Cut or uncut?

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

AckwelFoley

From Wikki.
Found it imteresting..

The subpreputial moisture keeps the glans moist and may lubricate the movement of the foreskin. However, if allowed to accumulate and decay in the foreskin cavity it can provide an ideal medium for potentially pathogenic bacteria to colonize;[3] current medical opinion is that allowing smegma to accumulate freely is unhealthy. Accumulation of smegma can cause or aggravate a variety of irritations known as balanitis. Early medical studies such as those by Plaut (1947) and Heins et al (1958)[4] claimed that smegma accumulation led to the development of penile cancer, but the American Cancer Society states that more recent studies have failed to support this.[5] Per the SEER database, the incidence of developing a primary penile cancer is less than 1 per 100,000 in the general population, but for uncircumcised males the rate is estimated to be as high as 1 per 600 :eek:. [6] Circumcision at a young age appears to be more protective against cancer of the penis than at the time of puberty or later. Penile cancer is extremely uncommon in Jewish and Muslim populations that practice circumcision at infancy and between the ages of 3-13, respectively

Creamy Goodness

from wiki = take with a truck-load of salt tbh.

tbh

probably best not to mention salt in a circumcision thread

FlutterinBantam

snyper wrote: »

From Wikki.
Found it imteresting..

:eek:

I lifted a teaspoon full of knob cheese from under me flange as a result of that.

Thanks pal.

tallaght01

Wibbs wrote: »

PS. tallaght01 30% of a given population is the same as saying 30% of cancers of males in certain countries. They're populations studied along political boundaries, unless your talking about racial populations. I still think it needs new batteries. The figures he quotes are all way under 10% for any populations/country he mentions. If he is trying to make a point that it can occur in 30% of those presenting with cancer in a given country, why is that country not referenced? It's like me saying I am claiming 20% of a countries males wear hats, and go on to give as an example only 1% do in the countries I've studied. makes no sense and hardly bolsters his case, even if true. And yes I'm aware that the stats run along the lines of who gets cancer and what cancers they break down into(at least I think so. He's about as clear as mud). In any case even in the prof's report the highest he could muster was 8.3%. Is this over a lifetime? Is this in one year? Is this across general population? Is this across people with cancers? What proportion where circumcised?

His first line is "Penile malignancies are uncommon", yet then claims 30% of all cancers are penile in some countries. Hardly uncommon is it? If that is just referencing the west then he should have made that clear at the outset. Even with causation he first says; "The common sites of origin may be related to constant exposure to smegma and other irritants within the prepuce." then goes on to say; "No firm evidence indicates that smegma acts as a carcinogen, although this belief is widely held". Apparently by him with his codicil of no firm evidence. Mkay.


His contention that "In Uganda, this is the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with 1% of men being diagnosed by age 75 years", also has issues. Cancer of all kinds must be damned rare in Uganda of only 1% of males get the most common kind by 75. A bunch of teetotal non smoking vegetarians they must be. His next book tltle, "How to avoid cancer like a Ugandan".

Professor of medicine he may be, statistician and clear communicator of research he is not.

I think it's a little narcissistic to assume the prof is writing a direct rebuttal to your points on boards.

He's writing a very general article intended for doctors. He's pointing out that the rates of penile cancer can be as high as 30% in some countries. It is also an uncommon cancer worldwide. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Then he goes on to describe the rates in some of the larger contries in the various continents. That's pretty standard for a review article in medicine. For eg, i think Paraguay has the highest rate in South America (if not the world), but only has a population of 6 million. Hence he talks about a bigger country that's more representative of the continent (Brazil in this case, which has about 180 mil). The same goes for the references to India.

I don't know what's so hard to comprehend about this. I found it to be a very clear article, but I guess I'm in the group that it's intended for. Was probably a mistake to have linked it here. So, my bad for that.

