Besides, it looks neater and more organized anyway. :D

I have a friend who didn’t choose to have any of her three boys circumcised, citing it as “unnecssary” and that with proper teaching of hygiene, they would be fine.  Yeah, that cleanliness thing.  See, she wasn’t a very “clean” person and her boys have gone through several infections because they are now old enough to not have mom standing over them to make sure they “do it right.”

There are also studies that show that women whose partner has been circumcised are less likely to have ovarian, cervical and uterine type cancers.

Now back to the asthetics....

Ummm, the spam control word:  firm.

It ain’t just aesthetics of HIV, mon. The skin in there breaks easily and can be an easy entry point for other pathogens---the whole slew of which would make this post family unfriendly, ya?---plus a lot of folks who can’t be counted on personal sanitation above the waist would have a definite disaster down there, as Rae points out.

While it the procedure is all that and more, I would go on record that a young man be given the choice a little before puberty hits, instead of having the choice taken away from him by his parents.

I actually don’t have a cliched dog in this proverbial fight--whatever snipping my li’l feller underwent happened a long time ago, and I don’t have any kids, so I’m not considering it for anyone else.

I confess, though, that the level of anger over circumcision from some quarters sort of baffled me. It just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal--and, no, I don’t think it compares much to female genital mutilation.

Not that I want to get into a big, nasty argument on the subject…

Yeah, this is one of the big, ugly fights.  I almost hope we’re having a boy so I can enjoy the comment thread that’s bound to happen when this subject comes up.

Ahem.

I think I’d rather argue over Best Ever Flavor of Ice Cream.

Ben and Jerry’s Mint Chocolate Cookie, of course.

Chocolate chip cookie dough. And I hate to admit it, but the best of that I’ve ever had was indeed Ben & Jerry’s. Apparentl dioxin improves the taste.

You know, I can’t disagree with you there.  I recently had that for the first time and it totally holds the best flavor ever award.

Not much of an argument, but even I can’t argue with that kind of truth.

Yup, that’s the best cookie dough ice cream, for sure.

Anyone see the episode of Bullshit! on circumcision? I was totally convinced that the only reason to do it was so my son would look like me, but this really confuses the issue.

Yikes!  McGehee snuck in a post while I was still typing.

I’m voting for the Mint Chocolate Cookie, of course.

Ben & Jerry’s is my secret shame.

Anybody ever had the Hershey’s Cookies & Mint bars? They were around a few years ago, stopped, and then back again this past Christmas season, so I got about a dozen and put them in the freezer ...

Hershey’s Cookies & Mint bars

Oooooooooh, I remember those! Christmas, huh? If I remember I’ll have to look out for them.

Mint chocolate cookie ice cream is okay, I guess, but there are about a million varieties of mint in ice cream and I prefer to stick with the classic: mint chocolate chip.

One I miss from years back is Crystal® brand Tin Roof Sundae. But since Crystal is a Sacramento company I don’t expect to find it here, even if they do still produce that flavor.

I told myself I wasn’t going to weigh in, but what the heck?

If it is so important for a male to be circumcised, why not wait until he is 12-13 and can decide for himself?

It’s quite possible (and even likely) that the removal of protective skin on a sensitive point results in desensitivity.  Not quite the same as a clitorectomy, no…

...but has anyone ever done a study as to whether clitorectomies reduce STDs and UTIs?  If they did, would that be an argument for clitorectomies?  Of course not.

I chose not to have my son circumcised.  5.5 years old now.  Infections to date: 0.

Actually, if it reduced HIV infection rates by 70%, it might be a good argument. That is not an insignificant figure--especially in those African nations where infection rates run as high as they do. Since male circumcision doesn’t destroy all the functions of the penis and leaves the circumcised still happily performing, the trade doesn’t seem as severe as it would with a clitorectomy.

If that figure is accurate, then there is a potential, and significant, health benefit that should be considered in weighing the option as to whether a person should or should not be circumcised. It may not be definitive, it certainly isn’t enough to say that circumcision should be mandated for all free range penises, and there is much to agree with in the “let them make their own decision” comment. But is it an argument, if accurate, in support of circumcision? Absolutely.

Put it this way: if I had not undergone the procedure as an infant and I was faced with this information, I would choose to go get myself clipped today. A 70% reduction in the chance that I will become infected with HIV is worth that bit of snipping to me.

And here I thought we were talking about ice cream…

Mmm. Chubby Hubby.

...because we were, you know.

