Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
Via Fotolia
I’ll be honest; I had to do a lot of research before sitting down to write this article. I have only come into contact with one uncircumcised penis during my short stint as a single adult woman, and it didn’t really seem to be that big of a deal at the time.
However, when it comes to uncircumcised (commonly spelled "uncercumsized") penises, there’s more than meets the eye . Approximately 50% of men are “uncut,” which is really how the penis is meant to be in the first place (not many men outside the United States are circumcised). Circumcision originated among ancient religious populations as a way to purify man by removing the source of his sexual pleasure. This tradition has held its ground into the 21st century, which can lead to quite a bit of confusion when a woman unexpectedly comes into contact with a penis au naturale.
It may surprise you to learn that the foreskin itself, before it is separated from its owner, is extremely sensitive to pleasure. During circumcision two very important things are removed that will never grow back: the frenulum, the band near the tip of the penis that connects the foreskin with the glans, and then of course, the foreskin and all the nerve endings that go along with it.
Not only are these sources of pleasure eliminated during circumcision, but the shaft of the penis is left unprotected and slowly loses its responsiveness through a process called keratinization. In an article published in Fathering Magazine, Rio Cruz explains that “the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the clitoris and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue.”
The main difference in having sex with an uncircumcised penis is that the foreskin acts as a glider of sorts, and it stays in place while the glans and shaft continue to thrust. This leads to less friction in the vagina and thus a more pleasurable experience for the female. For circumcised men who are experiencing gradual loss of sensation throughout the course of their lifetime, there actually is a process of foreskin restoration that involves the use of tape and weights (?).
So when all is said and done, you (and your partner) are actually likely to have much better sex with a penis that is uncircumcised. If you’re performing oral sex and looking for tips, just focus your efforts on the ridge just below the glans and use your hand to help the foreskin go with the flow. That's all there is to it!
Add a Comment294 Comments
Beccari, himself is the ultimate traveller. [url=http://isabelsneakersstore.slicins.com][b]isabel marant[/b][/url]
June 6, 2013 - 8:13pmThis Comment
Since the very beginning, and right up to today, Louis Vuitton handbags have been reputable and known as synonymous with high end quality and craft.}Fast forward to today world, and Louis Vuitton handbags have become markers of class and luxury.. [url=http://isabelsneakersstore.slicins.com][b]isabel marant shoes[/b][/url]
June 6, 2013 - 8:06pmThis Comment
Buffy Daddy, you can find most of my facts at ww.cirp.org and those facts are usually from reputable medical journals.
The American Cancer Society absolutely doesn't recommend infant male circumcision for penile cancer. i don't know where you got that bit of misinformation. Some statistics for you to consider, Sweden where 17,999 out of 100,000 men go to their graves with their foreskins has a lower penile cancer rate than The US. There are other countries where circumcision is virtually unknown that have lower penile cancer rates as well.
No one was making any statements about Jews except the fact they are an insular culture. It is a simple fact that Jews tend to sleep with Jews and marry Jews. That makes them insular meaning they insulate themselves from other cultures as a practice. "Insular" is not bigotry. Jewish wives of circumcised men don't contract cervical cancer because as a culture, they have not been exposed to the HPV virus like populations that are not insular. Just as Americans have not had the HIV rates that African cultures have had because the two cultures just don't mix. It also explains why among heretosexuals in The US, the infection has been especially high in African Americans. There is just not much mixing between the races.
Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of "insular." The word comes from the word "insulate" meaning "kept apart' as an island culture would be insular. By their own choice, Jews in Israel tend to keep themselves apart from others therefore, they are insular.
Even if what you are saying has some truth to it, the fact still remains that the very circumcision kills 6 of every child it is supposed to protect from penile cancer decades later. (Search " Robert Baker," "Thomas S. Szasz" or "Dan Bollinger" for the studies of the deaths.) If you would like, I can also post the names and locations of infants that have died as a direct result of their circumcisions. But, I would also like you to post a list of names of boys that have died from not being circumcised.
Phimosis as a complication of diabetes does happen but it is relatively rare and not common enough to justify the risks of infant circumcision. It is also limited to older men with an onset commonly in the late 50's. It indicates the men have not controlled their diabetes in most cases. Irresponsibility of one person does not justify the violation of another person's body.
