Decided to Have My Son Circumcised at 13

It is great you have such wonderful sex life but just think how great it would be if you were circumcised? How do you know you would have regretted being circumcised when you came in sexual age since you never had it done? The only fact that is in your post is that you were very miserable being uncut in elementary school. The only individuals who can make a comparison are those who were old enough to remember the before and after. I wasn't sexually active when I was uncircumcised but I can say sex is great now that I am circumcised and I would never want my foreskin back.

Kim and Pang studied 255 men circumcised after the age of 20 and found that "About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision."

There are lots of other countries that have longer life expectancies though as well as lower infant and maternal mortalities, despite spending considerably less on healthcare. I certainly wouldn't go to the USA for the best treatment in the world. Two of the top three ranked medical schools are in the UK, and six of the top ten drug companies are in Europe, where almost no-one get circumcised unless their parents are Jewish or Muslim.

Circumcised as an adult - after chronic hygiene and irritation problems - I would never want my foreskin back either! Seeking out a good urologist and getting painless circumcision was the best thing I have ever done for myself.

Will you please cite the peer reviewed controlled study that concluded HIV infections are higher in circumcised men in Africa?

It's epidemiological data, but this is from a USAID report:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

There is some data for individual countries here:

Cameroon http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
Ghana http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
Lesotho http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
Malawi http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
Rwanda http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
Swaziland http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
Zimbabwe http://measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR254/FR254.pdf table 14.11 (14.6% v 12.5%)

This 1993 study also found that "partner circumcision" was "strongly associated with HIV-1 infection [in women] even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates."
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/371

Just for the record. That women prefer men circed is a myth, or something they're supposed to say to make the man feel better. Also, particularly circed men try to get validation by having their son circed and get quite insecure and defencive if their partner brings up that they DON'T want the son circumcised. (Like: what's wrong with me?). The same way circed women very often perpetuate female circumcision, because they do not want to acknowledge what they have lost, circed men do the same for their sons. Sad all around.
This is a girl's perspective on the issue.

Well applying cortison-creme itself might not be torture, but having the results of this "alternative" checked out again and again while the boy is at that age where he would rather not have his junk checked out by other could be called torture. But i guess some people cant think so far ahead, they need evidence like a cut of foreskin to win an argument.

As i stated earlier i was to embarresed to even talk about my problem as a teenager, so what makes you think i would have liked to get my junk on display on a regular basis ? For me it was the best that i had only to show my problem to the doc at school and then to the doc at the hospital.. well to be honest i got checked out after my circ quite often but the funny thing was it didnt bother me that much at the end.

I also wrote my life got better after i was circumcised, taking a trip down memory lane i think its because i was very selfconcious because i had phimosis and as a result of that i had little self esteem. Then after my problem was fixed - those issues resolved themself too. Ok i was a little embarresed the first time i showered with my classmates after my circumcision, probably because of the attention i - or better my penis - was getting, i got a boner and that really was embarressing.

 

It is predictable that the moment someone says a good thing about circumcision the hysterical anti-circ brigade come charging out with “scientific” sounding arguments copied uncritically from anti-circ websites.  We’ve seen it here in this thread with the usual garbage about nerve endings (fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles) being lost, even though a study found that the foreskin actually contains fewer of these (and smaller ones too) than other areas of skin, with the fingertips having the most:

 

Bhat, G.M., Mohd, A.B., Kour,K. & Shah, B.A. (2008) Density and structural variations of Meissner’s corpuscles at different sites in human glabrous skin.  J. Anat. Soc. India, 57(1), p.30-33.

 

One does not get orgasms by rubbing fingertips!

 

Or the claim about keratinisation even though study of cadavers has found no difference in keratinisation between the glans of the cut vs uncut member:

 

Szabo, R. & Short, R.V. (2000) Does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? Brit. Med. J., 320(7249), p.1592-4.

 

Then there are the vague assertions that the studies proving that circumcision protects against HIV are “flawed”, but no references given.  A bit like creationists claiming that radiometric dating that proves the earth to be billions of years old is “flawed”.  In fact the criticisms made against the circ/HIV studies are themselves flawed, and do not fool the WHO, UNAIDS and the CDC, all of whom agree with the findings and endorse circumcision as a valuable tool in the fight against AIDS.

 

We’ve even had the canard about HIV being less common in uncut Europe, than in cut America (0.6% HIV rate).  Well which part of Europe?  In the UK yes (0.2% HIV rate), not quite Spain & Portugal (0.5%), not Switzerland (0.6%), nor Latvia (0.8%), or Estonia (1.3%) or Ukraine (1.6%).  Yet the epidemic had a head start in the USA, where it remains largely confined to high risk groups like needle sharers, or gay men amongst whom circumcision will make no difference.  When it is heterosexually spread in USA it is disproportionately so in black and Hispanic populations, precisely the ones least likely to be circumcised.

