"No Medical Benefits"?

[SaveTheWild]

I have only recently started wading into the circumcision world, and know that there is still a lot of information for me to read. At this point I am definitely planning to leave my babies intact (though I still have to convince my DH. He is on the fence and clings to the 1) like father like son arguement, and 2) that "sex is better for the woman when the man is circumcised" (he doesn't have any proof of that, he just believes it. LOL). Anyway, I do have an issue that I wanted to bring up.

I see in a lot of the posts here, and elsewhere, the statement that there are "NO medical benefits" to circumcision. From my research it seems that the more accurate statement is to say that the "slight medical benefits it provides are outweighed by the medical risks." These are very different statements to me, and, again, based on the research I have done, the second sentence seems more medically accurate (e.g. the risk of UTIs is slightly lower in circumsized children, there is a slight decrease in penile cancer risk, etc. but that those benefits, to the extent they exist, are outweighed by the risks of the surgery, including, among others, complications, pain, infection, and even dealth such that on the whole it is not medically recommended or needed.)

Sometimes I wonder if the "there is NO medical benefit" statement by anti-circ activists could potentially hurt the cause. If the slight benefits are totally ignored in the rhetoric then it seems like people either aren't aware of them or are trying to assume them away, which hurts the cause because people could say that we are exaggerating or spinning the facts.

Does this make sense at all?

edited to correct statement re: sexual pleasure (see next post)

[Greaseball]

I think the benefits are so slight it's safe to ignore them.

For example, the risk of penile cancer is something like 1 in 100,000. The risk of breast cancer is 1 in 9. Mastectomy at birth would have significant medical benefits, compared to the one penis that would be spared from cancer if 100,000 circs were performed.

Did you mean women like sex better with circed or uncirced men? It says uncirced men in your post. I suspect that all women are different, and that most would be open to both. At the risk of TMI, I'll say that with both oral sex and sexual intercourse I did not notice any difference.

BTW, they sell vibrators that are made to feel like an uncut man. Women buy them, so it must not be a bad thing after all!

As for UTI, breastfeeding offers the same protection. And about looking like dad, well, if you had a daughter, would she look like you? I have a tattoo, but that's no reason to give my baby one. I think fathers and sons generally don't spend a lot of time comparing their penises.

My dh's mind was changed when he read the Fleiss articles.

[SaveTheWild]

Greaseball,

thansk for the reply. oops, I did mean circumsized, not uncirc'd. I fixed it.

His sexual pleasure theory is that the distinct lip or ridge or whatever it is called (where the head meets the shaft) causes more sexual pleasure for the woman than does the smoother shape of an intact one. I doubt that is true, but can't really verify it through personal experience...

Also, forgot to add, he had a friend in school who had to be circumcised at 14, and it was very traumatic for him at that age, so he is afraid of that too...


but back to the main topic...does the "reactionary" language of "No medical benefit" lessen the credibility of anti-circ activists?

[mattemma04]

//

[house elf]

His sexual pleasure theory is that the distinct lip or ridge or whatever it is called (where the head meets the shaft) causes more sexual pleasure for the woman than does the smoother shape of an intact one.

He does know that the foreskin retracts, right?

I wonder if this page would be beneficial to him. I know my formerly pro-circ DH was surprised that these were intact penises.

It does have pictures of erect penises, so steet clear if that kind of thing offends you (or if you are at work!)
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

[Ackray]

I think that it would be best for him to do the research and try to find articles and information supporting his side of this to convince you. I haven't looked, but I doubt that there is very much info out there saying what a great beneficial thing it is to circ. While researching he is going to come across all of the many reasons not to do it and will hopefully change his side of the debate.

I have never bought the like father like son thing... No ones's penis looks just like another and do people really sit there and compare!? And I have always heard the oppocite about the intercourse feeling better for both men and women topic.

Good Luck!

[SaveTheWild]

thanks all for your ideas for convincing DH. Ackray, I definetly think your point is really important...why should I have to convince him, let him try to convince me. I am definitely interestied in looking at the photos on the circumstitions page...but I will wait until I get home from work. LOL.

but, back to the main issue again...

Are we doing the cause a disservice when we deny the existence of the medical benefits that might exist, even if they are slight?

[~Jenna~]

I wish I could remember where I was reading this info I found, but some newer studies are showing that circ'ing can actually increase the risk of UTI's. And I've also read that studies are also showing that circ'ing doesn't protect against sexually transmitted diseases either...so I say there are NO medical benefits, not even slight ones.

[somemama]

One thing to keep in mind is that the "medical benefits" have changed over time.

Get yourself a copy of the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision by Dr. Paul M. Fleiss, a practicing pediatrician in California. Chapter 8 deals with this very question.

