MSNBC:

Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection, the findings of a 25-year study suggest.

According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests "substantial benefits" for routine neonatal circumcision.

The current study is just one of many that have looked at this controversial topic. While most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs.



The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire.

The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report.


Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.

The authors estimate that had routine neonatal circumcision been in place, the rate of sexually transmitted infections in the current cohort would have been reduced by roughly 48 percent.

This analysis shows that the benefits of circumcision for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infection "may be substantial," the authors conclude. "The public health issues raised by these findings clearly involve weighing the longer-term benefits of routine neonatal circumcision in terms of reducing risks of infection within the population, against the perceived costs of the procedure," they add.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Buckshot77,

I have heard the same thing. It was on a documentary about Aids in Africa. The study showed the relationship between Aids and cricumsisions. I thought it was interesting, however it didn't mention anything about any other STD's just HIV/Aids

If a boy is taught how to correctly wash his penis I di not think there is an significant difference in risk. The majority of European males are not cut and the levels of AIDS in Europe and US are not dissimilar. Once you start looknig at the third world there are all sorts of other issues to take into consideration. Given that women in the third world give birth in lessthan hygenic circumstances neo natal circumcision would probably cause deaths rather than save lives.

quote:

If

Really big word "If"

If condoms are used.....

So we mutilate the genitals of all male babies? I think not...

We put some thought into this one,

Over time, the reduced risk is negligible, if at all. There is a higher likelyhood that the baby will get an infection from the circumcision operation than there would be any risk reduction.

If you get a chance, see the episode of "Bullshit!!" Penn & Teller did about this one. Think of it this way. The rolled foreskin adds more texture to the surface of the erection, and we make ribbed condoms to try to replicate the same effect for pleasure. (I do have to warn, the episode also shows footage from a society of men who are so upset over having been circumcised, they stretsh what's left over a blank to make it grow back over time. I didn't need to see that one.)

I'm not circumcised, Jill likes me better than her previous boyfriends. Our oldest son was from her previous marraige, and he was circumcised. So, when the time came, we had to decide if we wanted our other boys comparing we-wees in the bathtub, and asking awkward questions, so we decided to have them all cut.

And GG is so right, there are so many other things that affect STDs, the positive effects are negligible at best.

quote:

Originally posted by CuervoGold:

quote:

If

Really big word "If"

Oh, indeed, IF the guillotine were more widely used lots of noisome recurring cases of migraine wd be solved for good.

Please!!

IF the correct use and maintenance of that simple ingenious instrument (a whole human penis) is too complicated for some males, maybe they should be relieved of this stressful burden. What I mean to say is that if a man don't have the goddamn sense to keep his cock decently clean he should be emasculated for good, an easy, clean, definitive operation that will make circumcision quite unnecessary, put his mind at peace, and provide an enormous educational impulse for the remaining male population.

I am in no way opposed to circumcision as such, if a man, an adult and responsible man sees fit to have his foreskin or any other part of his body surgically removed, for whatever reason, his business, but imposing this to any child on the ground of some few controversial studies... no sir. I see circumcision as a matter of plastic surgery, a matter of estetical preference, not health.

Damn, in victorian times they used to practice male and female circumcision to discourage masturbation, that was seen as immoral and unhealthy!

I know I haven't been around the boards a lot lately, but I just had to chime in on this one because we have a 22 month old boy and a 7 month old boy and one circumsised dad. However, we decided NOT to snip our boys. We had a natural childbirth at home with no drugs and almost no intervention and we decided that it was against that non-unnecessary intervention philosophy to have unnecessary surgery performed on our kids. When we talked to other guys about why they choose snip their boys, their response was, "well, because I am - I guess." (Which was my father-in-law's reason for having my husband snipped. His mom didn't actually want it done). Well how stupid is that? Has anyone ever seen this procedure done? It's horrifying! The poor baby is panicked out of his wits and freaking out. The fact that it MIGHT lessen the risk of disease in 3rd world countries is not reason to keep doing it more developed places where the hygene and medical care are better. I agree that if it's something that a grown man wants to undertake, then that is his choice to make when he's old enough to make an informed decision.

This is all very horrible. When answering in this thread at first I made some research (as Grump said in another tread, thanks for spoiling my day).

