Norah (pup/it/she)

This was about HPV, not HIV. It’s the virus that causes genital warts, and can be oncogenic.

What mode are you using? I’ve found D-input works better than X-input.

🤖

Alright bigot.

No, not really.

Well, in Australia they do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Caramelldansen, the Caramella Girls version.

“Despite the conflicting data reported in articles, the weight of the scientific evidence suggests there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction.”

That is talking about sexual function, and doesn’t mention pleasure at all. I don’t think anyone here is disputing the ability to get an erection or ejaculate. There would have been much broader consequences on populations already by now if that were the case.

And last but not least, we have a view of a clinician in this topic who highlights the necessity of teaching him good hygiene to avoid phimosis…

What? Phimosis is a congenital issue, you can’t get it from a lack of hygiene???

😂😂

No, the r-word.

You’re right, it’s much different. Minors that are wanting sex change surgeries are both consenting, and have a medically necessary reason for getting them.

If I’m reading that correctly, it would be prevalence of people that are circumcised, not the current prevalence of it being done, right?

Edit: Also, all the yellow parts could literally have a zero or close to zero rate. Or just a minority Jewish population.

I read that, and even talked about that in my comment. Please don’t be condescending. I clearly meant the original study’s* authors.

The papers subtitle is “results from a randomized controlled trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention” and that sounds more reasonable but I’m not going to dig any deeper tonight

There’s a vaccine though, which we are already now giving to young boys as well.

Because I have spoken too many, many people who were circumcised, including my own older brother, who felt like they were mutilated/incomplete/disfigured. That’s generally how you would find out someone’s feelings on a subject? It seems like no circumcision would be the only way to guarantee someone doesn’t feel that way, because it’s always possible to have it done later in life by choice. That’s not pushing a narrative, that’s just facts.

Let me ask you a follow up question. Are you for or against minors that are transgender having sex change surgeries? Why or why not?

That’s really interesting, thanks for sharing.

I mean, there are people in this thread that were circumcised as a teen/adult and commenting on what that was like for them. That is, anecdotally, where my data comes from e:(as well as my own friends and acquaintances, and other threads like this online).

The study you linked seems to be categorising quality of data, with a focus on sexual function first and foremost. Sexual function has nothing to do with pleasure or sensation, it is merely about ability to get an erection, penetrate something and ejaculate. Neither myself nor others in this thread are commenting on that. Where it talks about pleasure and sensation, the cited studies seem to only ask a binary question of whether there was pleasure or not. Not if it had decreased, subjectively rating it, or trying to objectively rate it.

It also erroneously talks about the fact that sexual pleasure is attributed to the erogenous zones on the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin. That seems to be hilariously slanted towards being pro-circumcision. I’ve never heard anyone, anywhere say that the foreskin is an erogenous zone, only that it protects them from desensitisation.

Can we also talk about the fact they went to the rural parts of an African nation to do a randomly controlled trial where they circumcised over 2000 people, some as young as 15, “in the name of science”. What the fluff is up with presumably western, presumably white people doing “science” on black people?? Even if they paid them (which is its own methodological issue) this is just really really messed up.

The study of RCT participants in rural Uganda by Kigozi et al involved sexually experienced males aged 15–49 years. Of these, 2,210 participants were randomized to a group that received immediate circumcision, and 2,246 were randomized to a control group to remain uncircumcised until after 24 months of follow-up. Participants completed a survey involving the IIEF tool. Sexual function, based on the ability to achieve and maintain an erection (99.7% vs 99.9%, respectively), difficulty with vaginal penetration (99.4% vs 99.9%), difficulty with ejaculation (99.7% vs 99.9%), and pain during or after intercourse (99.9% vs 99.6%), did not differ significantly between each group at the end of the 24-month evaluation.

Letters commenting on the Uganda findings were mostly positive. Bowa, however, suggested that if the dorsal slit method had been used rather than the sleeve technique, then sexual function may have improved rather than having remained the same. In response, Gray and Kigozi mentioned that the other 2 RCTs (in Kenya and South Africa) had used the forceps-guided MC technique. Sexual function was studied in the Kenyan trial and reported no difference (see next paragraph). A letter by Daar suggested that because the sleeve technique used made a cut 0.5–1 cm from the frenulum, erogenous tissue may have remained to explain the results. However, a systematic review (detailed in the next section) of histological correlates of sexual pleasure attributed erogenous sensation to the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, with the erogenous sensations claimed to arise from the frenulum actually stemming from stimulation of nearby genital corpuscles in the glans and shaft rather than the frenulum itself. A mostly positive letter by Drenth pointed to the inability of participants in a circumcision RCT to be blinded to the intervention. Drenth also considered that there were statistical anomalies in the data. In a response, Gray, showed that Drenth’s latter criticism stemmed from an inadequate understanding of statistics.

Krieger et al conducted personal interviews involving trained counsellors of RCT participants in Kenya the interviews, including 1,391 circumcised men and 1,393 control men aged 18–24 years. Participants were evaluated in detail at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Sexual function parameters and results at 24 months included inability to ejaculate (1.3% vs 1.2%, respectively), premature ejaculation (PE; 3.9% vs 4.6%), pain during intercourse (0.7% vs 1.2%), lack of pleasure during intercourse (1.8% vs 1.0%), difficulty achieving/maintaining erection (2.3% vs 1.4%), or any of these dysfunctions combined (6.2% vs 5.8%). No statistically significant differences were found in frequency of any of the parameters between the circumcised and uncircumcised men. None of the circumcised men had long-term penile deformities or complications from the surgery, and 99% of the men were satisfied with their circumcisions. In each group, men reporting at least one sexual dysfunction at baseline averaged 24.7%, and this decreased over the 24-month trial period to 6.0% at 24 months, possibly from increases in experience and confidence in these 18- to 24-year-old males with time, as well as the general psychological counselling and support provided to trial participants. None of the men received treatment for sexual dysfunction.

So you’re telling me that John Harvey Kellogg was into chastity devices and had a kink for putting them on young boys? 😶

I’m interested to know if they offered you to just do an incision or not? I have very mild phimosis but they only said I’d need an incision. I’m able to just stretch it out a bit beforehand and it’s fine, though I do have EDS so that pawbably why I can.

Linking back to your other comment I replied too, because it drastically reduces sexual pleasure. Other reasons include the fact that most people generally prefer not to be mutilated.

It was never actually effective, but by making it much less pleasurable. Turns out boys will do it anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Please don’t use that word, it’s a slur.