He states that even as late as the 60s and 70s, parents were being told that circ would "cure" masturbation, convulsions, nervousness (mental illness), night terrors, and epilepsy.

Fleiss goes on to state, "The strange fact is that the promoters of infant circumcision keep changing the list of supposed 'benefits.' As soon as one 'benefit' is disproved, they invent another one to take its place. There is no other surgery in all of medicine like this. Imagine if doctors were still trying to find justifications for other common nineteenth-century surgical horrors such as bloodletting, trepanning (drilling holes in the skull), clitoridectomy, castration, etc."

He also devotes a couple of pages to disproving the UTI link. He states, "Objective scientific studies have found that UTIs are almost exclusively limited to boys with urinary tract anomalies....the foreskin has nothing to do with this."

So, both circ'd boys and intact boys can get UTI's if their plumbing isn't "structured" right.

Also, God and/or Mother Nature knows what he/she is doing. Especially in a reproductive area, natural selection would have certainly weeded out a part of the body that was medically problematic.

So, no, I don't believe (and neither does Dr. Fleiss) that any "benefits" exist, even slightly. It's just that circ promoters keep coming up with new issues with which to scare parents, for financial/cultural/egotistical/psychological reasons that Fleiss explains in detail.

Also, around these parts, we tend to say "intact" rather than "uncirc'd." Because "uncirc'd tends to imply that it should have happened, but didn't. Also, I still have both breasts, but that does not make me "unmascetomized." And I still have my appendix, but that does not make me "unappendectomized." You get the point.

[somemama]

PS. If I may also throw in advice concerning dealing with your dh. I think you have to simultaneously take a hard line and a gentle stance. (Yes, that is possible to do both.)

You have to let him know that you love him JUST the way he is ("no, honey, of course I don't have a problem with your penis") while taking the hard-line stance that circ will not , absolutely will not, happen to your son. Only over your dead body. End of discussion.

Men tend to come to a crossroads when they have sons. Keeping a son intact often causes them to face their own circ (mutilation), which can be psychologically painful, while circ'ing a son allows them to continue in blissful denial that circ is what is "normal." A mama has got to be sensitive to her husband while also protecting her son from her husband's ego. It's a tough balancing act, but I know you can do it!

And many mamas say, "Well, I don't have a penis, so perhaps it shouldn't be my decision." Honey, you don't have to have literal balls to protect your son--ya' just gotta have "balls" as in courage!! No, you don't have a penis, but your helpless, defenseless, trusting son does. Go protect it. (This last paragraph is more in general than aimed at you.)

[Frankly Speaking]

As for the "look like dad thing, I hope you realize that is for the father's benefit. That's so that he doesn't have what is confronting him in front of him all of the time. There is no benefit to the son.

As for sexual pleasure for his partner, the foreskin retracts during intercourse so that the coronal ridge is exposed. You can tell him that is a non-issue. However, the immoblie shaft skin of the circumcised penis can be a considerable source of irritation for his partner. How's that for turning the issue around on him?

There are all kinds of "supposed" medical benefits. It seems there is a new one coming out every week from those who support or profit from circumcision. However, for every study that says there is a benefit, there are two that say there is none and even far more risk from circumcision. For instance, It is said that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by 1/3. However, non-circumcising European countries have a far lower rate of penile cancer than the predominately circumcised America. How do you account for that? The fact that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Urological Association as well as every other medical association in the world has been searching for a medical benefit for more than 130 years and has yet to find one has me convinced that if one is ever found, it will be very insignificant. What do you think? I don't think we are overstating our case when we say "There are no known medical benefits." Wouldn't you agree with that? I think that is a very accurate statement of the facts.

I see a lot of exaggeration on the other side. I think that comes from not researching the issue. They tend to parrott what they have heard instead of basing their statements on medical research. However, since most everyone has heard at least some of the old myths, they tend to believe them The fact is, if you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it. That is certainly the case with this one. Is it possible that you have heard the myths for so long that they are easier to believe than the medical research? I think that may be the case. However, I do see you questioning them and I think you are about to embark on a journey of discovery. Congratulations!






Frank

[Jane]

There's a website out there with just pictures of "mutilated" circs, from gay porn. I sat down with my husband to page through them. That's what convinced him, that all those "normal" men were still mutilated.

But then again, we are the kind of people who yell from the back room, "hey hon, some look at this freaky dick!"

If you're anti-porn, I don't think that tactic would work well at all.

[SaveTheWild]

Originally posted by Frankly Speaking
As for sexual pleasure for his partner, the foreskin retracts during intercourse so that the coronal ridge is exposed. You can tell him that is a non-issue.