As for saying that it is a widely held belief that smegma acts as a carcinogen, although there is no direct evidence.....again, not a particularly controversial point. We know the removal of smega reduces the risk of penile carcinoma. We know rubbing smegma into rat penises gives them penile cancer, but this isn't altogether ethical to do in humans. Hence, many urologists believe it causes cancer, but can't prove it. If you can suggest an alternative, we'll be all ears

His stats about Uganda are correct. You can check them wherever you like. Cancer is rare in Uganda, because people die from HIV/TB/malaria etc. The focus on Uganda is because that's where a lot of the trials into circumcision and HIV are taking place.

tbh wrote: »

I'm 34 now, and I got circumcised about two years ago.
So, now that I've had the op done, I just want to let you know a couple of things.

My penis is not so sensitive that it hurts whenever I walk - for the lads, what you are thinking of is if you rolled your foreskin back and just walked around like that. Not nice. When I'm just doing my normal day to day things, it feels just like I'm not cut. That doesn't mean I'm used to the sensation, it means there is no sensation. When I'm having sex, It's amazing. I don't really need any lube, assuming everything is done in the right way (i.e. manipulation of the shaft, rather than the head), or I can use lube if my oh wants to pay attention to the head - the point is, I don't need to. I can also masturbate to orgasm without using lube with no discomfort whatsoever.

SO, for me it's not a case of making the best of what I have, or learning to live with, or cope, with the effects of the operation. Sex feels exactly the same way it did before I started feeling the effects of not being cut, no better, no worse. Those of you who got the op as kids are not missing out. Those of you who are not cut are not missing out, because when you are having sex, the foreskin is pushed back anyway. The only people who can benefit from getting cut are those who were like me, and couldn't retract their foreskin.

as for the look, some like it, some don't, like hairy chests. personally, I much prefer the look now, it looks sleeker and more menacing
hope that helps.

I would add my support to this. I'm 30 years old. I got the chop about 5 months ago for medical reasons.

I don't feel any less sensation now than I did before. Having said that, it's important to point out that some guys do feel less sensation after circumcision. But jews and americans still enjoy sex.

Wibbs

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think it's a little narcissistic to assume the prof is writing a direct rebuttal to your points on boards.

Dunno where you're getting that from TBH. You posted it, I replied with my opinion. You're replying with yours. That would be described as a discussion I would have thought. The article you referenced is just part of that.

It is also an uncommon cancer worldwide. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Well obviously. Malaria would be unheard of in the Ireland of today, but is going like gangbusters in Sub Saharan Africa.

He's pointing out that the rates of penile cancer can be as high as 30% in some countries. Then he goes on to describe the rates in some of the larger contries in the various continents. That's pretty standard for a review article in medicine. For eg, i think Paraguay has the highest rate in South America (if not the world), but only has a population of 6 million. Hence he talks about a bigger country that's more representative of the continent (Brazil in this case, which has about 180 mil). The same goes for the references to India.

So general practice in establishing a fact in a medical review to support one's position is to quote a figure, then give no direct data for that figure and indeed quote figures much lower? If I was to turn around and claim that 20% of people have blue hair among certain populations/countries and then went on to support that position by only referencing stats that say only .4% of people do. Wouldn't exactly bolster my position and indeed would be laughed at. Rightfully. If this is science of any sort, never mind medical it's sloppy at best. Let's agree his figure of 30% among a population is correct. Not to reference directly or point to a reference that backs that up is simply daft, no matter who is reading it. Indeed to reference and open with such a high figure and not examine why such a figure exists in a population of 6 million. Not exactly a statistically small group is it? Why they in particular suffer such a high figure may actually throw up some useful answers. Looking at countries with much lower figures would be again like looking at the rate of malaria in Ireland. You call this a good, scientific, well thought out study? He may as well have pulled the figure out of thin air. Hey, I'll say the figure is 42.8%. It's just as valid without the references in black and white. IE Not.

I don't know what's so hard to comprehend about this. I found it to be a very clear article, but I guess I'm in the group that it's intended for. Was probably a mistake to have linked it here. So, my bad for that.