Happily performing?  How do you know?  If your sensation was reduced by, say, 50%...how would you even know what had been taken away from you without your ever knowing it?  (Which is the ONLY similiarity to a clitorectomy, I hasten to emphasize).  That’s the crux of the issue.

Plus: 70% difference in HIV infection?  Is that with or without consistent condom use?  Heterosexual or homosexual activities?  Does the orifice being used (the gentles way I can put it, sorry...) make a difference?  How about level of promiscuity?

Since I’ve been a serial monogamist in committed relationships and consistent use of condoms until a year (or more) into the sexual relationship, I can’t say that the 70% number would cause me to choose the snip.  Then again, maybe it would.  But the point is, I was never given the chance.  Yes, that does upset me somewhat.  It used to upset me quite a bit more in the past.

The article says it’s a reduced risk for sex with an infected woman. Don’t know if they calculated for condom use or promiscuity, but it sounds like it was 3000 random men tested, so we can assume that some were promiscuous, some weren’t, some used condoms, etc.

Doesn’t change the fact that letting your son decide when he’s twelve or so (before he’s sexually active) sounds like a fine idea.

Full-Frontal Disclosure:
I had briefly looked into the “renewal” process that Mr. Esmay mentions.  Uh, no thanks.  And I’ve wondered if I made a mistake with not circumcising my son and considered going ahead and having it done when he was 2 (but held off).  So I’m hardly a die-hard “You ruined my sex-life” activist.

And sure, I couldn’t be bothered to actually read the article.  Or even merely comprehend the snippet (heh.) ZB included in his post.  Sue me. [grin]

Wasn’t the 70% reduction for female to male transmission? This might serve people in countries where the higher rate sof transmission are between heteroseuxals. However, in countries such the US I think the rate of HIV infections would likely be higher among uh, “passive” gay men regardless of whether or not they were circumcised.

So, there are sexually active, uncircumcised men who then chose to be circumcised and report a loss of sensation?

Should I read the article to understand what you are referring to Nathan?  Or is this a presumption because I can’t help but wonder how much of this is in their...umm, well, I was going to use a word here but then realized that you, the Great Punny Man, would run with it, so, let me attempt that one again:  I can’t help but wonder how much of this ("loss of sensation") is in their imagination. 

And I would really like to see the number of 12-13 year-old boys that say, “Yeah, uhh, I was wanting to be circumcised, Dad.” It’s not the same as a girl getting her ears pierced for her 13th birthday.

This ain’t gonna make that much difference in America, anyway, since almost everyone is circumcised. Now that I think of it, could this be why HIV is a homosexual disease here but much more widespread elsewhere? 70% is quite a (ahem) cut in transmission rates.

Rae - It’s not just reported loss, it’s also predicted loss. There are lots of nerves and blood vessels in the foreskin.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a man who was circumcised while he was sexually active actually describe the difference, but it would be interesting.

Matt: Now that I think of it, could this be why HIV is a homosexual disease here but much more widespread elsewhere? 70% is quite a (ahem) cut in transmission rates.

Good point.

What is lost:

1. The foreskin comprises roughly 50% (and sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches - the size of a three-by-five index card. This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (also called keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds.

2. The foreskin’s gliding action is a hallmark feature of the normal, natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of its own shaft skin facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, making artificial lubricants necessary for comfortable intercourse.

3. Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture.

4. The frenulum is a highly erogenous V-shaped structure on the underside of the glans that tethers the foreskin. During circumcision it is frequently either amputated with the foreskin or severed, which destroys or diminishes its sexual and physiological functions.

5. The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.

6. The sebaceous glands may lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, which is normally a protected internal organ. Not all men have sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin.

7. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, are removed in circumcision. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.

8. The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision. If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be almost completely without sensation.

9. Every year some boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infections. They are then “sexually reassigned” by castration and transgender surgery, and are expected to live their lives as females.

Nice job, Patrick!  That exceeds my own research.

Rae,
It’s actually the reverse: men who were circumcised in infancy go through the painful/uncomfortable process of reconstruction, and most/all report greatly increased sensation after the completion of the artificial regrowth.  Which implies that having circumcision done does decrese sensation, clearly.

Wow, that’s a ton of info. A biology lesson, right here in Z’s comments section.

Yes, science (with a little bit of an agenda attached, it seems) from a Christian Theist! Imagine!

Well, since I am not a male, nor am I the mother of any males, and since I have been shown thoughtful and considerate research, I am going to bow out.

I always appreciate the opportunity to become more knowledgeable.

Excellent research, Patrick.

I’m only just catching up on my trackbacks, but my detailed response is right here.