Very good to know, thanks. He is particularly proud of his own "Coronal ridge" and is very concerned about passing it on... (OK, he is a little obsessed with it).

OK, one maybe TMI question, if anyone knows... If the coronal ridge is exposed, does it stay that way throught intercourse, or does it get covered up by the foreskin as it is moved in and out? (Wow, this is turning into the penthouse forum or something... But this is a MAJOR issue for him, so anything I can use to help out is appreciated.)

[house elf]

Here is another link that may answer your question (no photos here, just drawings)
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

A quote from that page:

During intercourse the loose skin of the intact penis slides up and down the shaft of the penis, stimulating the glans and the sensitive erogenous receptors of the foreskin itself. On the outstroke the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. This is known as the `gliding mechanism.'

The gliding mechanism is Nature's intended mechanism of intercourse. As such, it contributes greatly to sexual pleasure. Also, since more of the loose skin of the penis remains inside the vagina, the woman's natural lubrication is not drawn out to evaporate to a great extent, which makes sex easier without using artificial lubricants.

The prepuce is a highly innervated and vascularized genital structure. It is entirely lined with the peripenic muscle sheet. Specialized ecoptic sebaceous glans on the inner preputial surface produce natural emollients and lubricants necessary for normal sexual function. The primary orgasmic triggers are found in the preputial orifice and frenulum. When unfolded, the prepuce is large enough to cover the length and circumference of the erect penis and acts as a natural sheath through which the shaft glides during coitus. Only the presence and functions of the prepuce allow for physiologically normal coitus to occur as designed by nature.

[momto3boys]

This reminds me of my dh. He thought in order to have a ridge you had to have one cut into you. He thought that is what circ was. He had no idea that it is there, the same as a circ guy, under the foreskin.

We did not circ our boys. And he is THANKFUL, HAPPY, JEALOUS that his sons have their whole penis.

It's one of the things he thanks me for (researching) often.

[~Megan~]

My understanding about the penile/cervical cancer is that they test was done in an area where male promiscuity is very high. And since some cancer has been linked to HPV virus, an STD, its unclear how to interpret this data considering that in the culture the study was done most men had multiple prostitue partners. Whereas in America most men don't sleep with a lot of prostitutes.

I also understand that if the penis is cleaned regularly with water alone UTIs are the same as with circed men.

So given those things I can say, there is no clear or proven medical benefit.

[Sarah]

Originally posted by SaveTheWild
Very good to know, thanks. He is particularly proud of his own "Coronal ridge" and is very concerned about passing it on... (OK, he is a little obsessed with it).

Wow- that's bizarre. How will he know... does he really expect that his baby will have a c@c* like his? It's going to be a little itty bitty baby penis... WHAT IF he doesn't have a c@c* like his dad? What if he is born with a teeny tiny micropenis... small even on the infantile penis standard? Would he have some sort of implant or something done to the baby? Is he going to ask his teenage son to show him an erection so thy can compare their coronal ridge? Is he going to mock the guy if his is not as impressive as dad thinks his own is? And what will he do if it's not? Or what if his son has one that's even BETTER (whatever THAT means) Doesn't he realise that sexual nerves are sexual nerves? That your penis is your penis and it's the only one you get? That a guy with a little tiny penis enjoys his penis just as much as a guy with a great big one? That your sexual pleasure is YOURS and not someone else's to control, destroy or manipulate?

That there isn't much you can o to change it (I'm talking size and shape)- so you have to work with what you have and that for him to presume that what he has is excuse me... GODS gift to women... is totally concieted and dumb? Yes... DUMB... sure he might have an impressive coronal ridge... that's his opinion... glad he likes it- but what does that have to do with anyone else? His son DOES inherit his penis from his father's genetic contribution.. that should be enough stroking for dad's ego there... not only does he inherit the penis... but also the FORESKIN which will be a pretty close approximation of his father's own foreskin which he ONCE posessed (and still posesses in every string of his own dna) until some other dude with a KNIFE decided to sexually violate him and hold his little baby unit in his hand and draw his own arbitrary line between the family jewels and the biohazard garbage... some dude went cutting on his fabulous unit... would he let some other dude walk up today and just go cutting on it however he wanted without him getting any say so? Then why is he so adamant about defending the arbitrary work someone did back then... does he even know he guy's name who left that scar on his c@c*?

Seriously since when was it cool for one dude to cut another dude's penis? Since when was it cool for one DUDE to say, I know just how much penis you can get by with and if you have any more than me- I will take it from you because I don't want you to have it. You can't have more than me because I have so much insecurity about myself that I am going to project it onto everone around me... either that or I am such an immature concieted full of myself meddling dominator that I can't imagine that other men can enjoy their sex organ without ME fixing it for them.