Ohhhh get her!:D

As for saying that it is a widely held belief that smegma acts as a carcinogen, although there is no direct evidence.....again, not a particularly controversial point. We know the removal of smega reduces the risk of penile carcinoma. We know rubbing smegma into rat penises gives them penile cancer, but this isn't altogether ethical to do in humans. Hence, many urologists believe it causes cancer, but can't prove it. If you can suggest an alternative, we'll be all ears

That's pretty damn close to proof that smegma has a causative effect as a large co factor in the rates of penile cancer(clearly it's only one factor or adult circumcisions would have more effect I would have thought?). Removal of same reduces the risk and looking at the animal model confirms a link. The rat model does throw up one weird thought in me though. They had to collect it. There's a job. "Hello dear, I'm home, sheesh I knackered, been collecting rat smegma all morning". The mind boggles....:D

His stats about Uganda are correct. You can check them wherever you like. Cancer is rare in Uganda, because people die from HIV/TB/malaria etc.

So are the stats adjusted for those diseases and factored in to the stats? Would penile cancer be the commonest form of cancer in those that have survived to old age? This makes a big difference. Stretch the example, if 90% of people pegged it at 40 in Ireland, alzheimers would be a rare disease(even taking the 10% that survived to old age) and would be treated accordingly. Now if it was found removing one's earlobes at birth had some protective effect on the incidence of the disease even then few would be suggesting mass earlobe removal at birth. This sounds very similar(outside of the HIV argument obviously).

The focus on Uganda is because that's where a lot of the trials into circumcision and HIV are taking place.

I gotcha, that would be understandable. Now with the HIV protection issue. Let's say as the research you have referenced HIV infection is lesser in cut men and in fairness you do note that in the west that's not such a public heath issue. My understanding of it, is that any protection proffered is from the female to male. Female to male while high risk is not as risky as the other way around. Of course it would reduce some transmission and that's a good thing. My original concern still would be that mooting this as a prophylactic, even a small one is likely to increase risky behaviours in uneducated populations. Given that males in the societies noted are the ones with more multiple partners including prostitutes, the advice of looking for a condom(which may be thin on the ground) or avoiding risky sex with prostitutes, may well be ignored because they think circumcision provides them with some immunity. That could be a recipe for disaster, especially for women who have a much higher risk with heterosexual sex.

My issue with the research in the first place was that a lot of it(especially the early stuff) didn't adjust for religious and social factors. Of course devout Muslims and Jews and other groups that may practice circumcision(which where this effect was first noted) are less likely to be exposed to, never mind get infected by HIV as their strict sexual practices would have a large effect. When those factors were adjusted for the effect was still there but much less. While I agree all guns in the arsenal however small are of value the main ones of education and safe sex are the biggest guns in that arsenal.

NukeD4

Interesting to see this thread sparked so much interest,alot of irresonsible things being said, i had it done three weeks ago for medical reasons and am all the better for it,the whole sensitivity thing isnt an issue, the glans totally adapt to life outside the foreskin, and i have not noticed any loss in sensitivity. i see it as a positive decision for an adult to make but by the same token the first couple of weeks are very uncomfortable so i understand some peoples wishes to do it on a child.
I've had both trust me

tallaght01

Wibbs wrote: »

Dunno where you're getting that from TBH. You posted it, I replied with my opinion. You're replying with yours. That would be described as a discussion I would have thought. The article you referenced is just part of that.

Well obviously. Malaria would be unheard of in the Ireland of today, but is going like gangbusters in Sub Saharan Africa.
So general practice in establishing a fact in a medical review to support one's position is to quote a figure, then give no direct data for that figure and indeed quote figures much lower? If I was to turn around and claim that 20% of people have blue hair among certain populations/countries and then went on to support that position by only referencing stats that say only .4% of people do. Wouldn't exactly bolster my position and indeed would be laughed at. Rightfully. If this is science of any sort, never mind medical it's sloppy at best. Let's agree his figure of 30% among a population is correct. Not to reference directly or point to a reference that backs that up is simply daft, no matter who is reading it. Indeed to reference and open with such a high figure and not examine why such a figure exists in a population of 6 million. Not exactly a statistically small group is it? Why they in particular suffer such a high figure may actually throw up some useful answers. Looking at countries with much lower figures would be again like looking at the rate of malaria in Ireland. You call this a good, scientific, well thought out study? He may as well have pulled the figure out of thin air. Hey, I'll say the figure is 42.8%. It's just as valid without the references in black and white. IE Not.