Regarding vaginal dryness, have you ever tried to find K-Y Jelly in Europe? It is difficult to find there yet it is available widely in The US. I'm assuming that you are circumcised. Have you ever noticed that your mons pubis is covered with (natural) vaginal lubricant after sex? Where do you suspect that came from? How do you suspect it got out? Could it be that your penis pulled it out? Do you know that the penile sleeve on a natural penis slides up and down the penis from near the tip to the base during sex instead of being fixed in place like a circumcised penis?
Even in women with very little vaginal lubrication, artificial lubrication is rarely needed if the man is intact. It takes very little because the vast majority of the lubrication stays within the vagina.
By the way, I see that you are slinging around a bit of scientific terrminology. If you are a physician, I recommend keeping it close to your vest. You've clearly come to a gun fight with a pocket knife. This is simply one you can not win and it can only become an embarassment.
.
March 19, 2010 - 11:40amThis Comment
what are all these men doing on our site anyway with their ridiculous premises? - artificial lube!!! -trust a man to come up with that one (talk about denial).....
December 15, 2012 - 3:50pmThis Comment
First of all, I find it interesting that you have not identified yourself by profession or gender, not that that is most important. Secondly, your "not so astute" assertions about your vast knowledge of the sub-cultural sexual practices of Jewish women (non orthodox) speaks for not only narrow-mindedness, at best, but perhaps you shouldn't "insulate" yourself and maybe read or speak to other cultures to gather more facts before pontificating about topics you may need to be educated about. I apologize if I may have missed any statement regarding your academic credentials. Exactly where did you get your degree in either gynecology, epidemiology, public health or urology?? I assume,from your BROAD PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, that the majority of your vocation deals with sexual health??
FYI, Jewish women (generally those non-orthodox, and I know it may come as a shock to you), also have sex with and not limited to, Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Mormon, Asiatics, Blacks, Latinos, and even people from outer space if they were available. That by itself is not to imply promiscuity unique to their subculture, but that the sexual morays in a great part of our American culture have changed significantly and crosses cultural borders.
Therefore, the assumption that they are "insulated from the rest of societal cultures sexually" and therefore, (do not have any meaurable incidence of HPV) is not only fallacious at best, but speaks of ignorance, disregard, misinformation and sophomorish childish behavior. By the way, Webster's dictionary defines "insular" in many connotations professor:
Main Entry: in·su·lar
Pronunciation: \ˈin(t)-su̇-lər, -syu̇-, ˈin-shə-lər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin insularis, from Latin insula island
Date: 1611
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting an island b : dwelling or situated on an island
2 : characteristic of an isolated people; especially : being, having, or reflecting a narrow provincial viewpoint
3 : of or relating to an island of cells or tissue
With regards to "narrow viewpoint", maybe you ought to read more or broaden your friendship circles and not be quite so "insular" by nature yourself.
By the way, I am a surgeon, and I myself, separate from the rest of the "industry," do not advocate an across the board policy of neonatal circumcision unless the parents request this. Even in my adult practice I only advocate this to those that are resistant to standard therapies, whose wives can not control their yeast infections because they are passing it back and forth, men with complaints of chronic lacerations of the foreskin from inadequate stretching of the skin, diabetics with genital complications, or in general men who assert that their partners are not so motivated to perform oral sex on a phallus that blossoms forth an aroma somewhere between the stenches of a garbage heap or a jock strap that hasn't been cleaned in six months by an athlete, despite attempts at conventional therapies. Try not to take so many statements out of context for your own argument sake. That doesn't make for accumulating great points in debating.
I assume that you were too busy or disinterested to see what the American Cancer Society said in 2010, not in 1996, about risks for penile cancer. You might go the link I provided above, and I recommend that the readers go to this link as well, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_2x_what_are_the_risk_factors_for_penile_cancer_35.asp
Nowhere did I advocate circumsion to prevent penile cancer, I only made the statement that there are risk factors that maybe you would like to be informed about. These are not meant to illustrate that men should rush out and get circumcised for that reason, but that curiously so, although penile cancer represents a smaller segment of oncologic pathology in this country, in other countries, Asiatic and South American, penile and urethral cancers are more common. Oh, by the way, my friend with the AK 47 in his/her shorts, I don't have a mons pubis, by definition, check your gender sheet more carefully next time you "arm yourself."
