DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Shining example of comprehension there.
You claim the Dr. is circumcised... yet the Dr. who did the study was none other than Dr. June Machover Reinisch, the director of the damn [SIZE=-1]The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction[/SIZE].
Considering she is a pioneering mind in the field, I think she has a bit more clout than a post from "Moms for Foreskin" blog.
I know you know more than everyone else, but have some humility when something real is posted other than penis cancer and botched circumcision "Jokes".
Beau
Well-known member
This thread provides me with yet another, albeit somewhat un-intended, benefit: I now more fully appreciate my wife and need to thank her for, among other things, the always rationale approach she uses and the well constructed logic she employs when discussing matters of differing opinion. I am a lucky man, indeed.
Oh, I am still liking the haircut, too.
vidapreta
Well-known member
An uncircumcised baby:lol:
Beau
Well-known member
Fortunately, so far as I know, infant sleep patterns are not influenced by the extent (if any) to which the child is circumcised; something I assume we both can simply accept as fact.
vidapreta
Well-known member
Studies have shown that uncircumcised babies have a much higher quality of sleep then circumcised babies!!
B5150
Legend
She was not a study subject, silly, she was reporting the findings conducted in multiple studies conducted on males with a penis.
You on the otherhand have a self-cleaning vagina and are an expert on the penis. I must hand it to you, you are a special little a lady indeed.
B5150
Legend
Beau
Well-known member
And one might imagine this proudly emblazened as a tattoo on a certian happy Mommy ...
purebred
Guest
It seems like the argument regarding sexual pleasure is firmly based on theory utilizing the anatomy and physiology of the foreskin. However, I believe pleasure is a subjective matter. In all fairness, I am a proponent for leaving things as they are and not fixing what is not broken. Surely, it can be presumed what my stance on the issue is. That being said, the pleasure argument doesn't seem to be a very effect one due to how subjective pleasure can be.
Any thoughts? Thank you for your input, DD.
Any thoughts? Thank you for your input, DD.
B5150
Legend
You can read back on my previous posts where I made my statement regarding the pleasure aspect. The previous posts reporting those study finding is first hand feedback from those who had foreskin and then had it removed. I do give it some (considerable) merit as the only ones who would be in any position to pass any judgement, anecdotal or not, would be those subjects.
As for further argument - I have no skin in the game
bdcc
Legend
Trust me, it is in jest. Again, I really dont care what you or anyone does. The way people are so quick to villify one who doesnt do exactly what they believe is comical to me.
I love brits... ask Ben... he will vouch for me!
It is true, I can vouch. I have the valentines card to prove it.
You can read back on my previous posts where I made my statement regarding the pleasure aspect. The previous posts reporting those study finding is first hand feedback from those who had foreskin and then had it removed. I do give it some (considerable) merit as the only ones who would be in any position to pass any judgement, anecdotal or not, would be those subjects.
As for further argument - I have no skin in the game
Haha!
This was quite an interesting debate, in England this doesn't exist to the same level at all. I have no friends who are circumcised as far as I know.
What is interesting is how hostile this went, it isn't like measuring was going on lol.
purebred
Guest
I'm sure you can imagine this wasn't the intended purpose of the thread. I was shooting for people discussing their personal views [without attacking others] and providing the research they have substantiated their beliefs with. I did not know this would cause civil unrest! lol
B5150
Legend
I certainly was not intending to be hostile. I found some of the contributions comical at the very best.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Yet your husband is cut. Does he get upset when you tell him his penis is ruined?
BLaQz
Well-known member
If it's too hard to keep an uncircumcised penis clean you don't deserve one... Circumcision is a cosmetic thing in the end really, unless for religious purposes or your parents had it done when you were a baby... As for women that have a problem with a helmet can move the f*** on(been there, done that)... Either way when erect the skin backs off & reveals nothing but the head... Unless you have way too much skin down there, in which case I have no comment...
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Why can't anyone just post up data to back them up? I see a lot of conjecture, but no one posting anything even remotely considered a credible source. Instead we are just getting "If you circumcise you ruin penises and waterboard puppies"
bdcc
Legend
If you circumcise you ruin a penis, I would have only half of it left.
Source: Journal of Ben Carpenter, published 25/09/12
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Your comment just came off as incendiary in the thread. If that wasn't the intention then my post is misguided. The comment of being only cosmetic and religious is what I gauged differently. Only since the research in the thread so far referenced a large percentage decrease of STD and STI related cases, penile cancer and UTIs.
