Circumcision for health reasons

My situation is somewhat similar, namely the foreskin is (was) a bit tight. However, as I've been actively trying to retract it a bit more every time I got the chance (I used some body lotion or oils that aren't aggressive in order to make the stretching technique easier) it now seems to go lower than it did, it almost uncovers the whole.. thing.

However your case is different, since you mentioned that "ring" which made everything worse. Yeah, so unless you receive some professional alternative to the surgery, it remains the single viable option I guess.

 

Is it a viable option to just leave it as it is? If you can pull it back when flaccid, then hygiene should be easy. Does a condom hold the foreskin up during penetrative sex? It sounds like the foreskin forcibly retracting during sex is painful and can lead to complications, but what if you hold it up when it's erect?

I've had two different foreskin problems, but nothing that couldn't be solved with gently pulling it back regularly. If you decide to have surgery, tell your doctor what you want and don't compromise. Sign a consent form only if it describes what you want done, and make it clear you want the strict minimum amount of tissue removed. If you don't trust the surgeon, find another.

 

Is it not normal for the foreskin to come down during sex???

 

I was circumcised when I was 25, never regretted it. It even had to be carried out twice, as the first time too much inner foreskin was left that kept swelling. The second time, my frenulum was removed, too, and for a short time after the operation I regretted the removal, but in my case it had to be removed, there was no other option. Now I am used to it and sex feels still very good, still much better than before circumcision.
I have known quite some men with foreskin problems who got circumcised later in life and almost all of them regretted they did not get circumcised earlier. Most of them feared the pain of were afraid that they would loss sensation after circumcision. But, pain is very manageable and most guys don't experience loss of sensation. Most men circumcised as adults will either tell you that sex after circumcision feels the same or is better. Only a very small percentage of men circumcised as adults complain about reduced feelings. Most of them are men who had to get circumcised for medical reasons and didn't really want to do it. That's why I always say: first be sure you're ok with circumcision and then go ahead. With "being ok with it" I mean you shouldn't have too many doubts anymore. Of course, before the operation there will always be some doubts/anxiety, but that is very normal.

 

I read an interesting article a few years ago by the surgeon general or whatever his title is (the head health guy in the US), and he was discussing how a way to curb AIDS tremendously in Africa and other continents is via circumcisions. I think he said it could cut the aids numbers in half?

 

That's true. At least when people combine it with condom use. Circumcision reduces the chance of catching HIV, but mind you, only in penis-vaginal (heterosexual) contact. It doesn't work for anal sex.
Also, circumcision merely *reduces* the chance of catching HIV, so condoms stay the way to go. Of course the theory behind it is that people will never use condoms for 100 %... so it's a kind of additional safeguard, but can never be relied on as the only one.

But apart from that, circumcision has other health advantages that are also valid for gay men. And of course the improved hygiene is always a good thing.

 

I would defer to the professional opinion of 4 separate doctors you have visited. If it was 1, I would say get a second opinion, but after 4, its likely a safe bet you are getting good medical advice.

 

Oh, another thought: of course it's up to you what you do, if anything, but I've known several guys that ended up very disappointed with a partial circumcision. Moreover, in general, a partial circumcision is much more painful than a full one.

 

This is a bullshit study that cannot be implemented in America.

The only reason why they even tried to circumcised people to see if it would help against HIV is because its hard to get people to war condoms in some parts of africa. whether access to them is hard or actually using them is hard, the point was that this study was conducted as a last resort effort. In the study itself it states that routine circumcision in western countries isn't recommended because condoms are easily accessible.

If you use a condom, the chances of you getting an STD are the same whether you are circumcised or not.

 

It's not a "bullshit study". That is a ridiculous statement. Whether it can/should be implemented outside Africa is another thing.

Fact is, that in heterosexual (vaginal) sex, it gives a protection of about 60% when no condoms is used, whether in Africa, America, Europe or wherever.

Also see:

In fact, when the World Health Organization (WHO) and, later, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP – the largest association of paediatricians in the world) considered the best available scientific evidence on MC for adults and infants, they concluded that the health benefits far outweigh its minor risks. The benefits include protection against a horde of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

source: https://newint.org/sections/argument/2013/03/01/male-circumcision-argument/

 

Nice try, but that is quoted incorrectly.

