[DreamP346]

It seems to me that the study you cited is telling us that the men who need circumcision for medical reasons benefit from circumcision. Makes sense. But why somebody (especially the WHO, an organization that I respect and cite, no joke, all the time to the point that my husband knows who they are, concerning their breastfeeding recommendations) would use it as an argument for routine circumcision, I don't really understand.

Its because of the really high rates of HIV infection in Africa. You may have noticed that all the studies on HIV transmission and circumcision are done in Africa. The rates of HIV infection are so high in certain parts of the continents, that it is a crisis. Therefore, anything they can do to prevent further infection is a public health necessity. In cultures where women lack power to ask a man to wear a condom or men think it emasculating or poverty prevents treatment or 50% of the population is HIV positive, circumcision seems like a reasonable option.

However, US is not Africa. The HIV rates is less than 1%. Condoms are readily available. We have the best that medicine has to offer. I understand why circumcision is promoted in Africa, but not in the US.

[Stillness]

Does it feel better for uncircumcised men?

I'm not sure whether or not this deserves its own thread, but last night I had the most intense sexual experience of my life. It made me think of this thread.

Common sense and various studies tell us that the exposed glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive than that of the uncut one. I think that this leads many of us to conclude that sexual pleasure and/or satisfaction is decreased. Is that a valid conclusion? Does more sensitivity equate to better sex? Logic says yes, but I can't imagine sex being much more pleasurable.

[Little]

Would it really be possible to compare on a valid level? Maybe if you asked a man who'd been circumcised as an adult and had no change in partner or technique in the process. Then you really couldn't compare his post-circumcision sensations to the sensations of a man who was circumcised as an infant - glans scarring from the forcible separation and all that. Not to mention the idea that sex is mostly in your head, as I think we talked about on another thread lately. There's no reason it can't be just as valid for men as women.

But I like to think that I've preserved my son's sexual possibilities by leaving him intact.

I thought about this thread a few days ago. One of my dear friends had just given birth and was turning to me for advice on her son's circumcision wound - she'd improperly removed the bandage and was worried about it. She might as well have asked me about bottle feeding. Her mother was going on about how she'd had to go out of her way to get her grandchildren (of whom she has custody) circumcised a few years ago, because the doctors wouldn't call it a necessary procedure. "Then they find out all these boys got a bunch of diseases from not getting circumcised, so they're calling it a necessary procedure again now." Nod and smile, Little. Nod and smile.

Aaaand apparently the AAP came out in favor of RIC, for all the possible reasons people have already listed in this thread. Deep sigh. Deep sigh of disappointment.

[Stillness]

Mutilation not so bad?

I saw the CNN article about the AAP repositioning. I said specifically that they stopped short of recommending it, but some recent studies over the past decade and a half shed new light on some of the preventative benefits. Interestingly the article mentioned sensitivity and findings that some men report sensitivity increasing after circumcision! Sure enough, if you look at "sexual effects of circumcision" on wikipedia, it has studies showing that some men claimed decreased sensitivity, but more claimed an increase and more ease achieving orgasm.

[Little]

I didn't see that they weren't recommending it until later. I was reading the comment section on reddit, and there was serious discourse on a bazillion studies on all the points we've covered and their merits. It was seriously out of my league. There was a general sentiment, though, that supposing the child didn't have any penile issues, all the benefits could be reaped with an adult circumcision.

Apparently in Germany a judge ruled that circumcising an infant violated his right to be whole. I haven't looked into this, it was just something mentioned in the reddit thread.

[DreamP346]

AAP states "Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction" so I had to go research it. There are so many conflicting research results. Some studies showed increased sexual satisfaction after circumcision and delayed ejaculation with increased partner satisfaction. Other studies showed decreased masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision.

To me, just the fact there is so much contradicting information on the topic, its the best reason not to do anything that is irreversible.

[Stillness]

To me, just the fact there is so much contradicting information on the topic, its the best reason not to do anything that is irreversible.

I think the conflicting information says it's fine for everybody to do things their own way. We feel needlessly cutting babies sexual organs shouldn't be done. It's fine for us. Someone else has religious or traditional practices and can point to the real benefits of circumcision - that's fine for them. If I have an intimate enough relationship I might mention considering not cutting the baby's penis, but without being pushy or judgmental. I can "nod and smile" better than ever knowing that their reasons are legitimate.

Because say you are really adamant and shame them into doing things your way. Yay, foreskin saved! But then the child gets infections and has to be hospitalized. Now the parents are looking at you wishing you had kept your big mouth shut. I'm more convinced now than ever that this is the best course. It's a private decision.