 

Now we have a challenge on the basis of epidemiological evidence.  We are referred to African countries where, apparently, being circumcised correlates with higher rates of HIV.  Oh the irony!  It was epidemiological evidence (lots of it, much more than cited against circumcision here) that led researchers to suspect a connection between foreskins and HIV.  But the anti-circ brigade were quick to point out, correctly, that correlation is not causation, and that epidemiological evidence suffers from the problem of confounding factors.  It could be that one group circumcises, but is also restrained in sexual practice, while another does not circumcise, but is also promiscuous, for example.  That was the point of conducting clinical trials to eliminate such factors.

Now that the pendulum has swung in favour of circumcision as a preventative of HIV the anti-circ brigade eagerly seize upon epidemiological evidence against circumcision whilst forgetting the caveats (eg. confounding factors) they were so quick to point to previously.  Why is it that epidemiological evidence suffers from confounding factors when it is supportive of circumcision, but not when it suits the anti-circ agenda?  Such double standards does not lend credibility to the anti-circ brigade.

In fact it only takes a little investigation to reveal why the epidemiological evidence bucks the trend in the countries listed on this thread as exceptions.  Take Lesotho, for instance.  There circumcision is not done clinically on infants, but is left late, and is often by traditional circumcisers.  By the time the young man in his twenties is cut he may have been sexually active for years and become infected.  And if the circumciser does not wash his razor blade before proceeding to the next victim, the implications are obvious.  A similar situation applies in Cameroon where the procedure is done on groups of young men as an initiation, and in non-sterile conditions.  Again, the implications are obvious, and scary.

African-style non-clinical circumcision is barbaric and dangerous, and should never be compared to the procedure conducted in a strict clinical setting.

 

Rather than go through all the tiresome pseudoscience, peddled by the anti-circers I suggest readers follow up the links here for a more balanced appraisal:

 

http://www.circinfo.com/links_index.html

 

The anti-circ brigade should be seen for what it is.  An emotionally driven, pseudoscientific movement, akin to the anti-vaccination movement, or the AIDS-deniers.  Their arguments pander to emotions, but few withstand examination, and none are strong enough to justify the hostility they espouse to a trivial, harmless, and sometimes life-saving, procedure.  They seem determined to make circumcised boys and men feel needlessly miserable about their bodies.  Frankly, as one who was left uncut by his parents, I really envy those done as babies.  You get a far better cosmetic result, plus the benefits of it all through childhood and adolescence, and are spared the inconvenience, expense, discomfort, embarrassment, and scarring that result from having it done as an adult – as I did when I finally got rid of my cheese-flap at age 30.  That was 20 years ago and I am still waiting for the terrible consequences the anti-circ brigade say I should suffer.

Steve, true or false, circumcision makes it harder to masturbate?  True.  Without the foreskin to move up and down there is going to be friction, unless you use an artificial lubricant.  There will also be more pressure which could lead to damage of the spongy chambers of the penis.

There will also be keratinisation.

 

There is a saying that goes "the more you put into something, the more you get out of it". I never use a lubricant now that I am circumcised because I want to get more out of it. The final outcome is the pleasure is greater and it lasts longer.

Harder to masturbate you say? That has not been my experience. I'd say it makes no difference. At least for me. As for lubricant I rarely use it - too messy. It's just a pleasant treat when I can be bothered with the clean-up afterwards, and I never used it previously. A few attempts found it pointless with a foreskin getting in the way. Nor have I known any other cut fellows complain of difficulty when it comes to hand jobs. Bit of a myth I think. Just like the keratinisation claim - I actually provide a reference to a study which found no difference in keratinisation between cut and uncut members. Really, it is fine being cut, it does not spoil the fun!

If you're happy to be circumcised, that's great, but

1) non-religious male circumcision was originally intended to make masturbation less pleasurable.

2) Kim and Pang studied 255 men circumcised as adults and found the following:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x
"About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision."

Seriously ml66uk ur quoting yourself now?

Well i agree with your first part.. if someone is happy to be circumcised thats just great.

but using a study about 255 circumcised men is just bulls**t

sorry this study cant be taken seriously its not compareable to all circumcised men.

What do you think would happen if someone else would ask 255 other men who got circumcised as adults, the this study would most likely get different results and would be considered bulls**t too.

back 2 topic

also if someone circumcised prefers lubricant to masturbate thats just personal preference nothing more nothing less.

So let me state that again, its ok to be circumcised - its ok not to be circumcised - but its NOT ok to force your own opinion about this matter onto anyone else. Id like to share a quote with you, that i found in my email-account once:

Religion is like a Penis.It's fine to have one.It's fine to be proud of it.But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.

Hopefully you get the meaning if not here is a little hint: exchange Religion with Opinion

Yeah, just 1 thing, Mr. Does it hurt? Does your son complains or stuff like that? The doctors are all males, right??? I'm going to be 13 this September and I'm freaked out of my own skin... when I researched about it, they said they need to lift the foreskin and cut off the skin and bla bla bla... mine is to sensitive!!! By the way, you have experienced it yourself, right? Is it painful??? And is it ugly or stuff????? :-(