Is There A Doctor in the House?  

SensuousWoman3 56F
900 posts
9/12/2006 6:35 am

Last Read:
10/19/2006 8:25 am

Is There A Doctor in the House?

Okay. I have a question. I am laughing at myself for even thinking about it or wondering about it, but I do and I have many times. I am asking it here, in my blog, under the gentle care and wise guidance of all of you who I know and trust. Gentle---the operative word here is gentle---be gentle.

You know how we, particularly women, are all over-exposed to penises on this site? Well, I cannot help but notice the differences in the looks of the circumcised heads. Some have been cut to expose the gland almost an inch down the shaft–sometimes it looks as though there’s more head than there is wiener. Others expose less. Some look as though the skin had been rolled back just perfectly, evenly exposing the head all the way around, like a little bowler hat.

My question is for anyone in the know, do physician’s tend to have a distinct “signature” to the circumcisions they perform? In other words, say a nurse worked in the pediatrics department. When a little boy came in for a physical, would she be able to say, “Oh, looks like Dr. Bailey circumcised him!” or “That’s a Dr. McCarthy cut if I’ve ever seen one!”

Cosmetic or plastic surgeons are known to have signature noses and such, so why not signature circumcisions? Does anybody know? Does anybody else care? Has anybody else ever even wondered?

rm_babyboomer26 68M
898 posts
9/12/2006 7:23 am

No, I can't say it's something I've ever wondered about. In fact, it's a subject I don't care to even think about!


SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/12/2006 7:43 am:
LOL! Just put the thought right out of your head, Boomer.


9/12/2006 8:31 am

~ Falls out of his chair laughing ~ Ok, I am better.....wait... I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I do not even know what to say.... I can just picture doctors in the O.R. ......."oh, thats definitely the work of Dr. Rosenbossum."

SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/12/2006 8:58 am:
Oh, good! I am glad it made you laugh, Andy! After a reflective day like yesterday, I thought we could all use a little something to smile about.

flagg134 37M
1582 posts
9/12/2006 9:11 am

ROFLMAO Not something I've cared to look at on this site and for me they aren't pinned up on the front page. Thanks for pointing out the differences to all of us. I'll make sure to continue not looking at cock shots diligently. All I can say is that you have to see way to many to start noticing stuff like that.


SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 8:00 am:
Glad I could help and enlighten, Flaggy-Flag! And you are right---this is what it all comes down to when one is inundated with one too many beef bayonets.

HighPocKets1938 79M

9/12/2006 1:05 pm

Since I very, very seldom even notice the penises on the Gents, I can't give an informed opinion, buut, there just might be something to that idea.

Now, the Ladies' closeup photos, on the other hand,,, (or should that be IN my other hand), are just too beautiful for mere words to express properly. And I speak from a devoted appreciation of each and every one of you. If you have it FLAUNT IT. AND OFTEN

SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 8:02 am:
Yes, I suppose men are oblivious to other men's privates. so with respect to women, HP, you're saying a rose, isn't a rose, isn't a rose, huh?

____Phantom____ 48M

9/12/2006 4:05 pm

This is a little off the subject, but I too was circumcised at an age when I had no say in the matter, but circumcision is a great blessing as the medical community has come to realize.

Next year I am headed to Botswana for six months of research in the Okavanga Delta region. Botswana is a country where close to 40 percent of the population is infected with the HIV virus. In some areas of Botswana the rate of infection is as high as 60 percent (it has the highest rate of infection in the world).

Researchers have come to realize that the reasons that the infection rate is so high in Botswana and many other Sub-Saharan countries include:

1) People have very open sexual relationships and they have
unprotected sex with many sexual partners.
2) Lake of circumcision in men.

As it turns out, the inner wall of the foreskin contains countless tiny little veins that can easily rupture during copulation and this provides the virus an opportunity to easily pass through the cuts.

It is believed that had it not been for circumcision and frequent use of protection such as condoms the infection rate here in United States would have probably hovered around 30 to 40 percent.

