Circumcision, why is this a thing...

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I still refuse to believe a “spontaneous blowjob” is a real thing.

You poor soul.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I still refuse to believe a “spontaneous blowjob” is a real thing.

Yeah me too. Oh, ah...waitasec....

Never mind.

[CroFlames]

Everyone knows it only happens on anniversaries and your birthday if your lucky.


Stop pretending.

[TheIronMaiden]

Maybe there is such a thing as a spontaneous blowjob. But there is no such thing as a free blowjob. You need to put in the work whether its asked for or "spontaneous".

[Thor]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is not a scientific study. This is a review of secondary literature.

Firstly, nerve endings are not all equal. The nerve endings in the foreskin are not exposed. They are nerves that run through the length of the penis shaft and get stimulated by horizontal pressure on the shaft. Removing the "endings" makes no difference to the part of the nerve that remains.

Secondly, the scientific literature says that circumcision either has no effect on sexual satisfaction or increases it:

Actual scientific studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28364982

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258953

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26681707

Feel free to look up many more studies. I'm not cherry picking results:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...n+sex+pleasure

The overall conclusion is that circumcision has a positive affect on male sexual pleasure as the foreskin is more prone to trauma during sex.

Sigh, sadly its like debunking anti-vaxxers who pick anything that might hint in agreement with their ideas.

So lets look at these links, again, most studies that have been done are done by groups hoping to justify circumcision, mainly done in the US, Africa, Islamic nations and Israel.

Your first link, is literally titled "Medical Male Circumcision Is Associated With Improvements in Pain During Intercourse and Sexual Satisfaction in Kenya."

Here is the rest of these with their titles..

Sexual Pleasure and Function, Coital Trauma, and Sex Behaviors After Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Among Men in the Dominican Republic.

3rd one is bascially a google search of a few major research hubs.

METHODS:
A systematic review of published articles retrieved using keyword searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed.

Again, lets go back to Africa where we are at the top of scientific discovery, for your final link..

Sexual Satisfaction, Performance, and Partner Response Following Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Zambia: The Spear and Shield Project.

There is no reason to electively mess with the sexual organs of boys, girls, or intersex. ZERO. No medical association would support this (minus one year in the US which was attacked globally for its clear bias.)

I'm so disappointed at the sheer volume of skeptics who have such a massive blind spot for what is clearly an unethical procedure. No one's sex organs should be messed with unless medically necessary.

[PaperBagger'14]

I dont have any skin in this race.

[Thor]

Do you have the same sense of humor for the varying versions of female circumcision?

[PaperBagger'14]

I'm labi-out of those jokes.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sigh, sadly its like debunking anti-vaxxers who pick anything that might hint in agreement with their ideas.

So lets look at these links, again, most studies that have been done are done by groups hoping to justify circumcision, mainly done in the US, Africa, Islamic nations and Israel.

Your first link, is literally titled "Medical Male Circumcision Is Associated With Improvements in Pain During Intercourse and Sexual Satisfaction in Kenya."

Here is the rest of these with their titles..



3rd one is bascially a google search of a few major research hubs.



Again, lets go back to Africa where we are at the top of scientific discovery, for your final link..



There is no reason to electively mess with the sexual organs of boys, girls, or intersex. ZERO. No medical association would support this (minus one year in the US which was attacked globally for its clear bias.)

I'm so disappointed at the sheer volume of skeptics who have such a massive blind spot for what is clearly an unethical procedure. No one's sex organs should be messed with unless medically necessary.

Kudos to Thor for looking at what those links actually said.

It seems that just searching and providing various sundry links to support a position, without actually reading them is sufficient to some people to act like they have a case.

I didn’t realize pain and trauma were important to the arguments in this thread in favour of snipping. I wonder if the sex in the studies was consensual?

Incidentally, I wonder how it is in academia these days, if graduate students and their profs have been able to get similarly lazy, or if most people still do proper lit reviews.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Inherently calloused glans?

Yes. The glans is not an external organ meant to be in regular contact and friction, as is the case in a baby's diaper or a toddler's underpants. The glans has to physically adapt to the exposure created by male genital mutilation by undergoing keratinization and that takes painful time. Every male has a glans, but you could spot the glans of an intact person vs a circumcized person from a mile away because of the difference in keratinization. Even if the word "callus" sounds sensational, that's exactly what's happening to a child who did not consent to this procedure.