The ruined penis comment was from conjecture previous in the thread, not necessarily yourself.
B5150
Legend
Pediatrics. 1989 Jun;83(6):1011-5.
Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys.
Wiswell TE, Geschke DW.
Abstract
The records of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 were reviewed for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life. For 100,157 circumcised boys, there were 193 complications (0.19%). These included 62 local infections, eight cases of bacteremia, 83 incidences of hemorrhage (31 requiring ligature and three requiring transfusion), 25 instances of surgical trauma, and 20 urinary tract infections. There were no deaths or reported losses of the glans or entire penis. By contrast, the complications in the 35,929 uncircumcised infants were all related to urinary tract infections. Of the 88 boys with such infections (0.24%), 32 had concomitant bacteremia, three had meningitis, two had renal failure, and two died. The frequencies of urinary tract infection (P less than .0001) and bacteremia (P less than .0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys. [It goes without saying that the frequencies of local infections, haemorrhage and surgical trauma {how serious?} were infinitely higher in the circumcised boys.] Serious complications from routine prepuce removal are rare and relatively minor. Circumcision may be beneficial in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections and their associated sequelae.
20 out of of 100,157 (0.02%) circumcised boys got UTIs, compared with 88 out of 35,929 (0.244%) intact boys. If circumcising the 35,929 boys would have reduced the incidence from 0.244% to 0.02% (7 boys), the Number Needed to Treat is 35,929/(88-7) = 444 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.
Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys.
Wiswell TE, Geschke DW.
Abstract
The records of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 were reviewed for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life. For 100,157 circumcised boys, there were 193 complications (0.19%). These included 62 local infections, eight cases of bacteremia, 83 incidences of hemorrhage (31 requiring ligature and three requiring transfusion), 25 instances of surgical trauma, and 20 urinary tract infections. There were no deaths or reported losses of the glans or entire penis. By contrast, the complications in the 35,929 uncircumcised infants were all related to urinary tract infections. Of the 88 boys with such infections (0.24%), 32 had concomitant bacteremia, three had meningitis, two had renal failure, and two died. The frequencies of urinary tract infection (P less than .0001) and bacteremia (P less than .0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys. [It goes without saying that the frequencies of local infections, haemorrhage and surgical trauma {how serious?} were infinitely higher in the circumcised boys.] Serious complications from routine prepuce removal are rare and relatively minor. Circumcision may be beneficial in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections and their associated sequelae.
20 out of of 100,157 (0.02%) circumcised boys got UTIs, compared with 88 out of 35,929 (0.244%) intact boys. If circumcising the 35,929 boys would have reduced the incidence from 0.244% to 0.02% (7 boys), the Number Needed to Treat is 35,929/(88-7) = 444 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.
B5150
Legend
Lack of circumcision:
• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.
• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).
• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).
• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)
• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.
• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.
• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.
• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.
• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).
Getting circumcised will result in:
• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.
• Improved hygiene.
• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.
• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.
• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.
• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.
• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.
• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.
• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.
• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.
Invalid Link Removed
Circumcision – CONCLUSION
Circumcision confers a lifetime of medical, health and sexual benefits. At least 1 in 3 uncircumcised males will, over their lifetime, develop a condition requiring medical attention. This means various degrees of suffering and some deaths. In contrast, circumcision can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of most of these medical conditions. The surgical risk of a circumcision in a modern setting is extremely low, while the long-term functional and cosmetic outcomes are generally excellent. Circumcision of the male partner also confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman, by reducing her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death.
It is hoped that this review will have proved important informative to medical practitioners and health workers, thereby enhancing the quality of information that they can impart to parents of male children and to adult men. It should also prove to have educational value to others, especially the parents of boys, but also adult men, whether circumcised or not. It is hoped that as a result of reading the information presented herein the choice that has to be made concerning circumcision, especially of infants, will be a much more informed one.
Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the male. Issues of “informed consent” may be analogous to those parents have to consider for other medical procedures, such as whether or not to immunize their child. The question to be answered is “do the benefits outweigh the risks?” When considering each factor in isolation there could be some difficulty in deciding. However, when viewed as a whole the answer to whether to circumcise a male baby must surely be “YES”. Nevertheless, everybody needs to weigh up all of the pros and cons for themselves and make their own best decision. Hopefully the information provided herein will help in the decision-making process.