[DreamP346]

I think the conflicting information says it's fine for everybody to do things their own way. We feel needlessly cutting babies sexual organs shouldn't be done. It's fine for us. Someone else has religious or traditional practices and can point to the real benefits of circumcision - that's fine for them. If I have an intimate enough relationship I might mention considering not cutting the baby's penis, but without being pushy or judgmental. I can "nod and smile" better than ever knowing that their reasons are legitimate.

Because say you are really adamant and shame them into doing things your way. Yay, foreskin saved! But then the child gets infections and has to be hospitalized. Now the parents are looking at you wishing you had kept your big mouth shut. I'm more convinced now than ever that this is the best course. It's a private decision.

I disagree. Its not about imposing your view on somebody else, its about educating people. Majority of people (I have yet to meet anybody who did it to prevent infections) circumcise their boys because it is what everybody else is doing or because that is what was done to the father. Majority of people do not have the entire facts or know of any of the research that has been debated in this post. If somebody chose to circumcise after seeing all the facts and research, then that is their choice. Each parent does what they believe is best for their child and that is part of the parenting responsibilities. But to just say its a personal choice and let people do whatever they want based on the logic that "everybody else is doing it" seems pretty illogical and juvenile to me.

its like breast feeding. We don't go around saying its a personal choice and other people shouldn't comment on it. We don't shame women for not breast feeding, but we try to present all the facts and hopefully offer all the assistance to help a mother nurse her baby. After knowing everything, if a woman does not breast feed for whatever reason, we try not to chastise her (I say "try" because I know some out there who do) because it is her baby and her body. But you wouldn't tell somebody that its not their business to educate somebody on the benefits of breastfeeding, especially if the target is not well informed at all.

[Stillness]

But to just say its a personal choice and let people do whatever they want based on the logic that "everybody else is doing it" seems pretty illogical and juvenile to me.

That's not what I said, but I don't think it's anybody else's place to "let" or not let a parent circumcise their child. As I said, if you were a trusted friend or I would definitely say if you were the physician, I think it's good to give them some things to think about. I don't think that this is as clear-cut as breastfeeding though. In that case nature gives an advantage. In the case of circumcision, both choices have advantages and downsides.

And I don't feel like it's my business to go around educating mothers on breastfeeding either. I have mentioned some things to one of my selfish cousins who was a bad mother in so many ways, and she said she didn't feel like she could do it. My comments weren't really welcomed, so I shut up, nodded, and smiled.

[girluvsherguy]

I apologize for bringing an old topic back to life, but I thought i would through my 2 cents into the discussion.

I've never been a supporter of RIC, and actually had vowed since my younger years that if I were to ever have sons, they would not be done.

However, a few years later when I met my future hubby, i discovered he had issues when he was younger.

Apparently in his family, RIC was not the norm. All babies were left intact at birth. However...now for the TMI portion...lol...from what my mother in law and hubby told me, his father had to have it done when he was 17 yrs old due to his foreskin not being large/stretchy enough for the size of his "glans" when erect...essentially his glans outgrew the size of his foreskin....and there was no amount of stretching or creams that was going to fix it, so his Dad had to be circumcised.

Now fast forward to when my hubby was 16....he and the exact same issue as his father....but worse apparently. My hubby's glans was and is still so large, that before he was circumcised, he was unable to even retract his foreskin when non erect. So my hubby had to be circumcised at the age of 16.

Like I said earlier, i would never recommend RIC, but having seen the size of my hubby's glans (the only way I can describe it like the usual mushroom cap description, but my hubby's would be a portobello mushroom cap ha!).

So when we started having children, we went back and forth on whether to cut or not...we ended up having 2 sons...and while we both wanted them both left intact, we were nervous that they would inherit the "portobello" cap as my hubby did, and his father did etc. So we chose to have them circumcised.

Our decision was purely based on to save them the pain of having to have it done in their puberty years....it had nothing to do with hygiene, religious beliefs or to look like their dad. While genetics isn't always guaranteed, we assumed our sons could possibly inherit the large glans trait that runs in my hubby's family. And my boys are still at the age where I see them getting out of the bath or shower, and I can honestly say, we made the right decision because of the genes they have.

Being Canadian, I have experienced both cut and uncut. Do I have a preference of cut or uncut? Yes...yes i do....but that is what makes us individuals....everyone is different and have preferences.

Anyway that is my experience.