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

This is THE CP Thread of Summer 2018!

DICKS! DICKS! DICKS! DICKS! DICKS! DICKS!

Let's adjust this for some accuracy here:

*Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks! Cutting Infant Dicks!

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A handful of posts have suggested that it is more aesthetically pleasing, but the vast majority of respondents I have seen in this thread have made more sensible points about the promotion of hygiene and as a preemptive measure. I don't really see many people "arguing for circumcision." I see most who are not acrimoniously opposed to it arguing in favour of parental consent, which seems entirely reasonable.

Of course, those "sensible points about preemptive measures" point to dubious correlative evidence rather than causal evidence. Which is a problem compounded by publication biases, and misinterpretation of sample populations' education on said topics. Circumcision is not a safe sex practice.

That's why:

Originally Posted by Canadian Pediatric Society

While there may be a benefit for some boys in high-risk populations and circumstances where the procedure could be considered for disease reduction or treatment, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.

And discussions of hygiene, particularly in North America, are dubious in their own right. There is much information and misinformation on human hygiene that is dominated by opinion and tradition rather than medical fact. Humans are known to do things - excessively using mouthwash, sticking Q-Tips into their ears, oversterilize their environments - which do the opposite of perception. I have not seen one "sensible point about hygiene" in this thread.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I see most who are not acrimoniously opposed to it arguing in favour of parental consent, which seems entirely reasonable.

Parental consent is not sufficient for any permanent, non-theraputic surgical procedure. So no, that does not seem reasonable. Even if it's a social norm.

This isn't just a piece of loose skin, even though it's colloquially referred to as foreskin.

The prepuce is a specialized, junctional mucocutaneous tissue which marks the boundary between mucosa and skin; it is similar to the eyelids, labia minora, anus and lips. The male prepuce also provides adequate mucosa and skin to cover the entire penis during erection. The unique innervation of the prepuce establishes its function as an erogenous tissue.


The male prepuce is formed by a midline collision of ectoderm, neuroectoderm and mesenchyme, resulting in a pentalaminar structure composed of a squamous mucosal epithelium lamina propria (corion) dartos muscle, dermis and outer glabrous skin

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10349413

it's something that is fused to the penis until well into boyhood - there's no clear "beginning, and end" to a foreskin. It's a part of your dick, and in a baby, it's a part that isn't even developed enough like that of an adult where it could be treated as a separate part. Circumcisions remove parts of the penis that are not skin at all.

The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.

...

The mean length of prepuce in this sample was 6.4 cm (range 4.8-9.2) and covered 93% of the mean penile shaft (6.9 cm). Ten prepuces were as long as or longer than the shaft of the penis to which they belonged; three of them were > 10% longer than the shaft and glans combined. Circumcision of these subjects, allowing for a 3 cm mucosal cuff, would have removed a mean of 3.4 cm (range 1.8-6.2) of (strictly) preputial skin and mucosa, or 51% of the length of the mean adult penile shaft, or more from nearly half the penises. Unknown amounts of true skin were missing from the shaft of the circumcised adult penis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902

Parental consent is, again, not sufficient as a form of consent for this cosmetic procedure. You need to be able to consent to the mutilation of your own penis in the modern era. That is the only humane position to have - it's not about parental choice because the child is a living, breathing individual capable of feeling pain and with permanent long term impact a possibility that can't be predicted right now based on anecdotal evidence. This isn't a gray area like abortion where the fetus may or may not be "a human". A baby is a human being.

[DeluxeMoustache]

The hygiene argument is silly. We live a first world nation. We have potable water available for cleaning! Soap too.

If you can open your mouth to brush your teeth, you can retract your foreskin to wash your ####. It’s not difficult, pretty routine.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

you can retract your foreskin to wash your ####. .

While true,I just want to point out, that this is a dangerous statement. That is not the correct producedure for a parent to wash their child or teach their child to wash his penis.

The correct producedure for a child is to leave it alone. Not retract it as foreskin most often can't properly retract until adolescence.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

While true,I just want to point out, that this is a dangerous statement. That is not the correct producedure for a parent to wash their child or teach their child to wash his penis.

The correct producedure for a child is to leave it alone. Not retract it as foreskin most often can't properly retract until adolescence.