Invalid Link Removed
• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.
• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).
• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).
• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)
• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.
• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.
• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.
• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.
• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).
Getting circumcised will result in:
• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.
• Improved hygiene.
• Much lower risk of urinary tract infections.
• Much lower chance of acquiring HIV, the AIDS virus, heterosexually.
• Virtually complete elimination of the risk of invasive penile cancer.
• Slightly lower risk of prostate cancer.
• More favourable hygiene for the man’s sexual partner.
• Much lower risk of cervical cancer and Chlamydia (and thus infertility and other problems) in the female sexual partner.
• More favorable sexual function and experience, with no reduction in sensation during arousal or in the sensitivity of the flaccid penis.
• A penis that is regarded by most men and women as being more attractive.
Invalid Link Removed
Circumcision – CONCLUSION
Circumcision confers a lifetime of medical, health and sexual benefits. At least 1 in 3 uncircumcised males will, over their lifetime, develop a condition requiring medical attention. This means various degrees of suffering and some deaths. In contrast, circumcision can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of most of these medical conditions. The surgical risk of a circumcision in a modern setting is extremely low, while the long-term functional and cosmetic outcomes are generally excellent. Circumcision of the male partner also confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman, by reducing her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death.
It is hoped that this review will have proved important informative to medical practitioners and health workers, thereby enhancing the quality of information that they can impart to parents of male children and to adult men. It should also prove to have educational value to others, especially the parents of boys, but also adult men, whether circumcised or not. It is hoped that as a result of reading the information presented herein the choice that has to be made concerning circumcision, especially of infants, will be a much more informed one.
Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the male. Issues of “informed consent” may be analogous to those parents have to consider for other medical procedures, such as whether or not to immunize their child. The question to be answered is “do the benefits outweigh the risks?” When considering each factor in isolation there could be some difficulty in deciding. However, when viewed as a whole the answer to whether to circumcise a male baby must surely be “YES”. Nevertheless, everybody needs to weigh up all of the pros and cons for themselves and make their own best decision. Hopefully the information provided herein will help in the decision-making process.
Invalid Link Removed
B5150
Legend
American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statements on Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infection
Ellen Shapiro, MD, FACS, FAAP
New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
Copyright © 1999 MedReviews, LLC
Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued policy statements on circumcision and urinary tract infections. How will these new policies affect pediatric practice?
Go to:Circumcision Policy Statement.American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics. 1999;103:686–693. [PubMed].
Over the past 3 decades, the AAP has published 5 policy statements on neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 1975, and 1983, the Academy concluded “that there was no valid medical indication for routine circumcision in the neonatal.” By 1986, the circumcision rate in the United States had declined from 90% to 60%. In 1989, new research examined the relationship between circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI), sexually transmitted diseases, and AIDS. The Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. The benefits and risks must be explained to parents and informed consent obtained. In their updated report, the Academy reviews newer research related to the benefits and risks of circumcision.
In the United States, 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised annually at a cost of $150 to $270 million dollars. The reasons for circumcision vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measures. Until recently, limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision existed. In 1985, Wiswell suggested that uncircumcised male infants were 10 to 20 times more likely to develop UTIs than were circumcised male infants. In 1993, Wiswell performed a meta-analysis of 9 studies and showed that uncircumcised male infants had a 12-fold increased risk of UTIs compared with circumcised infant males.
Why does the intact foreskin lead to an increased rate of UTI during infancy? It is known that there is bacterial colonization of the foreskin during the first 6 months of life that may be an important risk factor for the development of UTIs. Colonization decreases after the first 6 months of life, probably because the foreskin often becomes retractable around that age. It is known that uropathogens adhere to and readily colonize the mucosal surface of the foreskin but not the keratinized shaft skin. Bacteremia associated with UTI occurs during the first 6 months of life and is inversely related to age. Although the incidence of bacteremia associated with UTI is 2% to 10% during the first 6 months, it is significantly increased (21%) during the first month of life. Of interest is that the majority with UTIs are found to have normal radiographic evaluations. It is estimated that 10 of 1000 (1%) uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life compared with 1 of 1000 (0.1%) circumcised male infants.