If you go to the American Academy of Pediatrics official website, the actual quote is

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.


So yes, all the benefits that cutting off a piece of skin from a baby born outweighs the complications, but all the benefits are so minimal that no scientific body recommends for every single newborn.

Every single benefit of circumcision is a mute point, because there are far better ways to get the same benefits. STD protection? Use a condom. Penile Cancer? Its so uncommon even among uncircumcised men, that you are more likely to die from any other cancer or death cause than penile cancer. Cleanliness? Take a shower.

It is also important to note that all the studies that have been made have been on medical circumcision, but there is little research on the risk of non-medical circumcision such as the ones performed by religious leaders around the country.

 

I'm not "trying" anything. And for your information: I'm not interested in an anti/pro discussion on circumcision.

I know the quote of the American Academy of Pediatrics well enough to see that you leave out a bit, namely:

"The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs."

As said, I'm not into a big discussion about this, but to set a few things straight:

1. If you think that condoms protect against STD's 100 %, you are badly informed. Unfortunately that is not the case. A condom can go off, it can break, condoms don't protect against every STD and too often people are too careless about their health and don't use condoms.

2. The lifetime chance of getting penile cancer is roughly 1 in 600 to 1 in 1200/1300 (depending on country) for uncircumcised males. So it is true that men are more likely to die from other causes, but -and that's my personal opinion of course- these chances are not infinitely small.

3. As to hygiene: Of course uncircumcised men can take showers and be clean, too. However, a circumcised penis simply stays clean longer, and that's a fact. With no foreskin, dirt cannot start to collect between the head of the penis and the foreskin.

After half a day in warm weather, I would not hesitate giving head to a circumcised guy, but a uncircumcised guy would definitely have to take a shower first.

Also a study shows that more uncircumcised men have bad hygiene:

"One hundred and fifty non-circumcised and 75 circumcised men were enrolled. Not always washing the whole penis, including retracting the foreskin in non-circumcised men every time they washed (defined as inferior genital hygiene behaviour) was more common in non-circumcised (26%) than circumcised men (4%)"

source: Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study. - PubMed - NCBI

Also see: Male circumcision reduces the abundance of bacteria living on the penis and might help explain why circumcision offers men some protection against HIV, according to a study led by the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen).

source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130416102314.htm

 

Circumcision doesn't offer any protection that would be additive to condoms. If you look at every single study that you mention, the study shows that once you introduce condoms into the mix, the benefits from circumcision go away entirely.

Here is the thing. Women are less likely to get breast cancer if they would just get their breats removed. The medical risks associated with the procedure are minimal, and breast implants are cheap enough.

That doesn't mean that removing your breast is medically recommended simply because it reduces the chances of breast cancer.

Again....take a shower. Not exercising keeps our penises clean longer, but no one is telling people to stop exercising. Just take a damn shower lol

I'm going to assume that the study is well done because I don't have time right now to look into it, but even then the answer is to simply educate people about how to clean properly instead of simply cutting skin off so you don't have to clean it.

We do this teaching people how to wash their hands, their face and even teaching girls how to properly wash their genitals.

I didn't leave anything out. I provided a link so you could visit the whole website...

Anway, if you look at the the statement all that is saying is that circumcision shouldn't be illegal. It says that parents should make the decision based on religious, ethical and cultural beliefs, since medically speaking there is no difference between circumcised or uncircumcised.

 

Sorry, but your arguments are not convincing for me. Circumcision has clear medical benefits and it improves hygiene which is a very nice thing.
As I said, I am not into a long anti/pro discussion about circumcision.
Every parent can make his/her own decision and that's a good thing. If I'll have a son, I will make sure he will be circumcised. I know it's a good thing from own experience.

Don't compare removing a piece of skin with removing whole body parts like breasts. That's unrespectful towards women.
Moreover, breast removal brings much more risks than circumcision and if you google a little bit, you'll see that breast implants are far from always being safe.

 

Folks, please remember this is a thread in the support area of the forum. Whatever you think about circumcision, please try to make your point in a calm and reasonable way.