Fair point, was thinking about adult hood

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

While true,I just want to point out, that this is a dangerous statement. That is not the correct producedure for a parent to wash their child or teach their child to wash his penis.

The correct producedure for a child is to leave it alone. Not retract it as foreskin most often can't properly retract until adolescence.

I took it that he was referring to adult men. The first person to retract their child's foreskin should be the child themselves. Let's face it, boys play with their dicks continuously lol.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

I took it that he was referring to adult men. The first person to retract their child's foreskin should be the child themselves. Let's face it, boys play with their dicks continuously lol.

I know, but we live in an era where well-meaning but misinformed parents might do stupid things in the name of "hygiene" .

[red sky]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Fair point, was thinking about adult hood

Aptly named in this circumstance.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Thor

Sigh, sadly its like debunking anti-vaxxers who pick anything that might hint in agreement with their ideas.

So lets look at these links, again, most studies that have been done are done by groups hoping to justify circumcision, mainly done in the US, Africa, Islamic nations and Israel.

So basically. . . .

Originally Posted by Thor

Why should we believe studies from these s***hole countries?!?

Originally Posted by Thor

Your first link, is literally titled "Medical Male Circumcision Is Associated With Improvements in Pain During Intercourse and Sexual Satisfaction in Kenya."

The "group hoping to justify circumcision" behind this study???

1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: monicapcn@gmail.com.
2. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
3. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
4. Nyanza Reproductive Health Society, Kisumu, Kenya.

Originally Posted by Thor

Here is the rest of these with their titles..

The "group hoping to justify circumcision" behind this study???

1. School of Public Health and Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: mbrito@uic.edu.
2. School of Public Health and Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
3. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
4. Clinica de Familia, La Romana, Dominican Republic.
5. HIV Vaccine Trials Unit, Instituto Dermatológico y Cirugía De Piel, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Originally Posted by Thor

3rd one is bascially a google search of a few major research hubs.

False.

METHODS:
A systematic review of published articles retrieved using keyword searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
The main outcome measure is the assessment of findings in publications reporting original data relevant to the search terms and rating of quality of each study based on established criteria.

RESULTS:
Searches identified 2,675 publications describing the effects of male circumcision on aspects of male sexual function, sensitivity, sensation, or satisfaction. Of these, 36 met our inclusion criteria of containing original data. Those studies reported a total of 40,473 men, including 19,542 uncircumcised and 20,931 circumcised.

CONCLUSION:
The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.

A "google search of a few major research hubs" was done to identify published studies, but a disciplined meta-analyses of relevant studies containing original data was done to come to a conclusion

Originally Posted by Thor

Again, lets go back to Africa where we are at the top of scientific discovery, for your final link..

The "group hoping to justify circumcision" behind this study???

1. University of Zambia School of Medicine, Lusaka, Zambia.
2. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Miami, FL, USA.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by Mike F

So basically. . . .






The "group hoping to justify circumcision" behind this study???

1. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: monicapcn@gmail.com.
2. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
3. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
4. Nyanza Reproductive Health Society, Kisumu, Kenya.



The "group hoping to justify circumcision" behind this study???

1. School of Public Health and Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: mbrito@uic.edu.
2. School of Public Health and Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
3. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
4. Clinica de Familia, La Romana, Dominican Republic.
5. HIV Vaccine Trials Unit, Instituto Dermatológico y Cirugía De Piel, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.



False.



A "google search of a few major research hubs" was done to identify published studies, but a disciplined meta-analyses of relevant studies containing original data was done to come to a conclusion



The "group hoping to justify circumcision" behind this study???

1. University of Zambia School of Medicine, Lusaka, Zambia.
2. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Miami, FL, USA.

At the end of the day circumcision is dying out. Mothers have a stronger say in what happens to their babies. Doctors are less likely to break skin for unnecessary procedures.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Intactivists go a little too far in their rhetoric but I really don’t see any arguments that are really convincing enough to make a decision that would permanently modify a person’s body. I believe that a permanent decision like this should ultimately be left in the hands/junk of the person who is impacted by it.

[81MC]

I believe one day the practise will be looked back at as nothing short of a barbaric carryover of silly religious belief. Evolution doesn’t really allow something as important as reproduction to be impeeded with poor equipment. The thought that well intentioned, loving parents still permit the mutilation of their boys penis astounds me.