The AAP’s policy statement also discusses circumcision status and cancer of the penis. It is known that there is a 3-fold increased risk for the development of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in males who are uncircumcised. The major risk factor associated with phimosis is, in turn, associated with poor hygiene.
The Academy’s statement reviews penile problems in both uncircumcised and circumcised males. During infancy, the circumcised males had a significantly higher risk for the development of meatitis and subsequent meatal stenosis. After infancy, the rate of problems such as balanitis was significantly higher in older uncircumcised males.
A long list of circumcision complications was reviewed. Two large series report complication rates between 0.2% and 0.6%. Asymmetric, excessive, or insufficient skin removal continues to be the most common problem requiring revision of the initial circumcision. Most complications can be avoided at the time of the procedure by paying special attention to the healing of the circumcision to prevent common problems such as adhesions and skin bridges.
The Academy recommends that neonatal circumcisions be performed only in the stable, healthy infant. Physiologic jaundice is not a contraindication. Premature infants should weigh about 5 lb. The most important aspect of the neonatal circumcision is to assure that the individual performing the procedure is skilled at the technique and adept at suturing when necessary for hemostasis. In addition, the statement strongly urges that local anesthesia be used, because physiologic studies have demonstrated that neonatal circumcision is extremely painful. Local anesthesia includes application of a lidocaine and prilocaine cream, such as EMLA®, before the procedure, a dorsal nerve block, and a subcutaneous ring block.
References.1. Elder JS. Congenital anomalies of the genitalia. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell’s Urology. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998. pp. 2120–2143.
2. Monsour MA, Rabinovitch HH, Dean GE. The use of topical steroids in the treatment of phimosis in children. Pediatrics. 1998;102(3) suppl, pt 2:857. Abstract 79.
3. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child. 1968;43:200–203. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
Ellen Shapiro, MD, FACS, FAAP
New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
Copyright © 1999 MedReviews, LLC
Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued policy statements on circumcision and urinary tract infections. How will these new policies affect pediatric practice?
Go to:Circumcision Policy Statement.American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics. 1999;103:686–693. [PubMed].
Over the past 3 decades, the AAP has published 5 policy statements on neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 1975, and 1983, the Academy concluded “that there was no valid medical indication for routine circumcision in the neonatal.” By 1986, the circumcision rate in the United States had declined from 90% to 60%. In 1989, new research examined the relationship between circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI), sexually transmitted diseases, and AIDS. The Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. The benefits and risks must be explained to parents and informed consent obtained. In their updated report, the Academy reviews newer research related to the benefits and risks of circumcision.
In the United States, 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised annually at a cost of $150 to $270 million dollars. The reasons for circumcision vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measures. Until recently, limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision existed. In 1985, Wiswell suggested that uncircumcised male infants were 10 to 20 times more likely to develop UTIs than were circumcised male infants. In 1993, Wiswell performed a meta-analysis of 9 studies and showed that uncircumcised male infants had a 12-fold increased risk of UTIs compared with circumcised infant males.
Why does the intact foreskin lead to an increased rate of UTI during infancy? It is known that there is bacterial colonization of the foreskin during the first 6 months of life that may be an important risk factor for the development of UTIs. Colonization decreases after the first 6 months of life, probably because the foreskin often becomes retractable around that age. It is known that uropathogens adhere to and readily colonize the mucosal surface of the foreskin but not the keratinized shaft skin. Bacteremia associated with UTI occurs during the first 6 months of life and is inversely related to age. Although the incidence of bacteremia associated with UTI is 2% to 10% during the first 6 months, it is significantly increased (21%) during the first month of life. Of interest is that the majority with UTIs are found to have normal radiographic evaluations. It is estimated that 10 of 1000 (1%) uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life compared with 1 of 1000 (0.1%) circumcised male infants.
The AAP’s policy statement also discusses circumcision status and cancer of the penis. It is known that there is a 3-fold increased risk for the development of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in males who are uncircumcised. The major risk factor associated with phimosis is, in turn, associated with poor hygiene.
The Academy’s statement reviews penile problems in both uncircumcised and circumcised males. During infancy, the circumcised males had a significantly higher risk for the development of meatitis and subsequent meatal stenosis. After infancy, the rate of problems such as balanitis was significantly higher in older uncircumcised males.