Ohhhh get her!:D

That's pretty damn close to proof that smegma has a causative effect as a large co factor in the rates of penile cancer(clearly it's only one factor or adult circumcisions would have more effect I would have thought?). Removal of same reduces the risk and looking at the animal model confirms a link. The rat model does throw up one weird thought in me though. They had to collect it. There's a job. "Hello dear, I'm home, sheesh I knackered, been collecting rat smegma all morning". The mind boggles....:D
So are the stats adjusted for those diseases and factored in to the stats? Would penile cancer be the commonest form of cancer in those that have survived to old age? This makes a big difference. Stretch the example, if 90% of people pegged it at 40 in Ireland, alzheimers would be a rare disease(even taking the 10% that survived to old age) and would be treated accordingly. Now if it was found removing one's earlobes at birth had some protective effect on the incidence of the disease even then few would be suggesting mass earlobe removal at birth. This sounds very similar(outside of the HIV argument obviously). I gotcha, that would be understandable. Now with the HIV protection issue. Let's say as the research you have referenced HIV infection is lesser in cut men and in fairness you do note that in the west that's not such a public heath issue. My understanding of it, is that any protection proffered is from the female to male. Female to male while high risk is not as risky as the other way around. Of course it would reduce some transmission and that's a good thing. My original concern still would be that mooting this as a prophylactic, even a small one is likely to increase risky behaviours in uneducated populations. Given that males in the societies noted are the ones with more multiple partners including prostitutes, the advice of looking for a condom(which may be thin on the ground) or avoiding risky sex with prostitutes, may well be ignored because they think circumcision provides them with some immunity. That could be a recipe for disaster, especially for women who have a much higher risk with heterosexual sex.

My issue with the research in the first place was that a lot of it(especially the early stuff) didn't adjust for religious and social factors. Of course devout Muslims and Jews and other groups that may practice circumcision(which where this effect was first noted) are less likely to be exposed to, never mind get infected by HIV as their strict sexual practices would have a large effect. When those factors were adjusted for the effect was still there but much less. While I agree all guns in the arsenal however small are of value the main ones of education and safe sex are the biggest guns in that arsenal.

The article didn't support the figure of 20-30% by quoting the Brazil/India/America stats, they were seperate points. They're examples of the rates in large countries in the different continents. Its also not a "study" as you've said. It's a review article. He would assume that most docs reading would be aware of the fact that rates are up to 30% in some countries, as it's pretty well known in the world of urology, hence there's not a lot of discussion of the issue.

The smegma issue is human and rat smegma on rat penises. Whilst it's highly suggestive (hence why the prof says a lot of urologists believe it's causative) it's not absoloute proof.

I don't understand you point about earlobe removal. The issue with circumcision in a population is very different to carrying out a cosmetically disfiguring procedure. People live happy lives with circumcisions. if you removed peoples' earlobes, you would have a lot of angry people. It's about weighing up pros and cons. If your foreskin was a facial appendage, I suspect rates of circumcision would be lower.

The issue about circumcision reducing female to male transmission is true. But most guys catch it off women, so it's all about breaking the cycle. It's about reducing actual numbers within a population, so as to prevent the spread. In parts of Africa in particular, if a guy catches HIV off a woman (or a man) he's likely to spread it to several people. If he doesn't catch it, then his subsequent partners live. This is particularly true in war zones, where HIV spread like wildfire because of rape (in some war zones 1 in 4 girls...of all ages!! are thought to have been raped). There's been no evidence that circumcised males engage in more risky behaviour. The bottom line, though, is that regardless of their behaviour they catch less HIV than their non circumcised peers.

Sadly, high risk behaviour has been a factor, will remain a factor in poor, uneducated populations for many years, regardless of circumcision status.

The big trials on circumcision looked closely at factors affecting HIV transmission. Religion plays a very small part in the progression of a HIV epidemic. India probably has the most cases in the world right now, and is highly religious. Nigeria is a highly christian country, yet has a huge HIV problem.

