2tadpoles

The glans is a mucous membrane. Technically, the glans has no skin. The reason it appears to be skin in circumcised males is because of constant exposure to air and friction, which causes keratinization.

The glans of an intact male is soft and moist....like the underside of an eyelid.

2tadpoles

This study, like all the other studies regarding neonatal UTI, fails to address a very significant matter. Why were these boys not circumcised?

Infants who are sickly and/or weak are not usually circumcised. Infants who are sickly and/or weak are more susceptible to infection.

It's entirely plausible that many of these boys did not develop UTI as a result of the presence of their forekin, but because they were weak infants with impaired immune systems. They just happened to be uncircumcised because the procedure would be risky for them.

Also, sickly babies are often kept in the nursery instead of being allowed to room-in with mom...making it more difficult to breastfeed. Formula-fed babies are more likely to develop UTI.

Dr Rick

The above is only one of several studies that has shown a postive effect of circumcision upon neotnatal UTI rates; the Kaiser study was specifically designed to assess the cost differences and not etiologies (causes) of neonatal UTIs in the two groups.

Here's the only prospective study I could find on sexual satisfaction comparing pre- and post- circumcision states.

I could find no studies that show that intact men are as a group any less or more satisfied with their sexual function than circumcised men, and nothing that supports the assertion made on this thread that circumcised men are more likely to experience sexual problems than intact men.

Similarly, I found no scientific evidence that stretching and taping a penis has any benefit of any kind; does anyone know of any?

J Urol 2002 May;167(5):2111-3

Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debunking a myth?

Collins S, Upshaw J, Rutchik S, Ohannessian C, Ortenberg J, Albertsen P.

Department of Urology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

PURPOSE: Claims of superior sexual sensitivity and satisfaction for uncircumcised males have never been substantiated in a prospective fashion in the medical literature. We performed such a study to investigate these assertions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI) was administered to sexually active males older than 18 years before undergoing circumcision. After a minimum interval of 12 weeks after the operation, the survey was again administered. The 5 domains of the BMSFI (sexual drive, erections, ejaculation, problem assessment overall satisfaction) were each given a summed composite score. These scores before and after circumcision were then analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank testing. RESULTS: All 15 men who participated in the study between September 1999 and October 2000 were available for followup. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 36.9 +/- 12.0 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the BMFSI composite scores of reported sexual drive (p >0.68), erection (p >0.96), ejaculation (p >0.48), problem assessment (p >0.53) or overall satisfaction (p >0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function in sexually active adults who undergo the procedure.

Rick

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Ut

Err...The main damage of circumcision (having your glans exposed all the time) is cumulative over time. Men circumcised as adults have reported that the full brunt of desensitization occurs over 5 years. That 12 weeks is not even 5% of that time.

I can't wait for these men to be interviewed again in 2004-2005.

Dr Rick

I didn't know that; where's your evidence?

Corwin

Well you realize if you didn't brush off any corroborating evidence as being 'oh that's just from an anti-circ site' you might have noticed...

But then we want to be scientifically openminded, now don't we?

Coragyps

&lt;stern moderator voice&gt;
Please keep it civil, gentlemen.
&lt;/voice&gt;

Dr Rick

Welcome back, Corwin:

Please show the scientific evidence from the anti-circ sites that support the above assertion plus the ones you made about the tripled rates of sexual dysfunction, the benefits of hygiene, and the easy treatment of neonatal UTIs.

Rick

Corwin

I'll have to post it when I get home. Meanwhile possibly you could provide a reference to any other elective amputation that is regularly done without the patient's consent?

In addition, possibly you could explain how YOU would react to being dragged off and having parts of your body cut off without your consent? (After all... it's for your own good...)

[Edited to add, now that I think about it...]

I'll post the information, but I'd like to emphasize the point that it's largely irrelevant. You're bringing up a strawman here... REGARDLESS of whether or not there is any detrimental effect on sexual sensitivity... what gives you the right to take someone who BY DEFINITION can not give consent to a medical procedure and perform an amputation of healthy tissue on them?

Let's face it. The real reason you're so emphatic about neonatal circumcision is that if you wait until a man is old enough to say yes or no, we will INVARIABLY say no unless there are religious motivations. This is what we that aren't tied up in the medical establishment call a 'no fucking brainer.'

Or once again.... there's the cigar cutter... we can wait for you to volunteer or we can just slap you on the table and do it... after all... you'll just get dirt under the nails anyway. It's for your own good really.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Corwin ]</p>

Dr Rick

My assertion has been and still is that there are medical benefits to circumcision which you at first denied with ad hominem attacks. When I presented evidence and showed that you were wrong, you responded with assertions about harm that you cannot back-up.

In between it all you've called names, pro-claimed your own knowledge in this area while denigrating others, and insisted those that argue the objective evidence have sinsister ulterior motives.

The assertions of harm you attribute to circumcision remain unsubstantiated; no strawman will change that, but objective evidence may.

Rick