This is not meant to be a suggestion comparison, but yesterday was the September 11th anniversary where 3000 people perished in the twin towers five years ago, but what people don’t know is that every 12 hours 3000 people die of AIDS in Africa alone.

I know that circumcision is an old thing in many societies, but who ever came up with it had the right idea.

I kind of feel embarrassed that woman have to watch all of these ridiculous photos here on this site.

SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 8:15 am:
Interesting, Phantom.

I feel there is a great debate within the medical community as to the true necessity and advantages of circumcision. Most Europeans, to include those in the UK, are not circumcised–it seems to be much more of an American thing. But that is a whole ‘nother matter, one that has been debated intelligently and at length on the Advice Line. Header1979 may even have an old blog on the topic–he is always a worthy read.

While I am well aware of the overwhelmingly high rate of HIV in countries such as Botswana, I never heard the correlation to circumcision or lack thereof. Another item on my list of things to research. It is disheartening to watch documentaries on the AIDS epidemic in Africa. So many younger mothers and infants dying of this treacherous affliction. So many darling little children who end up orphaned. Education is continues to be the only key.

JuicyBBW1001 56F

9/12/2006 6:32 pm

Oh my I don't know what to say except LMAO and only you would ponder such things.


SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 8:22 am:
Oh, right! Look who's talking, sister! LOL!

themisskrissy 58F
2302 posts
9/12/2006 7:49 pm

i don't know if header visits you.. if not you really need to send this to him!!!

Virtue Alone Ennobles

SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 8:23 am:
Yeah, Header stops by from time to time. Don't know if he has any insights into snipping styles, but he may have fodder for debate with Phantom.

themisskrissy 58F
2302 posts
9/12/2006 7:52 pm

would the boys delivered by dr mutilate, please compare snip scars!!

Virtue Alone Ennobles

SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 8:25 am:
Whoa! That's sounds gruesome. Actually, looking at pictures or watching videos of an actual circumcision is gruesome. I don't know if I have a son if I could do it. There is little or no anesthetic and all sorts of other horrors. Guess that is nothing that an old dried up maid like me need to concern herself with, huh?

HighPocKets1938 79M

9/19/2006 11:23 am

Sweetness, as the old saying goes "A rose by any other name would still TASTE JUST AS SWEET". The smell on the other hand is subjective to one's olifactory preferences. My own preferences are set to 250 percent appreciation.

SensuousWoman3 replies on 9/19/2006 7:10 pm:
Oh! There you go, H.P.!

RedMenice 47F

9/21/2006 10:26 am

I did not get my son circumcised because I felt it was a decision someone should make for themselves.
I would be PISSED if someone cut MY stuff off, something that I might prefer to

I think a cock looks good with OR without, I have no preferrence. Some men who have theirs, often feel bad because so many women feel a cut cock is 'normal'.

And I recall not long ago, there was a statement from the surgeon general that decided circumcision was not needed, nor did it improve men's health.
As for the AIDs epidemic in Africa, many are not aware that men in that region prefer 'dry' sex, with the belief that a wet (or aroused) woman is bad. Encouraging the women to douch, or introduce products into their vaginas resulting in lesss moisture. Any kind of higher friction sex is going to cause the skin to break more, thus allowing for higher transmission of disease.
My attitude is, if man was SUPPOSED to be foreskin free (with the disease/cancer argument in mind), natural selection would have followed a man with a more disease resistant 'design'.
And for those God fearing people.....if man is born in God's He circumcised too?

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 9:50 am:
Hi, Red Menice! Thank you for stopping by.

I do not have children, but if bore a son, I am not altogether sure I would have him circumcised either. I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and I just cannot imagine subjecting my baby to a procedure that has largely proven to be unnecessary. I am not even going to begin to discuss the lack of pain management and/or the lack of effective pain management when this procedure is being performed. There isn’t an article that I have seen that convinced me that there was any effect or safe manner in which to address the pain the infant endures during such a procedure.