It's probably appropriate to mention in a ladies forum that the biggest effect on HIV transmission (aside from poverty) is thought to be gender inequality. Having worked in Africa with HIV patients, and seeing the effects first hand, I'm inclined to agree.

Wibbs

tallaght01 wrote: »

The article didn't support the figure of 20-30% by quoting the Brazil/India/America stats, they were seperate points. They're examples of the rates in large countries in the different continents.

If the disparity was lower and he didn't open with the 30% figure I could vaguely understand the omission. Vaguely. Again he writes "Penile carcinoma represents 20-30% of all cancers diagnosed in men living in Asia, Africa, or South America." All cancers in Asia, Africa, Sth America. Would one not expect a higher rate among countries from those areas, especially in a review on the disease?

He would assume that most docs reading would be aware of the fact that rates are up to 30% in some countries, as it's pretty well known in the world of urology, hence there's not a lot of discussion of the issue.

You're missing the point. Assumption and lack of discussion are simply not scientific. Not supplying references on the basis of that assumption compounds it. How much dubious science has been based on assumption in the past. So I stand by my contention that he is at best a bad communicator of his viewpoint. In any case as this is "pretty well known" among your peers can you link to a review/study that supports this well known fact? When you first mooted this figure I asked quite reasonably for anyhting that would back that up. Now many of these studies are on subscription sites I grant you, but, surely if it's that well known and that high it will be in the public domain. The extremes in anything are generally easy to find. Human nature and all that. The one example you did give also trotted out the 30% figure as accepted yet went on to report far lower figures in the populations studied.

I also noticed that he describes penile carcinoma as largely(not always as he does point out) a geriatric illness; "with an abrupt increase in incidence in men aged approximately 60 years; incidence peaks in men aged 80 years". I presume Nigeria is not in that bracket if as you say they're more likely to die from HIV/TB etc? Why in that case is the frequency so high among younger men.

I don't understand you point about earlobe removal.

You're missing the point by a country mile. I'm afraid to say that now it's me suggesting why this is not obvious.

The issue with circumcision in a population is very different to carrying out a cosmetically disfiguring procedure.

Since many consider the cosmetic aspect of circumcision a pertinent one, I would say it's not that far away.

People live happy lives with circumcisions. if you removed peoples' earlobes, you would have a lot of angry people.

Judging by some of those in the US they're getting a bit twitchy about circumcisions too.

It's about weighing up pros and cons.

Naturally and the earlobe example is obviously a exaggerated example, but in any case that was not my point. It was about the actual adjusted prevalence of a disease, further adjusting for other factors and the application and value of medical intervention in the case of that disease.

If your foreskin was a facial appendage, I suspect rates of circumcision would be lower.

Of course. I would imagine given that many skin cancers start on the nose, the removal of the tip of same in light skinned people would likely have an effect on rates of skin cancer. Probably more than on circumcisions have on penile cancer. Simply put penile cancer as a reason for circumcision is not really a runner even close to the degree you suggest.

Here's another opinion on the issue from the BMJ;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7033/779/c

The issue about circumcision reducing female to male transmission is true. But most guys catch it off women, so it's all about breaking the cycle. It's about reducing actual numbers within a population, so as to prevent the spread. In parts of Africa in particular, if a guy catches HIV off a woman (or a man) he's likely to spread it to several people. If he doesn't catch it, then his subsequent partners live. This is particularly true in war zones, where HIV spread like wildfire because of rape (in some war zones 1 in 4 girls...of all ages!! are thought to have been raped). There's been no evidence that circumcised males engage in more risky behaviour. The bottom line, though, is that regardless of their behaviour they catch less HIV than their non circumcised peers.

Sadly, high risk behaviour has been a factor, will remain a factor in poor, uneducated populations for many years, regardless of circumcision status.

The big trials on circumcision looked closely at factors affecting HIV transmission. Religion plays a very small part in the progression of a HIV epidemic. India probably has the most cases in the world right now, and is highly religious. Nigeria is a highly christian country, yet has a huge HIV problem.