"Mons pubis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Mons pubis
Anterior view of human female pelvis, pubic hair shaved, indicating mons pubis
Latin mons pubis
Gray's subject #270 1265
Precursor Genital tubercle
In human anatomy or in mammals in general, the mons pubis (Latin for "pubic mound"), also known as the mons veneris (Latin, mound of Venus) or simply the mons, is the adipose tissue lying above the pubic bone of adult women, anterior to the symphysis pubis. The mons pubis forms the anterior portion of the vulva, and limits the perineal region proximally and anteriorly.
Out of fairness to you , you probably couldn't discern my sex from my photo?? And your photo is, Where??
Another observation for you, the moisture present on my "mons pubis" after sex is from HER lubrication and sexual responsivity, not caused by my presence or lack of foreskin, professor. You might ask fifty women the same question and poll their response. Where did you get that from?? Maybe you need to get out more often. By the way, a man or woman should not be measured intellectually by the "weapon he packs," but for sake of continuing your bantering, I doubt if your Hasbro toy gun is "even loaded." I'm not afraid to debate you any where, any place, anytime, "Professor."
Lastly, for humanitarian sake, maybe I can get a collection up and send "Astroglide," and not KY Jelly, to the european communities that might seek some sexual relief. KY jelly, professor, is known to be a drying agent after it is left on for any length of time, and it doesn't surprises me that it's implementation or request is quite limited there or any educated society.
PS. your choice of vernacular is challenging at best, that is unless you meant further derogatory or defamatory characterization of the Jewish people. It doesn't forebode a good style at this website, my friend.
March 20, 2010 - 6:02amThis Comment
"I assume that you were too busy or disinterested to see what the American Cancer Society said in 2010, not in 1996, about risks for penile cancer. You might go the link I provided above, and I recommend that the readers go to this link as well, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_penile_cancer_35.asp?rnav=cri"
And it says "In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns just for medical reasons. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence."
So why is buffydaddy so keen to shroud-wave about penile cancer? Castrated men live longer than "uncastrated" men, but we don't consider doing that without pressing medical need.
March 24, 2010 - 11:30pmThis Comment
Since you are so invested in degrees, do you have a degree in SCIENCE.. by this I mean a degree in one of the actual science, not the so-called "medical science".
Science is a consensus of FACTS and EVIDENCE.
"medical science" is merely a consensus of OPINIONS.. many predicted on scientifically-questionable "studies" (statistics) and very selective in content.
Previously on this forum, I have presented a short tutorial in science and an example of what it works, and its requirements.
After reading it, perhaps you can present a single SCIENTIFICALLY credible benefit for circumcision.
I AM a scientist, and after searching for one for over 10 years, I have yet to find one.
I am curious to see if you, as a member of the medical profession pushing this procedure, have one to offer.
March 23, 2010 - 6:48amThis Comment
Buffydaddy, I don't claim any medical credentials, just that I am knowledgeable in this issue.
"That by itself is not to imply promiscuity unique to their subculture, but that the sexual morays in a great part of our American culture have changed significantly and crosses cultural borders." The study you referred to was conducted in Sweden and Israel. Both of those would be insular as they are geographically isolated to a degree and it would be a hard case that Israeli women are not culturally insular. That is why the sudy has been discredited.
Yes, I took my definition of "insular" from Websters as well and many cultures are insular. Americans are insular because of the two "great ponds" to our left and right. Blacks are mostly insular from whites within our own borders. Groups with different languages can be insular. It seems that you take great offense at Jews being called insular. Why would that be, because you are Jewish maybe? Is that why you are so defensive and derisive?
"Even in my adult practice I only advocate this to those that are resistant to standard therapies, whose wives can not control their yeast infections because they are passing it back and forth, men with complaints of chronic lacerations of the foreskin from inadequate stretching of the skin, diabetics with genital complications, or in general men who assert that their partners are not so motivated to perform oral sex on a phallus that blossoms forth an aroma somewhere between the stenches of a garbage heap or a jock strap that hasn't been cleaned in six months by an athlete, despite attempts at conventional therapies."
