Dr Rick

"Untimely old, circumcision has elicited more controversy and war of words than any surgical procedure in history. Although previous claims of benefits like curing masturbation, gout, epilepsy, and even insanity were no doubt absurd, important research has shed light on real medical benefits of circumcision. In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV, cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection. Because of advances in the understanding of the anatomy of the foreskin and pain conditioning in infants, prevailing attitudes have changed about anesthesia and analgesia during the procedure..." Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation. Alanis MC, Lucidi RS.*

Neonatal circumcision is associated with a decreased risk of infectious disease acquisition and transmission including HIV (the AIDS virus) and HPV (the virus which causes genital warts and is strongly associated with cervical cancer). It is also associated with decreased rates of neonatal urinary tract infections (a potentially very serious illness for an infant), penile cancers, and cervical carcinomas in partners. These conclusions maintain statistical significance even when one corrects for potentially confounding variables such as numbers of sex partners and cultural differences. Delaying circumcision until adulthood may diminish these benefits. There are ongoing studies in Africa where HIV infection rates are high that may provide some further insight into this aspect of circumcision.

Circumcision is not without risks. Though serious complications are rare, they do occur. Complications include infection, bleeding, and very rarely, partial amputation. The risks are higher when the procedure is delayed until adulthood.

Some have argued that circumcised males are "deprived" of an "important" part of their bodies and subsequently have less fulfilling sex lives, but there is no objective clinical evidence to support this assertion. Men circumcised as adults generally report equivalent or increased sexual satisfaction compared with their precircumcised state. We have to be careful interpreting those findings, however, because men who underwent circumcision for foreskin-related medical problems could skew the results in favor of the procedure. The National Health and Social Life Survey (Laumann et. al. Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. J Am Med Assoc 1997; 277: 1052-7.) found that uncircumcised men experience a greater frequency of sexual dysfunction and erectile difficulties than circumcised men, particularly as they get older. The same study also found that circumcised men receive more fellatio on average than their intact brethren. American circumcised men also masturbate slightly more often than intact men. These finding seem to go against the arguments that removal of the foreskin somehow makes sexual acts more difficult and/or less pleasurable.

Whether the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks is still the subject of much spirited debate, but imo there are many more social and medical problems that deserve the energy and attention that some have devoted to this very small thing.

*The claim that circumcision is "the world's oldest" operation is far from certain; there is some evidence that trephening (boring holes into the skull to release evil spirits) pre-dates circumcision.

MilitantModerate

You appear to be picking and choosing conclusions from separate studies to support a thesis of significant benefits for circumcision. For example the Laumann paper also notes:

more specifically:

Finally I don't know how your original reference can state

when the AAP has questioned many of these studies, particularly the UTI ones, which were previously the best cases. In the end they conclude:

If it wasn't for the fact that significant religious groups and a large proportion of the US male population *want* to justify subjecting their sons to the same backwards practice they endured we would not even have all these dubious studies cum fishing expeditions.

ottoman_strikes_back

Because it is still on debate right now...

DCC

That's the one, thanks! I knew someone would help me out here.

Fortuna

One Woman's opinion,

Well, granted that what I am about to say is subjective and my personal opinion only, I do find the circumcised penis to be more asthetically pleasing that an uncircumcised one. I will also admit that I would definitely not engage in fellatio with an uncircumcised one. (and Yes, I check it out).

(in hindsight, I probably shouldnt have admitted this, but for me it is only a matter of asthetics, and the Masters/Johnson statistic probably reflects that same sentiment)

Corwin

Neither of which justifies the practice any more than a reduced 'risk' of penile cancer. The difference is barely statistically significant... and is miniscule compared to the reduced risk of infection that comes from condom use.

Again.... slicing off parts of someone's anatomy without their consent so that they can have a tiny reduction in the risk for HIV/HPV simply doesn't make sense.... particularly in light of the fact that there are more effective means of protection available that don't require amputation.

If circumcision provided some actual statistically significant benefit, there might be a reason to do it in spite of the risks. As it is, an inconclusive potential reduction in the risk of being infected with HIV/HPV clearly isn't worth the risk of sexual dysfunction in later life, and the possibility of complications leading to gender reassignment in an otherwise healthy boy. (It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen.)

Until one looks at the function of the amputated tissue, (specifically the protective foreskin, and the highly sensitive frenulum) and talks to men who were circumcised later in life. Contrary to your statement, they more often than not report a marked decrease in sexual function due to overstimulation and keratinization of the glans penis.

Actually, while I'll agree that trepanning (alternate spelling) potentially predates circumcision.... abortion predates both.

Nickle

Circumcised and uncircumcised penises look pretty much the same when erect, although perhaps feel a little different. While you apparently inspect your suitor's meat stick for extra slack on the shank, I've never encountered anyone that cared or noticed until I mentioned it. Maybe it's the females I hang around. God love 'em.

MilitantModerate

I'm sure you would then fully support men in various societies around the world who still find a circumsized female much more asthetically pleasing. Let's trim all that untidy meat around a woman's plumbing.

Your loss. You are aware that once properly :-P erect there is little visible difference.

breezanne

Fortuna's fellatio "favoritism"is perhaps based more on hygiene, which can be related.

Chicken Girl

In that case, a man is completely justified in categorically refusing cunnilingus to any woman who hasn't had her clitoral hood removed. It's the same situation, you know.