http://www.ninemsn.com.au/article/8768205 The research is discussed by study. The 36 studies only included two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – though this is not especially surprising as most adult men would not volunteer to be randomly assigned to be circumcised or not, unless there was a pressing health reason to do so. One RCT was from Kenya, it including included 2,784 men, used a behavioural questionnaire to examine sexual performance or satisfaction between those randomised to be circumcised and those not, and found no significant differences between the groups. The second, from Uganda, included around 4,500 men and again found no differences in sexual performance or satisfaction between those randomised to be circumcised and not. In observational studies, a US Health and Social Life Survey of almost 1,500 men found that erectile dysfunction was more common among uncircumcised men, while an Australian telephone survey found reports of fewer sexual difficulties among circumcised men. Other surveys, including those looking solely at men who have sex with men, found no differences in sexual problems or libido between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Overall, as would be expected, most erectile problems among circumcised and uncircumcised men became more common with increasing age. Other surveys found that circumcised men were happier with the appearance of their bodies, and masturbated more frequently. However, another survey found that men after circumcision were more likely to find masturbation more difficult or that it gave less pleasure, than being more favourable. Another study of 500 couples found no difference in the average time to ejaculation during sex in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Another survey of men in Sydney found that premature ejaculation was significantly less common in men circumcised in later life. Other reviews that combined the results of individual studies found no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in difficulties with orgasm, pain during sex, or sexual desire. - - - Updated - - - I think you should start the poll that I suggested. I would be willing to bet that most women, like myself, prefer circumcised to uncircumcised . . .
Vaginal odor is common as well. "a strong vaginal odor — for instance, a "fishy" smell — might be abnormal and could indicate a problem." http://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/vaginal-odor/basics/definition/sym-20050664 Do you then advocate cutting pieces of the vagina off as well?
Dear All I think there is a big misunderstanding about the use of the male foreskin. Every body-part has a function and purpose. In animals like geckoes and some lizards it is observed that in dangerous situations they can detach their tales when an enemy has grabbed onto it, and in this way escape from harm. It is exactly the same for male humans. The penis presents a weakness in their defences when it dangles loosely between the thighs. Thus a natural defense mechanism has evolved, i.e., when a predator has got a hold of the mans dick, the man can drop-off the foreskin of its vulnerable member, make a run for it and so elude a hazardous situation. Everything has its use, benefit, time and place. Excelsior
Joking I hope. - - - Updated - - - As is said in your link, that would be a sign of an infection or something. Also, cutting female genitalia has NO medical benefits and actually causes health problems. That is just not the case for men. Circumcision in men has medical benefits, and therefore it should be left up to the parents if they choose to have their sons circumcised or not and not to some strangers or the government.
It's not just done, because of religion. Evidence of health benefits: A decreased risk of urinary tract infections. A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin). Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location). http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision#4
Well, where is this education? At the very least, the parents should have to watch a special pros and cons of foreskin video before they sign the consent form.
These are always the hardest issues: those involving children. I am in favor of parental sovereignty until a point. That point is extremely difficult to reach. Beating your kid as punishment should be legal. Belting them should also be legal. Slitting their throats should not. Raping them should not. Still, it has to be something extremely (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up for me to interfere.
But in this case the effects of this parental sovereignty extend far into the child's adult life, in a very physical way. It's not like the foreskin will regrow. You would not find it acceptable for a parent to cut off one of their child's little fingers, would you?
let children sue their parents if they as adults did not want to be circumcised, then I think parents would think about it more btw, I was circumcised and have no issues with it.... mine was done by a doctor though.... .
Whether I find it acceptable or not is irrelevant. All that matters is whether I'm willing to use force to prevent it. Am I? It depends. Was there at least some sort of reasoning behind it? They they think the finger would doom their kid to hell, or become gangrenous? In such instances I would not interfere. If, on the other hand, they're doing it for kicks - then yeah I would probably interfere, if it was worth my time to do so. I was circumcised for medical reasons, we're not Jewish. Hasn't impacted my life much, I don't think that circumcision for religious reasons warrants the application of force.
I assume it's anti Semitic to suggest it. Still, Jewish rabbi would get really pissed off if they had to stop sucking little boys' penises. They're more than a bit disgusting.
So, shouldn't it still be the parent's choice? It's just a little flap of skin, what would be wrong about cutting out the labia minora?
Jews and Muslims don't circumsize their boys, for health reasons. medical benefits is just a happy coincidence.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-mom-released-jail-circumcision-dispute/story?id=31273930 "Hironimus had been taken into custody May 14 after she went missing for several months with her 4-year-old son, allegedly to avoid a court order to circumcise him, according to court records. She was taken to jail on charges including interference with custody, according to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office. " .
Yes, I already started a thread about that: Mom faces jail time for trying to protect her son from circumcision
If it's just a circumcision without consequences on the function of the genital organ and on the capability of the woman to feel pleasure ... we can deal with female circumcision exactly like we deal with male circumcision. But the practice Female Genital Mutilation is a "mutilation" not a "circumcision". The damages to the external parts of the female genital organ can affect the functioning of it during sexual acts and the woman can be no more able to reach an orgasm.
Quite correct, but there are other modifications of our body we do because of pleasure, fashion, tradition ... think to mundane earrings ... or tattoos ... until similar interventions are not dangerous they are considered licit ...
Circumcision is part of the holy religious ritual of our Jewish allies in Israel. It is no crime. Female genital mutilation conducted by Islamic Terrorists is torture and should be punished by drones.