In so called "primitive" cultures circumcision is widely practised, as it has for millenia, but not on small children, and not for any scientific or pseudoscientific reasons, but as a rite of passage between childhood and adult life, so it is done around the age of puberty, and the boys are actively looking forward to it, as necessary passage to a better, more respected status. This happens in wildly distatn and unconnected regions and populations, from African Masaai to Australian Aboriginals and so on.
Circumcision is only one of the ritual genital mutilation that can accompany these rites, wich can range from a small slit in the foreskin to the complete flaying of the whole shaft (did I mention thanks for spoiling my day...). Of course it is intended partly or mostly as a chance to show unflinching fortitude (anestetichs were and often are not contemplated) in cultures based on hunting and fighting where physical courage is (or was) sorely needed and therefore highly valued. There surely is some powerful, if gory, symbolic charge in the unveiling of the boy manhood, physical and metaphysical, but it is still, I am sorry to say, a wildly barbaric practice (and let nobody give you any shit about the romantic savage, we are talking of cultures that also promoted girls infibulation, and u don´t want to discuss that?!?).
There is no doubt that circumcision was practised long before Abraham was born, and that our ancestors picked up this practice, pretty much in this same spirit, long before they were included in the religious dogma. In some muslim regions circumcision is still a puberty rite.
In the christian world circumcision was reintroduced in victorian times by british and then americans and australians, mostly to discourage masturbation, wich was supposed to be unhealthy for children and young people, creating unnecessary nervous stress . It became normal or quasinormal practice through all the twenties and up to the fifties of last century (1900) before dropping out of fashion in Europe, much less so in the US, and, I think, Australia(not sure here).

These being the actual reasons that brought and kept circumcision into practice....

Snow... breath... breath yes I agree the practice of circumcising a male infant is totally barbaric and our freaking out that it happens is not gonig to help!

This is shit crap... no male baby needs to be circumcised no matter where they are born - just as well suggest that baby girls have their cilts removed as it is easier to keep them, clean!

ALL of it is genital mutilation - sadly the majority of American males who were circumcised just after birth, have no idea that this has left them traumatised and wonder why they react in certain ways.

Mums to be - if you have any care or love for your boy child DO NOT allow him to be circumcised! The practice is barbaric.

I just want to say that the tone needs to lighten up a bit. I'm finding myself getting defensive and indignant reading a few of these posts. Without being personally attacking, some of you are attacking decisions that are purely the parents' to make, not yours.

~Ang

quote:

Originally posted by CelticFrog:
I just want to say that the tone needs to lighten up a bit. I'm finding myself getting defensive and indignant reading a few of these posts. Without being personally attacking, some of you are attacking decisions that are purely the parents' to make, not yours.

~Ang

Ditto. I've been sitting here for over half an hour typing and deleting, typing and deleting, which is odd because I don't feel particularly strongly about this subject one way or the other. One could make the same argument about pierced ears or braces for teeth or haircuts or cleaning away natural body odor.

When it all comes down to it, we're all the products of our cultural and familial biases. Every thought we have is the result of this. You could almost say we're predetermined to do everything in our lives based on this...

But seriously, what seems to have been forgotten is that parents are acting with their child's best interests at heart. Am I mad at my parents? No. Do I feel like a piece of me has been ripped away? No. Do I lie awake at night wondering what could have been? Eff no. Nothing against the men who feel like some precious was stolen from them, but I have more important things to worry about. Thank you for being indignant on my behalf, but I can handle it.

This may be an odd thing for a guy to say, but I am not defined by my penis. Someone write that down.

quote:

Originally posted by GG:
...sadly the majority of American males who were circumcised just after birth, have no idea that this has left them traumatised and wonder why they react in certain ways.

I would say that having my teenage friends seeing my uncirc'd penis in gym class would have been more traumatic than the actual circumcision itself.

M

Ang. I have no wish to make a judgment on your decision to have, or not have, your sons circumcised. I do however feel very strongly that it is inappropriate to suggest that having every boy child in the third world circumcised is going to solve the problem of AIDS. Pe natal circumcision, if it is done, needs to happen in a relatively sterile environment - most babies in the third world are not born in hospitals or with medical help at hand... suggesting circumcision in this case is far more likely to lead to the death fo the baby than control AIDS. Like evverything else education and informed decision is the important factor.

Ours were done immediately after birth with a local anesthetic.

And yes, it's insane to think that mass circumcision has anything to do with preventing disease.

And in reference to my situation, I am uncut, but I understand my foreskin is pretty small. I usually look circumsized. (Picture George Costanza yelling, "I was in a cold pool!! It's shrinkage!!") I've seen porn with guys who are fully erect and still have an inch or two dangling off the end. If I looked like that I might seriously consider in adulthood.

I definitely apologize if anybody felt attacked by my last very horrified post (most of the articles I went through before posting came with pics ... shudder).

I do agree with Celtic Frog that circumcised penises are very beautiful. My last drawings sd be a sufficient proof of that .

I don't have such an overwhelming problem with circumcision as such, it is after all a comparatively minor operation, and if performed with a minimum of care it won't change your life. My problem is that if we justifie circumcision merely on the basis of culture and tradition a few turns down the road we justifie all sort of other much more devastating mutilations performed all over the world.

MikesDemons seing your pics I have few doubts of you being at ease with yourself and your jr self, I had thought of drawing you weeks and weeks ago.