions on performing ballet would attract much of an audience.

This is amazing really, all the so called "scientists" insisting this is a great idea and ignoring the vast bulk of worldwide scientific medical opinions !

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #17

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm No health authority in the developed world (other than some found in the US) routinely recommends brutal surgery on children that are not sick, it is simply child abuse, mutilation and just as the eugenicists did decades ago
Yes, creationists like Dr. Wm Tinkle (co-founder of the Institute for Creation Research) advocated sterilizing "defectives." But unlike circumcision, that mutilation destroyed a biological function. As you just learned, circumcision has little effect on anything.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm So, here's a few more facts for ya:
  • Originally, the goal of circumcision was to desensitize the penis to curb masturbation. Dr. Kellogg, inventor of the corn flakes, was a major promoter of the procedure.
And here God thought it was necessary for His people to be among the chosen.
Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

But you've set Him straight; it's a brutal mutilation.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm When the foreskin is removed, the head of the penis can develop a thick layer of skin to protect it, making it much less sensitive. As a result, circumcised men are 3 times more likely to have issues with erectile dysfunction.
I just showed you actual medical research showing otherwise. Would you like to see it again? In fact, adult males who are circumcises as adults in an attempt to reduce premature ejaculation, don't show any improvement. So much for that story.
  • Circumcision can reduce a baby's risk of getting an urinary tract infection (UTI) by 1%. In other words, in order to prevent 1 UTI, 100 circumcisions would need to be performed.
I thought you said logic was your thing. That's not what that statistic says. But small reductions in infections and cancer in circumcised males aren't really the point.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm You and other circumcised adults are the least relevant to this discussion since you don't have a foreskin you cannot speak personally as to its utility or significance.
As you just learned, I know more about the issue than you do. You see, there is data. And it doesn't fit your assumptions.
This is amazing really, all the so called "scientists" insisting this is a great idea and ignoring the vast bulk of worldwide scientific medical opinions !
I didn't hear anyone here saying circumcision was a great idea. Perhaps, as I suggested, there's some emotional baggage that could lead one or more of us into falsely attributing such opinions to others. It's kinda weird to be fixated on such a thing.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #18

Post by The Barbarian »

Asian J Androl. 2013 Sep; 15(5): 662–666.
Published online 2013 Jun 10. doi: 10.1038/aja.2013.47
PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.


This might be useful for you:
https://veryhealthy.life/11-not-so-know ... nction/12/

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #19

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:21 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm No health authority in the developed world (other than some found in the US) routinely recommends brutal surgery on children that are not sick, it is simply child abuse, mutilation and just as the eugenicists did decades ago
Yes, creationists like Dr. Wm Tinkle (co-founder of the Institute for Creation Research) advocated sterilizing "defectives." But unlike circumcision, that mutilation destroyed a biological function. As you just learned, circumcision has little effect on anything.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm So, here's a few more facts for ya:
  • Originally, the goal of circumcision was to desensitize the penis to curb masturbation. Dr. Kellogg, inventor of the corn flakes, was a major promoter of the procedure.
And here God thought it was necessary for His people to be among the chosen.
Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

But you've set Him straight; it's a brutal mutilation.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm When the foreskin is removed, the head of the penis can develop a thick layer of skin to protect it, making it much less sensitive. As a result, circumcised men are 3 times more likely to have issues with erectile dysfunction.
I just showed you actual medical research showing otherwise. Would you like to see it again? In fact, adult males who are circumcises as adults in an attempt to reduce premature ejaculation, don't show any improvement. So much for that story.
  • Circumcision can reduce a baby's risk of getting an urinary tract infection (UTI) by 1%. In other words, in order to prevent 1 UTI, 100 circumcisions would need to be performed.
I thought you said logic was your thing. That's not what that statistic says. But small reductions in infections and cancer in circumcised males aren't really the point.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:36 pm You and other circumcised adults are the least relevant to this discussion since you don't have a foreskin you cannot speak personally as to its utility or significance.
As you just learned, I know more about the issue than you do. You see, there is data. And it doesn't fit your assumptions.
This is amazing really, all the so called "scientists" insisting this is a great idea and ignoring the vast bulk of worldwide scientific medical opinions !
I didn't hear anyone here saying circumcision was a great idea. Perhaps, as I suggested, there's some emotional baggage that could lead one or more of us into falsely attributing such opinions to others. It's kinda weird to be fixated on such a thing.
Well the data suggest that it's primarily a US specific cruelty, no developed country entertains the idea and would likely refuse to perform surgery on a child that is not unwell, it is pretty much "My dad did it to me so I'll do it to my son".

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Should we routinely circumcize

Post #20

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:46 am Asian J Androl. 2013 Sep; 15(5): 662–666.
Published online 2013 Jun 10. doi: 10.1038/aja.2013.47
PMCID: PMC3881635
PMID: 23749001
Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
This meta-analysis was performed to assess sexual functions following adult male circumcision. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science from their inception until January 2013 to identify all eligible studies that reported on men's sexual function after circumcision. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.2 software was employed for data analysis, and the fixed or the random effect model was selected depending on the proportion of heterogeneity. We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.


This might be useful for you:
https://veryhealthy.life/11-not-so-know ... nction/12/
We could do this all day, I can find just as many published studies countering this as you can supporting it.

There's no shortage of opinions - even in science, never heard of lies, damn lies and statistics? as an evolution devotee you simply must have come across this adage.

The very suggestion that an evolved organ that appears widely across the animal kingdom and reflects adaptation to the environment, is actually detrimental to humans and must be cut off because we know better - just flies in the face of everything people claim about evolution.

If there was any real disadvantage to having a foreskin then natural selection would have eliminated it over time - it hasn't though! No doubt I'll get a predictable lecture to "justify" this exception, as is always the case when one points out the logical contradictions in evolutionism, either that or I'll be dismissed out of hand because I don't "understand" another common escape tactic.

Post Reply