Sheesh, you can't lump in "religion" as one entity and factor it out that easily. Different religions have different attitudes to sexual mores. Hindus would be more likely as a religious group to have less strict attitudes to sexual behaviour than Christians. You reference Nigeria. That shows your idea that religion has a very small part to play in this is incorrect. The Muslim part of Nigeria has much less of a HIV problem than the Christian. 2/4% compared to 10 odd %. Prostitution is far less of a problem in the Muslim populations due to stricter attitudes to sexual behaviour. The progression of HIV in those populations would be down to religious factors and their effect on risky sexual behaviour(among other things) Also many would report in surveys as religious, yet engage in activities frowned upon by those same religions. There's a world of difference between a devout Muslim and a semi lapsed a la carte Catholic who goes to mass on high days and holy days, yet both will report in stats as religious.

It's probably appropriate to mention in a ladies forum that the biggest effect on HIV transmission (aside from poverty) is thought to be gender inequality. Having worked in Africa with HIV patients, and seeing the effects first hand, I'm inclined to agree.

Couldn't agree more on that. The more equality and access to medical services for women the less progression of that and other ailments. That said it's still not that simple. Again if we look at Strict Islamic states where female equality as the west understands it is very different their rates of HIV infection are lower. It's a big factor in a multifactoral problem.

I would add my support to this. I'm 30 years old. I got the chop about 5 months ago for medical reasons.

I don't feel any less sensation now than I did before.

Fine and a god reason to need to have it done. From what I gather it can take quite a time for the sensation to go down anyway and the body naturally adapts. The slow speed of that adaptation would likely not be noticed either. Plus if you had it done for something like phimosis or complications arising from diabetes that impacted your enjoyment of sex in the first place, IE you didn't have a working foreskin, then of course it will be an improvement or the same. Pretty much all men that have "recovered" their foreskins report increased sensitivity(and that's with a "fake" foreskin).

Having said that, it's important to point out that some guys do feel less sensation after circumcision.

Of course and it would depend on how much and what was removed duing the procedure. If the frenulum was removed or impacted by the circumcision the loss would be much greater. I would imagine that is more likely in the case of a neonatal circumcision where the structures are less mature.

But jews and americans still enjoy sex.

There are enough of the buggers so I suspect you're right.:D

tallaght01

Wibbs wrote: »

If the disparity was lower and he didn't open with the 30% figure I could vaguely understand the omission. Vaguely. Again he writes "Penile carcinoma represents 20-30% of all cancers diagnosed in men living in Asia, Africa, or South America." All cancers in Asia, Africa, Sth America. Would one not expect a higher rate among countries from those areas, especially in a review on the disease? You're missing the point. Assumption and lack of discussion are simply not scientific. Not supplying references on the basis of that assumption compounds it. How much dubious science has been based on assumption in the past. So I stand by my contention that he is at best a bad communicator of his viewpoint. In any case as this is "pretty well known" among your peers can you link to a review/study that supports this well known fact? When you first mooted this figure I asked quite reasonably for anyhting that would back that up. Now many of these studies are on subscription sites I grant you, but, surely if it's that well known and that high it will be in the public domain. The extremes in anything are generally easy to find. Human nature and all that. The one example you did give also trotted out the 30% figure as accepted yet went on to report far lower figures in the populations studied.

I also noticed that he describes penile carcinoma as largely(not always as he does point out) a geriatric illness; "with an abrupt increase in incidence in men aged approximately 60 years; incidence peaks in men aged 80 years". I presume Nigeria is not in that bracket if as you say they're more likely to die from HIV/TB etc? Why in that case is the frequency so high among younger men.

You're missing the point by a country mile. I'm afraid to say that now it's me suggesting why this is not obvious. Since many consider the cosmetic aspect of circumcision a pertinent one, I would say it's not that far away. Judging by some of those in the US they're getting a bit twitchy about circumcisions too. Naturally and the earlobe example is obviously a exaggerated example, but in any case that was not my point. It was about the actual adjusted prevalence of a disease, further adjusting for other factors and the application and value of medical intervention in the case of that disease. Of course. I would imagine given that many skin cancers start on the nose, the removal of the tip of same in light skinned people would likely have an effect on rates of skin cancer. Probably more than on circumcisions have on penile cancer. Simply put penile cancer as a reason for circumcision is not really a runner even close to the degree you suggest.