From this statement, I'm assuming you are a urologist. The problems with your statements are evident. It is a simple fact of biology that bacterials, virals and fungals can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. Therefore, the infections males experience are the same exact infections females experience and are appropriately treated with the exact same medications. These infections are rarely treated with amputative surgery in females but instead are treated successfully with simple medications. Females would be taken aback if you suggested genital amputative surgery to treat these infections but our society has accepted this prescription for males and therefore males unnecessarily accept it.
The lacerations you speak of are simply tearing of the frenulum. The frenulum is stretchable and can be permanently stretched by a simple regimine carried out over a few weeks. I'm surprised I know this and you don't. Are you over selling your knowledge when you put your shingle out? I suspect so. It should be you that is informing here and not me.
If a man has uncontrolled genital odors despite normal cleaning routines, most likely, he is being overly thorough with his hygiene or has been on an antibiotic regimine that has destroyed the normal flora within his foreskin. There is an easy homeopathic cure for this, plain unsweetened yogurt applied daily for several days to re-establish the normal bacterial colonization. It also works for women with odor problems. Why is it again that I'm having to tell YOU these things? Is it some deep seated psyclogical need to circumcise men or is it the lure of the $$$s?
With your education and profession, why is it that you recommend/defend circumcision when a vaccine for HPV has been on the market for 5 years and will make far more difference in the HPV infection rate than male circumcision could ever hope for? How can you assert that circumcision can make a difference when the estimated infection rate is 70% in The US? How can you balance the two when 97% will develop a natural immunity to the infection? Circumcise all for the 3% that will not develop this natural immunity hen the vaccine is available for both males and females? That's poor quality medicine!
RE The ACS site: Apparently, The ACS has taken The Castellegue Study to heart. Among the faults of the study, Castellague only included women who had more than 6 sexaul partners. How could he tell where the infection came from? It was impossible! When it was published in The NEJM, it was accompanied with an editorial refuting it. I suspect The NEJM accepted it for publication simply to keep another journal from publishing it without calling attention to it's numerous methodological problems.
The statement that it is best done at birth and is more effective if done at birth comes from Edgar Schoen, one of the most radical and public circumcision advocates on earth. I have never seen any research to back up the statement and I've seen a lot.
They are absolutely wrong about circumcisied males not developing phimosis. With the "loose" style circumcision that became common in the late 1980's, phimosis has become more common in circumcised children than in intact children. The scar tissue becomes the restrictiing tissue.
Yes, penile cancer is rare as they state. At most, 1:109,000 males and it is imminently treatable if not allowed to go for years. For each of these treatable cancers, approximately 6 infants will die from the circumcision procedure. That is literally killing with prevention especially when there is the HPV vaccine is available.
The ACS says: "This can lead to the build up of secretions, leading to smegma." Well, no. Smegma is the secretion, not leading up to. Smegma is a normal secretion of both the male and female genitals. It was demonized as a carcinogen in the early part of the 20th century but is now known to be a completely bengn substance that has an important function. It "conditions" the mucosal skin of both sexes and acts as a carrier of beneficial enzymes important to the immunological function. It also says it is an "oily secretion." This is absolutely not true. Mucosal skin does not secrete body oils nor sweat. They should know this and I'm astounded that they don't. I once dated a Director of the ACS. I wish I still did and she was still a director. I'd get that information corrected.
It gets even worse! They write: "It hasn't been proven, but some experts are concerned that smegma may also contain compounds that can cause cancer. Some older studies have suggested a link between smegma and penile cancer. Smegma probably doesn't cause penile cancer by itself, but it can cause the penis to become irritated and inflamed, and may make it harder to see very early cancers." It is patently clear that either a woman or circumcised man wrote this. Smegma is completely and totally water soluble and is both quickly and easily rinsed away with just plain water. The risk of penile cancer from smegma is the same as the risk of vulvar cancer from smegma. In fact, the hypothesis that smegma is a carcinogen is from circa 1920 and has long since been disproven. Smegma is an emollient and does not cause irritation or inflamation in either sex nor does it make it harder to see early cancers. Significant accumulations of smegma only develop if a man does not bathe and during the first two to three days after bathing, it is clear. It is suspected that circumcised men also develop smegma but when it is dry, it is clear and they just don't notice it. In men that restore their foreskins even in their 50's or 60's, noticeable smegma is quickly seen after begining restoration indicating that smegma production never ended for them. Just why would it be that smegma would not also be a carcinogen for them?
