health Male Circumcision - Is It Necessary?

[willow_boy]

I just want to get the views and opinions of MTC members whether you are in the medical field or not. Regardless of what your religious views dictate, is this procedure really necessary?

 

What are the physiological effects if one did/did not go through this surgery?

 

Post away. Thanks.

[fatso8]

Wala benefits kung magpatuli or hindi..

 

Sa atin, meron psychological effect.. kasi tatawagin kang "SUPOT!!!" pag di ka nagpatuli.

[Smooth T]

My two cents....

 

Male circumcision has been a time honored tradition in many societies, be it for cultural, religious, or medical reasons....

 

Coming from a medical standpoint, even if there are arguments FOR male circumcision, most, if not all, these arguments are merely generalized assumptions or uncontested opinions that reflect the Edwardian and Victorian periods in which they were formed.

 

The strongest argument for male circumcision has been the prevention of penile cancer. The basis of this argument is that supposedly, no circumcised male has ever gotten this disease. (One of the risk factors for this disease is the accumulation of way too much smegma under the prepuce) Unfortunately, proper hygiene, be it in circumcised OR uncircumcised males has the same effect of removing the smegma....

 

Another older argument for circumcision is that it supposedly cuts down on masturbatory tendencies. Sorry to say folks that removing the prepuce actually makes our weapons less sensitive. This is not because we lose nerve endings... this is because an uncircumcised male is always sheathed unless aroused, whereas a circumcised male, by the very nature of the circumcision is unsheathed. Being unsheathed makes the nerve endings more used to stimulation and thus become somewhat less responsive than otherwise. Anyway, for all you circumcised males out there, you know how fun jerking off is... I don't think circumcision reduced it in any way.

 

These are just some of the `medical` arguments for circumcision. As you can see, they are a bit on the weak side. Only recently have studies popped up challenging this time honored practice. And while these studies are as of yet, unconclusive, they are pointing to the assertion that circumcision, while NOT harmful, apparently has little real benefit.

 

Now, if you ask my personal opinion, I like being circumcised. It just looks neater, and somehow sexier... :thumbsupsmiley: Parang pornstar ga ba. hahahaha

[artvader]

they say circumcised people are 70% less likely to be infected with HIV. this is because there are less surface areas where the virus can latch itself onto. However this does not mean you can do away with the condom and hope that the remaining 30% doesn't win out.

 

always play it safe.

[hitomi]

they say circumcised people are 70% less likely to be infected with HIV. this is because there are less surface areas where the virus can latch itself onto. However this does not mean you can do away with the condom and hope that the remaining 30% doesn't win out.

 

always play it safe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

right, play safe. i just read an article in Helath Today about this topic. however, it says that contracting STDs does not depend on one being circumcised or not.

the article also said that the main advantage of the procedure is its cleanliness. penile cancer is too rare to be even a factor.

so its up to the parents of the kid i guess

[artvader]

For information lang. I repeat this does not guarantee you're safe from AIDS.

 

Circumcision May Reduce Risk of HIV Infection

 

Study Shows Procedure Prevented 7 of 10 Potential Infections

By Charlene Laino

WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD

on Tuesday, July 26, 2005

 

July 26, 2005 (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) -- Circumcision may protect against infection with the virus that causes AIDS.

 

In a study of more than 3,000 young men, those who were circumcised were 65% less likely to be infected with HIV compared with those who were not circumcised.

 

"Circumcision prevented 6 to 7 out of 10 potential HIV infections," says researcher Bertran Auvert, MD, MPH, professor of public health at the University of Versailles-Saint Quentin in France.

 

Circumcision was so effective at preventing HIV transmission that the trial was stopped early so that all the young men in the study could be offered the procedure, he tells WebMD.

 

The study included 3,128 uncircumcised young men aged 18 to 24 in a rural area outside of Johannesburg, South Africa. The men were randomly assigned either to undergo the procedure or remain uncircumcised. All the men were heterosexual.

 

By about 1 1/2 years later, 51 men who had not been circumcised had been infected with HIV, compared with only 18 who had the procedure, the study showed.

 

The findings were presented at a meeting of the International AIDS Society.

 

(more here)

[artvader]

Male Circumcision as the Answer to the African AIDS Epidemic?

By ED Sussman

WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Pamela Yoder, MD, PhD, FACOG

 

July 10, 2000 (Durban, South Africa) -- Male circumcision -- for generations a standard operation for the vast majority of men in America -- is now being considered as a way to combat AIDS in Africa, the epicenter of the worldwide epidemic.