A long list of circumcision complications was reviewed. Two large series report complication rates between 0.2% and 0.6%. Asymmetric, excessive, or insufficient skin removal continues to be the most common problem requiring revision of the initial circumcision. Most complications can be avoided at the time of the procedure by paying special attention to the healing of the circumcision to prevent common problems such as adhesions and skin bridges.
The Academy recommends that neonatal circumcisions be performed only in the stable, healthy infant. Physiologic jaundice is not a contraindication. Premature infants should weigh about 5 lb. The most important aspect of the neonatal circumcision is to assure that the individual performing the procedure is skilled at the technique and adept at suturing when necessary for hemostasis. In addition, the statement strongly urges that local anesthesia be used, because physiologic studies have demonstrated that neonatal circumcision is extremely painful. Local anesthesia includes application of a lidocaine and prilocaine cream, such as EMLA®, before the procedure, a dorsal nerve block, and a subcutaneous ring block.
References.1. Elder JS. Congenital anomalies of the genitalia. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell’s Urology. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998. pp. 2120–2143.
2. Monsour MA, Rabinovitch HH, Dean GE. The use of topical steroids in the treatment of phimosis in children. Pediatrics. 1998;102(3) suppl, pt 2:857. Abstract 79.
3. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child. 1968;43:200–203. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
mls51112
Active member
DAdams91982 said:Any college guy can attest... There is no such thing as a self cleaning vagina!
uh. you aren't supposed to use soap inside of your va-jay-jay.. it offsets your pH balance and will make you smell like fish, haha. it IS self-cleaning. your labia and external genetalia, is not.
B5150
Legend
The average vaginal pH ranges between 3.8 and 4.5 (very acidic) while the average pH of semen ranges from 7.2 to 7.8 (neutral). Although in theory your hoo-haa is self-cleansing it is a good idea to rinse and drip dry.
gmanall
Member
As far as the mutilating children thing goes, I've never had a cut bro tell me that he wishes he had some extra skin and if anything most dude are glad it's done before they can remember. Now if you want to talk about mutilating children let's talk about abortion.....or not...This thread is already too heated talking about dick skin.
bill86
Active member
ive read lots of studies that say the positive-effects are very overstated and not applicable across the board (especially in countries like america where there is easy access to running water, etc), but a) i dont think finding them and posting them would all of a sudden change peoples minds who are obviously so for it, and b) simply dont care enough to take the time and effort to do that, especially when taking into account a).the only thing that compelled me to respond to this thread was the irony of the AM community suddenly trusting what we hear and are told by the medical community. i thought steroids were good and helpful and the medical community just has it all wrong and takes things out of context to keep us in fear? i thought 'vitamin overdoses' are a bigger problem than side effects from steroids? this might be the most cynical group of all when it comes to the medical field/prescriptions for things that can 'be fixed naturally'/doctors being out for our best interests. i know not everyone here is like that, but a lot are, and now youre going to tell me that i should take their word for it when it comes to a practice that generates as much money as this does (especially taken into account the backend profits like making creams and, apparently now, using it for skin grafts)?like i said, i really dont care about convincing anyone one way or another, because honestly, the opinions or ideas of random people on the internet dont mean much to me at all, and 99% of the time their opinions couldn't be changed with all the evidence in the world (especially something with as much mixed evidence as this topic has). the only thing i wanted to say is that im not too quick to trust people who are making money off of something, much less in a country with privatized medicine when just about every other country that has public healthcare is against the practice. another thing, which doesnt have much to do with my, or anyone elses, opinion, is that i find it funny how the banned female circumcision in the 90's after interest groups lobbied against it saying it was a violation of female rights, etc, etc. the arguments on why it should be done on women were the same as why it should be done on men, so why the hell cant we have interest groups advocating for our rights?! haha, damn women get everything.anyway, this thread kind of sucks with all the bickering, so im going back to the supplements forum haha.
vidapreta
Well-known member
Boy for someone who dosen't care you sure talk Alot.
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using Tapatalk 2
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Would it kill ya to use a damn paragraph?
Not only is the USA privatized, but far more advanced than the rest of the work. Check
You are confusing the terms Medical and Media with regard to the propaganda of roids and vitamins. and Mate!
Piston Honda
Well-known member
8========D / 8=)
steppinRazor
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
BLaQz
Well-known member
this thread is still active?
Exactly what I was just going to say... Then quickly unsubscribe again of coarse... Haha!