There are specific types of HPV that cause genital warts, penile cancer and cervical cancer and they are not the same. Incidentally, there are 5 distinct types of penile cancer but only one is associated with HPV infections. Unfortunately, all are lumped together when circumcision advocates try to use this as a justification for circumcison.
I am extremely disappointed that The ACS would have so much false information on their website.
I very well know what the mons pubis is and used it correctly. Are you really a doctor?
I don't post my photo or real information anywhere on the internet. It's a matter of personal security.
I can tell you are running out of amunition. Those who are backed into a corner eventually resort to personal attacks.
Again, the only thing I have said about the Jewish people is that they are insular. That is neither derogatory or defamatory. Most every culture, race or religion is insular to some degree and the insularity sometimes amazes me. I was amazed recently when I dated an Irish woman at the insularity between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. I'm Protestant and she was Catholic and was amazed that she would date me when I learned of the insularity. I was also amazed at the insularity between the English and the Irish. There is an insularity between the English, South African whites, New Zealanders and Australians even though they are of the exact same stock and the insularity of all of these groups with Americans and Canadians. Clearly, Jews are among the most insular of these groups as they have a religious difference along with a cultural difference. To try to make anything of this just amplifies that you have run out of arguments.
Frank O'Hara
March 20, 2010 - 9:29amThis Comment
Frank, I am quite pleased that you have finally introduced yourself by name and obviously gender. What is nice Frank is that we both live in a society that still allows people to have the forum to agree to disagree, unlike some other societies miles away. I think we should stop shooting bullets at each other and not only continue to agree to disagree, but understand that you will never get a consensus regarding this subject even if you interview 10,000 scientists, doctors, epidemiologists, researchers, nurses, mothers, and even men themselves.
From your tone, it could be surmised that you yourself are not a "victim" of circumcision. Is that true?? It really doesn't matter, except that I know many Irish Catholics that are circumcised, and admit I don't know as many Irish Protestants to speak with certainty. It doesn't really matter. What really matters is that you sound angry, frustrated, and offensive. I'm not sure if it is your nature or just brought out here with such exclamation. Yes, I am a urologist with over 28 years of both academic, clinical and research experience. I am also one of the few integrative medical urologists in the USA.
Actually, amongst my peers nationwide, I performed less surgery on prostate cancers and question men extensively before they desire vasectomies and even circumcision. When asked upfront by a patient, my usual retort is that if you can keep proper hygiene, which even when instructed is not easy for a lot of men, and if you can easily retract the foreskin for sufficient cleansing, then the need for circumcision is unnecessary.
I am not trying to insult you, but what is your field of interest? You appear to be well-informed and I am curious only.
Some of the arguments that Shaina Gaul originally made in her initial report are flawed. I think that although well-intended, the amount of research that she undertook may have been insufficient. Having said that, the proof is certainly, "in the pudding," as we say. I have interviewed hundreds of patients post operatively, even years after the procedure, and I can count on just a few fingers how many thought that their sexual sensitivity and pleasure in general had changed for the worse. If anything, by and large, the indication for their procedures which I don't want to reiterate again, but found in previous posts, by itself created such a clinical state of improvement in their general genital well-being, not only a better sexual experience. You, Shaina, and I, can cite as many articles asserting both sides of the coin, but like I said, you would be more greatly advantaged if you could clinically interview a great number of these patients for real objectivity. Polls, at best, through research compilation have inherent flaws in subjectivity.
Regarding Jews being insular, the only offense that I felt, my friend, was that you made a generalized statement, too broad and inaccurate. This may speak for the orthodox sect, but not necessarily for all Jews in the US nor around the world. I would also go so far as to allege that Israeli women are not so insular today as they have been culturally portrayed historically. A lot of western influence there. Essentially, yes I am Jewish, and it may come as a shock to you, but we actually don't keep to ourselves in ghettos much anymore.
When you try to make an analogy of the clitoral and penile foreskin being so similar and having same bacterium, you're not entirely wrong. However, if you really take the time to think about it more deeply, the foreskin or distal preputial skin on the male is much more redundant and elongated. Therefore, this makes even the same or similar bacteria vulnerable to being trapped deep within these spaces, especially in tight phimotic states. For this reason alone, many couples fail to be able to stop the spread of yeast infections, historically many years ago a dilemma to practioners. That's not to generalize and say that every man with recurrent yeast infections needs to have a circumcision. Specifically, immunocompromised individuals, ie: diabetics, are so very much more prone to recrudescence of their infections from the sugar rich urine, which is why we are so adamant about controlling their diet and habits.