Here's another opinion on the issue from the BMJ;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7033/779/c

The issue about circumcision reducing female to male transmission is true. But most guys catch it off women, so it's all about breaking the cycle. It's about reducing actual numbers within a population, so as to prevent the spread. In parts of Africa in particular, if a guy catches HIV off a woman (or a man) he's likely to spread it to several people. If he doesn't catch it, then his subsequent partners live. This is particularly true in war zones, where HIV spread like wildfire because of rape (in some war zones 1 in 4 girls...of all ages!! are thought to have been raped). There's been no evidence that circumcised males engage in more risky behaviour. The bottom line, though, is that regardless of their behaviour they catch less HIV than their non circumcised peers.

Sadly, high risk behaviour has been a factor, will remain a factor in poor, uneducated populations for many years, regardless of circumcision status.
Sheesh, you can't lump in "religion" as one entity and factor it out that easily. Different religions have different attitudes to sexual mores. Hindus would be more likely as a religious group to have less strict attitudes to sexual behaviour than Christians. You reference Nigeria. That shows your idea that religion has a very small part to play in this is incorrect. The Muslim part of Nigeria has much less of a HIV problem than the Christian. 2/4% compared to 10 odd %. Prostitution is far less of a problem in the Muslim populations due to stricter attitudes to sexual behaviour. The progression of HIV in those populations would be down to religious factors and their effect on risky sexual behaviour(among other things) Also many would report in surveys as religious, yet engage in activities frowned upon by those same religions. There's a world of difference between a devout Muslim and a semi lapsed a la carte Catholic who goes to mass on high days and holy days, yet both will report in stats as religious.



Plus if you had it done for something like phimosis or complications arising from diabetes that impacted your enjoyment of sex in the first place, IE you didn't have a working foreskin, then of course it will be an improvement or the same. Pretty much all men that have "recovered" their foreskins report increased sensitivity(and that's with a "fake" foreskin). Of course and it would depend on how much and what was removed duing the procedure. If the frenulum was removed or impacted by the circumcision the loss would be much greater. I would imagine that is more likely in the case of a neonatal circumcision where the structures are less mature. There are enough of the buggers so I suspect you're right.:D

I've had a look for data relating to penile carcinoma online for you, and I can't find any. That's unfortunate. But sadly, most developing countries don't release their health stats onto the net.Their health ministries send out the data to our governments, and it reaches our hospitals and universities and health departments, but you'll struggle to find official data online for any of those countries (except for HIV and TB where agencies like the WHO publish their own figures). The rates where penile cancer rates are highest are Paraguay, mexico, Puerto Rico, Uganda, and possibly vietnam? These countries, like every country, have variable rates each year, but they range from about 20-30% of all male cancers diagnosed in those countries. But you simply won't find government data for those contries online. However, the fact that the data is only in universities and hospitals doesn't make it untrue. If you can find dat on those countries which shows low rates, I'll be happy to take a look (it may well be out there if you speak spanish).

The BMJ letter you reference is an old one from 1996. Up to date data virtually all shows that circumcision protects against penile carcinoma. You will be able to google that information yourself.


In Nigeria and other parts of Africa, penile cancer rates are high. You don't accept this, as you describe it as a "geriatric disease". That's fair enough, it does, like most cancers affect older people. But about 30-40% of penile cancers affect people under 50. The life expectancy of a nigerian male is about 50. The rate would be much higher is they lived longer. One of the reasons they don't live longer is penile carcinoma!

I'm still unsure about the research you're talking about on circumcision and HIV, that didn't factor in religion. The 3 main studies in the area were performed in people in the same geographical location, and of mostly the same ethnicity for this very reason.

Nigeria is deeply religious, both in the north and south, so to make comparisons between devout muslims and lapsed catholics is not accurate. You argue that religion may help stem the spread of HIV, but nigeria has the 3rd highest number of HIV positive people in the world.

