HYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90 LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS - Dan Bollinger Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
IM0 wrote: » the only advantage is that you cant rip your banjo string when circumcised
crosstownk wrote: » Why would anybody voluntarily chop a bit of their lad off? :eek: And would you wish on your son? *crosses legs in sympathetic pain*
Micky Dolenz wrote: » To be fair, that's a pretty big advantage.
krudler wrote: » had it done as an infant for medical grounds, zero memory of it so the pain thing was never an issue, know a few guys who got it done in later life who said they wouldnt wish it on anyone, so in that sense I'd rather had it out of the way. annoys me when people who arent try to say it ruins your sex life and all that, since when is having a super sensitive knob a good thing?never had any complaints anyway. only people who will know the difference are guys who had it done as adults and have experienced sex both ways.
toexpress wrote: » It's cleaner for play without being to graphic
later10 wrote: » Hmm, it's not particularly difficult to keep that area clean in fairness. I've heard (from a mate who is cut) that guys who are cut have more endurance in bed because they're less sensitive, but maybe that's just his opinion. edit: oh, well above got there first.
Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it is really hard to keep a baby's penis clean. Reality check: In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out. All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger. It is harder to keep circumcised baby's penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment. Myth: Little boys won't clean under their foreskins and will get infections. Reality check: The foreskin separates and retracts on its own sometime between age 3 and puberty. Before it retracts on its own, you wipe the outside off like a finger. After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy's shower or bath. Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do. Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else! It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than it was to care for their penises. (Camille 2002) Myth: Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma. Reality check: Actually, smegma is produced by the genitals of both women and men during the reproductive years. Smegma is made of sebum and skin cells and lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women. It is rinsed off during normal bathing and does not cause cancer or any other health problems. Myth: "My uncle wasn't circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult." Reality check: Medical advice may have promoted infection in uncircumcised males. A shocking number of doctors are uneducated about the normal development of the foreskin, and they (incorrectly) tell parents that they have to retract the baby's foreskin and wash inside it at every diaper change. Doing this tears the foreskin and the tissue (called synechia) that connects it to the head of the penis, leading to scarring and infection. Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn't know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone's uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change. Rather than preventing problems, such practices would cause problems by introducing harmful bacteria. Remember that humans evolved from animals, so no body part that required special care would survive evolutionary pressures. The human genitals are wonderfully self-cleaning and require no special care. Myth: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised. Reality check: Phimosis means that the foreskin will not retract. Since children's foreskins are naturally not retractable, it is impossible to diagnose phimosis in a child. Any such diagnoses in infants are based on misinformation, and are often made in order to secure insurance coverage of circumcision in states in which routine infant circumcision is no longer covered. Even some adult men have foreskins that do not retract, but as long as it doesn't interfere with sexual intercourse, it is no problem at all, as urination itself cleans the inside of the foreskin (note that urine is sterile when leaving the body.) Phimosis can also be treated conservatively with a steroid cream and gentle stretching done by the man himself, should he so desire it, or, at worst, a slit on the foreskin, rather than total circumcision. (Ashfield 2003) These treatment decisions can and should be made by the adult man. Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.) Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys. Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS. Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another. In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009). What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV. In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread. It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves. Myth: Circumcision is worth it because it can save lives. Reality check: Consider breast cancer: There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and yet no one would advocate doing this to a baby. It is still considered somewhat shocking when an adult woman chooses to have a prophylactic mastectomy because she has the breast cancer gene, yet this was a personal choice done based upon a higher risk of cancer. The lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall 2008). How, then, can we advocate prophylactic circumcision for baby boys?Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby. Myth: Circumcision is an important tradition that has been going on forever. Reality check: In the United States, circumcision wasn't popularized until Victorian times, when a few doctors began to recommend it to prevent children from masturbating. Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877). Circumcision caught on among the sex-negative Victorians, but only wealthy parents could afford it. In 1932, only 31% of men were circumcised; this peaked around 85% in 1980, and has been dropping ever since (Laumann 1997, Wallerstein 1980). Far from an ancient tradition, it was only popular in post-war America; think of it as "your parent's body mod." Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman. Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction. Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men. Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999). Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life." Reality check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007). Myth: "If I were any more sensitive, it would be a problem." Reality check: The foreskin contains several special structures that increase sexual pleasure, including the frenulum and ridged band (the end of the foreskin where it becomes internal), both of which are removed in circumcision. The LEAST sensitive parts of the foreskin are more sensitive than the MOST sensitive parts of the circumcised penis (Sorrells 2007). In other words, if you wanted to decrease a penis' sensitivity the most, circumcision would be the ideal surgery. The foreskin has nerves called fine-touch receptors which are clustered in the ridged band (Cold 1999). This type of nerve is also found in the lips and fingertips. To get an idea of the sensation these nerves provide, try this experiment: first lightly stroke your fingertip over the back of the other hand. Now stroke your fingertip over the palm of your hand. Feel the difference? That is the kind of sensation the foreskin provides, and the circumcised man is missing. It may feel like the penis is overly sensitive to a circumcised man because there is little sensation left to indicate excitement, leading to unexpected premature ejaculation (a common problem with circumcised young men). However, as circumcised penises age they become calloused and much less sensitive. (See the interview listed below for more details.)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/80f04ec06cc8311cd42ea9446987f151.svg)