Each clitoris too is different in anatomical variance. Some have more redundancy to the clitoral hood, and some trap infections more readily due to the inability to retract the redundancy of the tight skin to adequately cleanse. That is why precisely some women are easier to treat than others and also not a rare cause of dyspareunia (painful intercourse). By the way, we don't refer in the Western Hemisphere at least, to cirumcision as "amputation," and certainly no one in their right mind, outside of Africa and some other third world countries, consider amputation of the clitoris other than for purposes of keeping their wives at close bay and not wandering..
What exactly is your extensive experience in counselling young boys, adolescents and adults with regards to "stretching of the frenulum" ??? Please I am not asserting that I know everything about everything, but please point me to some academic journal citations (peer reviewed), describing this alternative procedure to "enlighten me." Thanks.
Once again your over-generalization and taking too many comments out of context is a not so noble trait. Specifically, I have never asserted that to prevent HIV or HPV in men that I personally recommend circumcision. Where did I say that? I only made reference to journal articles. By the way Frank, the vaccines are absolutely worthless for many women that obviously have reached a certain age and will not be benefited what so ever in prevention once already exposed. How are they best counselled? And what about their partners if they are both seen clinically to repetitively bounce back the virus to each other? I am curious,what do you advise this group, besides condom usage, which by the way doesn't protects all genital skin surfaces ?
I glean from your words that you might be a practitioner of homeopathic medicine. I have no problem with that and incorporate this in my practice much more than main stream urologists. I just think that we might be looking at disease from two different perspectives, neither wrong, but different.
When you stated that a 97% figure of patients will develop a "natural immunity," where did you get the figures? Gardasil has only been out for less than four years. It would be too short of an interval, even if you include the R and D studies that preceded this implementation to make such an observation valid. Also is that to state that the need for pap tests in this population therefore would be also, "money driven" ?? or inefficient use of health care dollars? Obama may certainly like your argument after tomorrow. I mean, if far in the majority will develop such a "natural immunity," why should we be so concerned as clinicians???
With respect to HPV and cancers, obviously the money should be spent on education and prevention and not just treatment. The viral strains of HPV, 16 and 18, are the most implicated in the more important epidemiologic problem, that of cervical cancer. If you can change your mindset for a moment about "Jews being so insular around the world," I noticed that you didn't answer my observation completely about the greatly lower incidence of cervical cancer of Jewish wives married to Jewish husbands?? If we can assume that in today's modern society there are cross cultural sexual practices (outside of the ghettos of course).... that would expose this subset population to HPV, why is the incidence of cervical carcinoma so much lower in this population??
IF you know Frank what the mons pubis is actually, then why did you describe it anatomically for men ???????
Continuing to imply that you are narrow-minded or need to get out more often doesn't mean that I am "running out of arguments," trust me. You perhaps need to expand your social-cultural horizons more. Ignorance is bliss. Why don't we stop shooting bullets at each other and concentrate instead on working together as health care providers for the betterment of our patients?? I wonder if Shaina Gaul might reply to our posts? She is actually the originator of the discussion. This will be my last response to this issue. I wish you good luck and health.
March 21, 2010 - 1:18amThis Comment
With some issues, it is probably appropriate to "agree to disagree" but not in science. Debating a topic is the way science advances. Agreeing to disagree is typically a plea to stop the debate and in that environment, science does not advance so let's advance science and continue the debate.
Yes, I am a "victim" of circumcision. I don't use that term but if the shoe fits, I guess I'll wear it. I'm very laid back as a personality type so that characterization doesn' fit. I am also not Irish except by well watered down ancestry. My family came to The US more than 200 years ago and the decendants intermarried with other nationalities liberally. As a percentage, my heritage is well over 50% English but there is also Dutch, Scottish, German and maybe some other influences. Maybe you misread my post that I recently dated an Irish woman (born in Ireland) although her father was English so she was only 50% Irish.
If my choice had been protected, I would not have been circumcised. This is not a recent choice. I first realized there was a difference when I was 6 or 7 years old and at that early age, did not want to be circumcised although I had no understanding of it at the time. That wish has only intensified over time. This is the case of many men and it is growing as men discover the issue on the internet and come to realize what happened to them in their earliest days when they could not defend themselves.
