southernhybrid

As often is the case on this BB, populated mostly by younger people, I would like to point out that this is only true for young men. So here's a tiny piece of information.

source, Social Gerontology, 1999, Hooyman and Kiyak pgs, 210-211

Sex is not just for kids. Please bear that in mind, before making generalizations. I've worked with the elderly for 27 years and many of them are or would like to be sexually active if they had a partner available. But back to the topic.

I don't approve of any kind of circumcision to the genitals of children but I believe there is quite a lot of evidence to support the fact that female circumcison is far more traumatic than male circumcision in many ways, but especially in terms of loss of ability to enjoy sexual satisfaction when compared to male circumcision.

Megusic

Hi guys...

just checking in before halloween costume shopping

anyway i just wanted to remind everyone...that this thread was not started to compare the severity of male vs. female circumcision. i think it is quite obvious that cutting of all outer sex organs of a four year old girl with the lid of a tin can is going to be more traumatic than circumcising an inftant boy with anesthesia.

my point was that physical mutilation of any sort should not be tolerable. just because one may be "less severe" shouldn't make it any less wrong. physical integrity is a human right, yes?

dreamer, still working on getting those numbers for you...unfortunately being a student seems to be hindering my attempts at being an intellecutal...

Dr Rick

Irrespective of the ethics of the procedure and the potential for harm or injury, neonatal male circumcision reduces the risk and incidence of penile cancers, cervical cancers, HIV, human papilloma virus, syphillis, chancroid, gonorrhea, and urinary tract infections. These benefits are lost if circumcision is performed in adulthood.

If anyone wants to see an ad nauseum discussion of these issues, some of the medical studies, and a whole lot of nasty-name calling as well, check out the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000430&p=" target="_blank">circumcision, eek!</a> thread.

Rick

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Glory

</strong>

I was told by my obstetrician that the health benefits of neonatal circumcision were not proven or supported by evidence. Now I don't know what to think. Has there been new research?

Glory

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Megusic

Thanks for the link Rick
quite lenghty, i'll have to work my way through it one of these days

Dreamer and Glory,
use the Eek! link from Rick and go the the last page (12 i think) of the thread...Corwin posted a few good links w/ data and percentages you may be interested in!

Dr Rick

Yes, Glory, but wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if you just clicked on the link and waded through 12 pages of ad hominems to get to the dozen or so abstracts and summaries posted there rather than have me post them again here and ignite another firestorm?

xoxoxoxo,
Rick

Glory

I wasn't asking you to post the data here. I just wanted to confirm that the conventional wisdom in the medical community had changed. If you say it has, I trust you.

I'll take a look at the end of the thread. I fear that a dozen pages of ad homs would be a bad influence me.

Glory

Glory

Okay. I looked at the last page and found the links to the studies. I had hard time seeing through all the smegma being thrown around but I got what I was looking for. It still seems to me like circumcision is a drastic measure for very little benefit. Thanks for the info.

xoxoxoxo right back at you.
Glory

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Dr Rick

ummm...there are no links to any clinical studies on the last page; there's just links to other websites on page 12, most of them presenting data that may be just a little bit slanted and/or dated, and an autopsy study

You'll have to go through the other 11 pages if you want to see actual published, peer-reviewed clinical studies and get up to date on the subject. Much of the data, particularly that on HIV and cervical cancer, is very recent and not covered well at all on those sites.

Have fun! Or don't.

Hugs and kisses, Rick

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Arrowman

Ahem. 45 year old man here. And the information you provide is right on the money. However, even though response slows in the older man, and (IMHO) older women are more responsive, there is (IMHO) still a gap - as a generalisation, your mileage may vary of course. The gap may be narrower (thanks be to the Sex Gods), but it's still there.