 

About 25 million Africans have AIDS or are infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, and many of those men with the disease live in areas of Africa where circumcision is not performed regularly.

 

"Circumcision was once very common in Botswana," said Daniel Halperin, PhD. But missionaries discredited the practice, he said, and now few men in Botswana are circumcised -- and more than 30% of the adult population in that country has AIDS or is infected with HIV. Halperin is assistant professor of medical anthropology and HIV/STD Prevention at the University of California, San Francisco's AIDS Research Insitute.

 

During a symposium at the 13th International AIDS Conference here, researchers examined new research on male circumcision in Africa. Halperin asked during the session: "If you had a one-time intervention that could reduce the risk of becoming infected by more than 50%, wouldn't it be worth using that as an intervention?"

 

Other researchers said that dozens of studies on male circumcision indicated that the procedure, in which the foreskin of the penis is surgically removed, might be capable of reducing the risk of contracting the disease by as much as 57%. Robert Bailey, PhD, of the University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago, found that interestingly, circumcision was generally well accepted by men as well as women -- even in areas of Africa where it wasn't practiced.

 

However, there also were reports that raised the question of whether circumcision provided a biological safety net against HIV infection or if the reduced rate of infection among circumcised men was due to their cultural and religious activities.

 

(more)

[artvader]

Circumcision is your LAST line of defense against HIV. Don't let it be the FIRST. Practice safe sex.

[willow_boy]

Mga pards,

 

Salamat sa mga postings niyo. They've been very informative.

 

The following news article also appeared on MSNBC.com yesterday (June 15) about a court battle between divorced spouses as to whether their son should go through the procedure. Check it out:

 

Fight over boy's circumcision goes to court

 

Regards to everyone!

[hottlipss]

My eldest son, who just turned 9 y/o, is not circumcised unlike my younger son, 8 y/o. Since he was my first born and I was inexperience at motherhood, I didn't think I can handle taking care of his belly button and circumcision at the same time. So I decided to just have it done when he's about 5. The doctor's told me they would have to put him under general anesthesia and with his asthma there are some risks involved.

So hanggang ngayon hindi pa siya tule. For hygienic reasons, I want him circumcise but I'm afraid of the risk. He hasn't had an asthma attack in about 4 to 5 years. Maybe next summer when my hubby is home so he can help me.

[Green Lantern]

Why do they have to put him under General Anesthesia for a short procedure like this? The risk of putting someone under General Anesthesia (especially a child) is not worth the procedure. Local anesthesia should be sufficient but if you don't think your son can handle it, you can try local anesthesia with a bit of sedation but certainly not G.A.

[sonhouse]

Why do they have to put him under General Anesthesia for a short procedure like this? The risk of putting someone under General Anesthesia (especially a child) is not worth the procedure. Local anesthesia should be sufficient but if you don't think your son can handle it, you can try local anesthesia with a bit of sedation but certainly not G.A.

 

I concur. Wait until he's around 11-12. I'm not ashamed to say I had mine done at 11 years, under local anesthesia.

[Green Lantern]

I have circumcised over 200 kids in my lifetime and I have never had a need to put a child under GA. A little reassurance does the trick most of the time.

[edc]

Ako Tuli na baby pa lang. Nung pagka-panganak nag-antay lang daw ng ilan weeks tinuli na ako. Thankful na din ako kasi hindi na ako dumaan sa hirap ng tuli. Yung kapatid ng barkada ko sa sobrang kaba nagpa General Anesthecia pa. Mahal tuloy nagastos. Around 8thou or 10 thou ata. Mahal pala yung G.A.

 

Kasi di ba dito sa pinas uso magpapatuli bago mag highschool. Sabi pa nga nakakatulong daw ng tangkad yun. Kalokohan yun kasi talagang tatangkad ka dahil adolescent stage yun.

 

Kasi kung totoo talaga yan eh bakit yung mga kano at negro eh karamihan mga supot bakit ang tatangkad?

 

Doc pag medical basis(Hindi isasali yung nakasanayang cultural na dapat before highschool or dapat dumaan every male adolescent sa hirap ng tuli)mas ok ba ituli ng baby pa or before highschool?

Edited July 17, 2006 by edc

[edc]

May mga supot ba dito sa mtc? (May aamin ba?)