As for my interest, I discovered this issue accidentally about 10 years ago and given my stance on it, I immediately started researching it. I was astounded to find that there was simply no justification for it medically and the religious implications just did not fit me. I also discovered there was a hot debate about it on the internet and knew if I was to effectively debate it, I needed to educate myself. That I did! I've spent probably thousands of hours reading research and like The AAP, could find no legitimate justification outside religion.
I regularly see misinformation in both lay writings and professional writings as I also did in Shania's writing. There is no doubt there is much misinformation in this issue and that has been true since the late 1800's and probably even before that. I also know it is difficult to sort through what is legitimate and what is not. In the early days of my own education, I saw constant conflicts among studies and writings and had great difficulty in sorting them into "valid" and "invalid" stacks. I know the vast majority also have this difficulty and use my knowledge of the topic to help them sort. That seems to have become my function in this debate.
I have only had the opportunity to interview 5 men in person that have been circumcised as adults. Of the five, four were very unhappy about it. Two became either non-orgasmic or impotent or both within 5 years. These were men in their late 30's to mid 40's. Another one circumcised in his early 20's found out I had some knowledge about the topic and started questioning me. I just happened to mention foreskin restoration and there was an immediate interest. He has since gone on to restore his foreskin using a non-surgical method and is extremely happy with the results. The fifth one, circumcised in his mid 20's and in his early 50's now insists that circumcision is the way to go but his new wife appears to disagree and has been searching for a lover outside the marriage as he has little interest. I have corresponded with dozens of men circumcised in adulthood on the internet and have only found a few that would do it again.
As for Jews being insular, the study was done almost 30 years ago so what the practice is today is not what it was 30 years ago. It would be a difficult argument that they were not insular simply because of the predominance of Jews in Israel and the geographical islolation. I suspect this was a knee jerk response to paint me as an anti-Semite. The shoe just doesn't fit. I grew up in a county where there was only two Jewish families at the time. One of the families, I never met. The other I only met the son and daughter. The son was a year behind me in school and I had some interaction with him. The daughter was two years older and I don't think I ever had any interaction with her at all. I don't think we were ever introduced. In fact, I didn't even know they were Jewish until well after my high school days. In this absence of influence, I didn't develop any opinion about Jews. Even today, Jews are rare in this area and I could not identify anyone I know as being Jewish and therefore, I am just not an anti-Semite. It may be hard for you to comprehend but I have dated several Jewish women in the recent past.
As for the bacteria being the same, I am not "entirely wrong," I am absolutely correct. You can not name a single bacterium, viral or fungal that infects the male genitals that does not also infect the female genitals, not a single one. The phimotic state is clearly the exception and relatively rare (+/-1%). The foreskin is also not "redundant" and the trapped bacterium is typically beneficial bacterium that is essential for good health. Only when there is a corresponding health problem is the bacteria a problem. These corresponding health problems are diabetes or a recent regimine of antibiotics just for example. The antibiotics are easy to resolve with just plain unsweetened yogurt as previously posted. The diabetes is appropriately controlled and the phimotic state is usually avoided. in one case of phimosis that I have helped with, my first question was "Have you been checked for diabetes?" and a couple of weeks later, he came back with a diagnosis of diabetes. The phimosis was "the canary in the mine" that resulted in him having his diabetes diagnosed and starting treatment. I think you would unquestionably agree that in this case, his phimosis was actually a benefit as it brought the root problem to the fore so it could be treated extending his life span and quality of life.
Yes, there are underlying problems with diabetics, HIV infectees and others but it is not appropriate to subject babies to circumcision as a prophylaxis for these conditions.
I have counseled several men in both stretching the preputial sphincter and the frenulum and all were successful. I did not point you to a specific website but instead, pointed you to the CIRP.ORG website. It is a library of information on primarily male circumcision and is quite complete. I sent you there with the hopes that you would browse the information as a learning experience. For the information on stretching the frenulum and the preputial sphincter, just search for "Beaugue." If I remember correctly, there has been other research as well and using the term 'stretching" will probably return those.
