General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CDC: Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks [View all]FunkyLeprechaun
(2,383 posts)'Intact" means the man was born with his penis intact/not circumcised. Using the term "uncircumcised" for intact men means that being circumcised is a natural, normal thing to occur, which it is not. Even I feel that the term "circumcision" is a friendly term for male genital mutilation, the same kind of language as FGM. If males and females choose to alter their bodies in anyway, within their terms of consent, they aren't "intact" in the widest term of the word but they made a choice to alter their own bodies.
- I was wrong, it wasn't a Canadian study. I could have sworn it was done in Canada in the mid-1990s but here is the actual study I was talking about (TBF I was on a tablet and if I checked links in another window, I would lose what I had typed out in my response)- . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417009. Here is a Canadian Study that I have read previously when they tested pain threshold on babies AFTER a routine circumcision compared to intact babies (it sounds like they did a paper previously- studying the effects of anaesthesia vs no anaesthesia during RIC), when they had their routine vaccinations- http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/. The found that the circumcised infants were still affected by the circumcision procedure 4-6 months after the surgery- they showed signs of PTSD and had a higher pain response to the vaccinations compared to the intact babies.
- There are study after study showing that circumcision reduces sexual senstivity: here are several links and article titles as well-
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx - Reduced sensitivity an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract - It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost.
"Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark"- Circumcised men were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties, and painful sexual intercourse.
"Prevalence and Correlates of Premature Ejaculation in a Primary Care Setting: A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study"- Multivariate analysis showed that erectile dysfunction, circumcision, and sexual intercourse =5 times in 4 weeks were predictors of PE.
and many many many more. It's also a frequent topic of discussion in European medical journals as they continue to completely debunk American medical journals. The best website is http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com which has many articles, studies, anecdotal evidence and images to show how bad circumcision of males is for male AND female sexuality.
- Here are several medical journal articles that debunk the claim that circumcision prevents HIV transmission-
1) "HIV/AIDS and Circumcision : Lost in Translation" - M. Fox and M. Thomson, Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (2010)
2) "Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity," Greene, et al, American Journal of Preventative Medicine 39 (2010) (This study actually shows that circumcision is associated with increased transmission of HIV to women.)
3) Connelly, et al, in the South African Medical Journal 98 (2008) found that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission.
And many more studies. The widely cited African study that the CDC used in their statement had flawed methodology- they had two groups- the first group being males who were kept intact and males who were circumcised. The males who were circumcised were asked to abstain from sex 4-6 weeks after the operation (to heal), the intact males were not given such an instruction (abstain from sex 4-6 weeks anyway, to match the timeline of the study). The circumcised males were given sex education and condoms whereas the intact males were not given the same instruction at all. When it came to the end of the study- the intact males obviously were exposed to HIV (because they weren't given the same instructions or the same time period of abstinence) and were more likely to have HIV infection compared to the circumcised males because they didn't get the same level of sex education as the circumcised males did. It was a flawed, unethical study and it irritates me that people, who support the genital cutting of baby boys, keep clinging onto that when there are so many studies that debunk it.
85% of American Males were circumcised in the 1980s-1990s (during the AIDS epidemic) and yet HIV still spread. Circumcision does not protect anyone from STDs and it's unethical to claim it does because people will think they will have unprotected sex anyway if they're circumcised (and actually facilitates the spread of HIV/STDs). It's like parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, the incidents of measles, etc spread and there HAVE been outbreaks in the US.
Measles is a highly infectious, airborne disease and it's best to take precautions against it. Polio is a disease that is water borne and it's best to take precautions against it. So on. STDs? You can take precautions against them by using condoms, having better sexual education, STD testing and so on. You can also choose to live completely celibate, which is definitely 100% prevention against STDs.
STDs can also be transmitted by other means than sexual relations. HIV can be transmitted by blood (my sister, who is a doctor, had to get tested for HIV infection after she had accidentally exposed herself to a HIV-positive patient, due to a tear in her latex glove), Herpes are very prevalent on the skin of people (and can be highly contagious when they have a flare up). I've heard of people getting STDs without penetration, such as oral sex and dry humping (herpes, chlamydia, pubic lice and gonorrhoea have been caught via these methods).
It is a COMPLETE fallacy that circumcision prevents these. It's also sexist to say that males are protected from STDs when they are circumcised, it implies that females are more likely to get STDs because they're not circumcised.