In the north, there are some areas of relatively low HIV prevalance compared to other parts of the country, but there are also areas of high prevalence. These boundaries are not formed along religious lines. In fact, when UNAIDS looked into sexual behaviour in Nigeria, they found the highest number of sexual partners were seen in males in part of the northern region (conversely the females in this region had the lowest number of lifetime partners - gender inequality rearing it's head). This illustrates one of the problems with HIV in very religious societies. Both Africa and India provide good examples of this. In both Nigeria and India, women are very much 2nd class citizens. We've already accepted that gender inequality fuels the spread of HIV.

HIv workers in Nigeria will tell you that it's very difficult to get permission to talk to females about sexual health, due to religious restrictions.

The studies show HIV to be spread along the lines of poverty, lack of education, gender inequality and war. Religion isn't a big player in it's epidemiology. Religion does, however, restrict the access of females to education and financial empowerment, aswell as tolerating polygamy.

I think the assertion that people who have medical reasons for foreskin removal had less sensation in the first place, so circumcision led to no change, is incorrect. Phimosis won't reduce sensation in most cases, neither will diabetes. It just leads to recurrent infection/tightening. Sure, it can sometimes lead to sexual problems, but that's not why most people get the op.

Finally, I don;t know a lot about "fake" foreskins. But I imagine that the data here is skewered by the fact that a guy who goes to the trouble of getting a new foreskin constructed and put on (!!!!!) will have been at the more severe end of the "loss of sensitivity" scale in the first place.

EDIT: I know this is very boring for those who aren't interested in the issues that I keep rabbitting on about. So, rather than discussing them at length here, I'll post a few of my fave links in the area:

http://www.apin.harvard.edu/Chapter2.pdf

http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_3.pdf

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/7/news10706/en/

Might make for interesting reading for anyone who's interested.

Dissection of the hardcore science is always welcome on the biology/medicine forum

Orlee

I'd like to unwrap it myself thank you very much!

GrumPy

Orlee wrote: »

I'd like to unwrap it myself thank you very much!

That's quite a nasty image for some reason

Slutmonkey57b

MIN2511 wrote: »

Not so keen on the extra skin, can be a nightmare when giving a bj. The men in my family were circumcised and i would be cirumcising my sons(with or without my husbands permission)

That's a VERY disturbing follow on sentence.

Wibbs

I think we covered that. That and the clear fact that myself and tallaght01 know waaaay more about willies than is considered seemly in polite company. Though in fairness at least he has an excuse...

tbh

he's a pro, and you're a keen amateur?

Drift

I'm sure two guys engaging in a serious of long diatribes about their and other people's foreskins is EXACTLY what people had in mind when the idea of The Ladies Lounge was first put forward.

Edit: Good discussion all the same though!

Red Hand

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

I propose that Wibbs change his nickname from Wibbs to Willies.:pac:

All posts in this thread from now on will count as a vote for the name change.:p

Well, I toted up all the posts that were entered into this thread after the above ^, and it has come to a grand total of 34 votes for Wibbs to change his avator to Willies. Oh, and if you don't circumcise this post, then the tally comes to 35.

All in favour, say "Aye!":p

(By the way, tallaght01's avator can become Professor Circumspect:pac:)

watna

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Well, I toted up all the posts that were entered into this thread after the above ^, and it has come to a grand total of 34 votes for Wibbs to change his avator to Willies. Oh, and if you don't circumcise this post, then the tally comes to 35.

All in favour, say "Aye!":p

(By the way, tallaght01's avator can become Professor Circumspect:pac:)

I presume you mean taglines not avatar? If Wibbs changed his avatar to a pic of a willy it wouldn't go down to well!

if so, then Aye!

Red Hand

watna wrote: »

I presume you mean taglines not avatar? If Wibbs changed his avatar to a pic of a willy it wouldn't go down to well!

if so, then Aye!

Oh, I meant his username, Wibbs to Willies!

Sure, lob in the picture as well-no point in circumcising his whole profile.:pac:

Feelgood

You that when you get cut, the surgeons then use the skin to make eyelids for facelift patients.

tallaght01

I'm only interested in willies in a professional sense

There will be no name changing here :cool:

Can I just ask if the other cut guys find themselves more aerodynamic since they've had the snip?

I ran a 4 minute mile the day after my op....and I've no legs