You wrote: "I have never asserted that to prevent HIV or HPV in men that I personally recommend circumcision. Where did I say that? I only made reference to journal articles." Yes, that is what you did and in doing that, you were passing the myth that circumcision prevents these infections. This is deceptive and a not so subtle recommendation. Instead of calling attention to these incorrect, fraudulent or outdated studies, why not just say nothing?
The latest information on the HPV vaccine does state that it offers no protection from HPV but age is not a factor. If a woman has only had one encounter (virgin) with one man who has only had one encounter (virgin), there is a very good possibility that neither one is infected and the vaccine will be effective. When the vaccine was first announced in the fall of 2004? it stated it was effective in women who were already infected but by the next spring immediately before it was put into distibution, that had changed to only effective in those not infected. This gave immediate rise to suspicion for me because it was also being promoted to be adminstered to school children and a required immunization. In fact, a few states did make it a required vaccination after intense lobbying by Merck Pharma. At $360.00 for the three injections, it was a money maker almost unequalled and making it a requirement just insured those revenues. I don't argue with it being a required vaccination specifically. I do think it would go a long way toward ending cervical cancer but as a conservative, I have problems with anybody requiring anything. Maybe after the vaccine has been out a sigificant time and no unexpected outcomes are observed.
Incidentally, a study of 13 - 15 girls was conducted and it was found that 54% of them had already been infected with HPV. The conclusion of the study was that they were infected as they passed through their mother's birth canal. How is it that these girls would be protected from HPV via male circumcision?
No, I am not a practitioner of homeopathic medicine.
The assertation that 97% of HPV infectees will develop a natural immunity came from The National Campaign for Cervical Cancer and HPV website.
No, I do not recommend doing away with the pap smear. I believe women should start getting the pap smear in their late teens as many of them will contract the infection at birth and the time from initial infection to indications of cancer is 16 to 20 years. At this time, this is the best way to avoid or treat the cancer or pre-cancerous condition. I also strongly disagree with the administration's recent recommendation that women start mamography at age 50. My Mother was diagnosed at 37 years old and was successfully treated. If it had not been for the early diagnosis, almost 40 years of her life would have slipped away. Even though the vast majority will develop the natural immunity, there are those that won't. Even one preventable death is one too many. I believe that pap smears should start at least by 20 years and mamographies start at least by 40 years old and if it is at taxpayer expense, I'll gladly ante up.
Cervical cancer is probably less predominate in Jewish women married to Jewish men simply because the infection has not entered that segment of the population to become wide spread while in The US, we intermix so the infection spreads widely. Incidentally, there has never been such a study in The US that separates Jews from all the rest for the study purposes. I suspect the results would be quite different here. Using Sweden and Israel as the study populations was not legitimate as they are so different. In a study such as this, you choose the two populations that are most alike to avoid confounders.
Yes doctor, I do know what the mons pubis is and I also know both sexes have it. "Mons pubis" is translated into "Pubic mound." Both males and females have a pubic mound on the pubic bone. This is just above the penis in men and just above the vaginal cleft in women. Did you not know this?
I am neither narrow minded or need to get out more often. I have broad social horizons. You engaged in the debate and I did as well. I am not "shooting bullets" at you, just providing truth. That is something that has been conspiciously absent in the topic for many years. I am thankful for the internet as the truth is now widely available to anyone who seeks it. I am merely a facilitator in seeking the truth makiong it easier to wade through all the outdated information, misinformation and outright lies. This is not to criticize you or call your credentials into question but by profession, you are a scientist. However, I also suspect your religion affects your ability to evaluate and accept information that you may feel is contrary to that religion. I suspect it can be a challenge but I would recommend you put the two in separate compartments for the betterment of your patients. As I am not a Jew or really deeply involved in religion, I don't have that factor pulling at me. My concern is about infants and men and their rights and welfare.
I had also noticed that Shania has not responded. However, many don't realize the controversy they are starting when they write about this topic and some are intimidated. That is especially so when they are faced by medical professionals who disagree with them and start posting medical studies and articles. Thankfully, I am not easily intimidated and help them out.
I'm sorry to hear you will be leaving. Is that because I intimidated you? If that is the case, let me apologise as that was not what I intended to do. Actually, I do like having opposition because the opposition brings up points for discussion. Please do not abandon us so quickly.
Frank O'Hara
March 21, 2010 - 10:48amThis Comment