OK, one maybe TMI question, if anyone knows... If the coronal ridge is exposed, does it stay that way throught intercourse, or does it get covered up by the foreskin as it is moved in and out? (Wow, this is turning into the penthouse forum or something... But this is a MAJOR issue for him, so anything I can use to help out is appreciated.)

Well- this TMI question is obviously not TMI if it's information that a person who is about to permenantly apply their own crippling standard onto someone else's body needs in order to BACK OFF.

It shows for one-an IGNORANCE of the FEMALE sexual response... and anatomy...

http://health.discovery.com/centers/...ia/vagina.html
"The internal walls of the vagina itself do not have a great supply of nerve endings, thus are not very sensitive to touch. The outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains nearly 90 percent of the vaginal nerve endings and therefore is much more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel. "

Unless a couple were to conduct their intercourse in the outer third of the vagina... the coronal ridge is something that is pretty much not even being registered in female sexual perception... so the correct answer to the question is "not that it even matters" what IS being registered is the tapping of the glans on the cervix, the stretch of the muscles of the pelvic floor and the external stimulation of the clitoris.

As for your question... it all depends on how the person wants to have sex- he could have sex in a way that his glans stayed covered most of the time, or he colld do it so it was exposed most of the time... however he wants... however he likes... it's HIS perogative...

...unless his father was to barge in the room in the middle of getting down and dirty with some hottie and say, "Hey there son, I noticed that a little bit of your foreskin might be folding over your glans there on the outstroke and I don't like that one bit, no sir-eee son I don't like that at ALL- stopwhat you are doing right away or i WILL HAVE TO HOLD YOUR SHAFT SKIN TAUGHT WITH MY OWN HAND! i MUST HAVE TOTAL control over the way your penis skin moves while you have sex or I will be extremely upset! If your glans is not exposed 100% of the time while your penis is inside that girl's body I march you right down to Dr. Likestoslice and cut off half of your penis skin... YOU MUST preform exactly HOW I do... that is the DUTY of a son... It is my duty as a father to be SURE you comply- this is our family tradition!!"

Is that REALLY what your husband would be like in terms of your son's sexuality... because that's what we are talking about here.

When he puts HIS scar on his son's penis--- it's like keeping his hand there for the rest of that guy's life... a way of sexually controling that boy no matter where he is... even after his father is dead and gone- Dad will still have his grip on it- keeping that shaft skin tight.

I never used a "vaginacam" to spy on the unfurling action of a lover's foreskin when we were in the middle of intercourse... would it really matter? No... whatever it was that was happening- felt good. And I never felt like I had been rubbed raw when my lover was intact. That's because of the muscles of the vaginal floor, hugging on the base of the penis- there was still some movement there for the full length of the stroke- like nature designed it to work. Circumcision has a most definate negative effect of adding abrasive friction into the mix of other very pleasurable sensations.

Circumcision, by destroying the NORMAL sexual function of providing a movable sheath of skin which buffers the abrasion between the vagina and erectile tissue of the penis... will shift an unnaturally large responsibility of sexual comfort and function on to the FEMALE lubriation ability... you will notice that the Discovery article devoted almost half of their description of the female sex organ into a description of how females sexually malfunction by not being able to physically COMPENSATE for the unnatural immobility of the sex organ of their circumcised partrners... DUH- wake up America... it's not that women are frigid... it's that some DOCTOR- messed with a guys penis and has shifted an abnormal expectation onto a woman to compensate for American men are now sexually lacking.

"I would gladly cut your baby today, and sell his wife some Avlamil tomorrow."

Ask your husband to figure out how people, FATHERS, were buying the original anti masturbation hysteria that cutting off a forskin would stop masturbation... I'm sure he thinks the whole idea is absurd, that he can't imagine that HE has been crippled or hindered in any way... but how was it these other men even BOUGHT that idea? What did they know about having a foreskin and masturbating with one- that they could even IMAGINE that cutting it off would totally ruin a guy's enjoyment of touching himself?

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/
1888"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."

John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young," Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295."

[TiredX2]

House Elf---

Thanks for the pics, but honestly:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Was one of the sickest things I have every seen. I am honestly about to :Puke

How anyone could possibly subject their child to that is beyond me.

[Greaseball]

My understanding about the penile/cervical cancer is that they test was done in an area where male promiscuity is very high.

T
Where is it NOT high?:LOL

[Frankly Speaking]

Megan:

The study you are refering to did not include penile cancer but you are right about there being all of those holes in it. There were many more holes in the study than just what you mentioned.



Frank