Twenty years ago while working in a major medical center in the Family Practice Department, most of the physicians and residents who were having children opted against circumcising their infant sons as they didn’t feel there were any true medical benefits to this otherwise routine procedure performed at birth.

It is my belief that the AIDS epidemic in Africa has little to do with the lack of circumcision. I feel any role it might place is quite insignificant in the big picture.

Oh, yay! I see Header1979 has dropped by my blog. He always presents a well-informed argument on the subject.

Thank you again for stopping by, Red.

header1979 38M
507 posts
9/23/2006 3:13 pm

I have been a way on business for most of the month and am just catching up with the blogs. Glad I checked this one out. I was going to just comment on styles but after seeing Phantom's comment, I got to address that one first.

Phantom, you are mindlessly repeating myths and spreading false information. It is fine that you are circumcised and enjoy it because you can't do anything about it. So you might as well enjoy what you have left. but because you are circumcised does not give you any right to make disparaging remarks about those who have natural cocks.

First the medical community is NOT finding that circumcision has additional benefits. They are actually finding that the benefits once attributed to circumcision do not exist. All countries, except for the US, that once practiced circumcision widely have basically discontinued it. The AIDS rate did not increase in these countries.

Further, the US has an AIDS four times higher than Europe where circumcision is rare.

The tissue on the inside of a foreskin is the same as the tissue in a vagina. Any tissue any where that tears - in the mouth, vagina, anus - even cuts on the skin can be a sources of AIDS infection. To single out the foreskin is ludicrous.

Actually, recent research has found that the secretions inside the foreskin, actually may help to prevent infection.

When you have people with poor hygiene and poor safe sexual practices, you are always going have a higher disease rate regardless of circumcision. It has nothing to do with a a foreskin.

Circumcision was introduced into the western world because British soldiers were being captured forcibly circumcised in Islamic countries during the days of the Empire. To spare soldiers the pain, agony and potential deaths, Britain began circumcising soldiers before they were sent to Islamic countries. It soon became a custom among the military and the aristocracy. It was only years later in the mid-1800's did other reasons develop for circumcision. Initially it was done to stop masturbation. That didn't work. It wasn't until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, did the idea of medical benefits as a reason for circumcision came into use. Those reasons are now found to be as groundless as the masturbation reason. Circumcision was not widely practiced in the US until after World War II. It reached a peak in the 1970's and is now declining as more and more people learn that it is useless medical practice except in certain cases. Read my blog for more details.

No for the circumcision styles. Actually there are circumcision styles and each doctor has his on preference. You could not usually say specifically which doctor did what circumcision unless maybe you lived in small town with only a few doctors and each one had a different style.

There are different ways of doing a circumcision.

Some use the bell and clamp method in which a bell like device is placed over the head of the penis and the foreskin is pulled up over the bell and a clamp is placed on the ride of the bell that cuts through the skin. There are several versions of this method.

The shield and scalpel method uses a shield slipped under the foreskin and a scalpel is used to cut the foreskin while the shield protects the head of the penis.

Forceps guided is a method in which the foreskin is pulled forward and a forceps is clamped across the foreskin in front of the head of the penis. A scalpel is used to cut through the foreskin just in front of the forceps which protects the head from getting cut.

There is the freehand sleeve resection style in which the foreskin is pulled down the shaft and cut by hand and the two sections are rejoined by sutures.

There as the basic methods with slight variations among them.

The next aspect of circumcision is whether the it is minimal, partial, loose, moderate or tight. This refers to how much foreskin is left after the circumcision. A minimal circumcision in many cases would hardly be indistinguishable from and uncircumcised penis. Perhaps, just the tip of the head would peak through the end of the foreskin. This is the type of circumcision that is on Michaelangelo's statue of David and is the type of circumcision that was originally done be the Hebrews. In a partial, about half the head of the penis is covered by foreskin. In a loose there is a lot of foreskin punched behind the head of the penis. Moderate is the most common in the US in which there is still a little foreskin left which allows for some movement of the skin on the shaft. Tight is when the least least of mount of foreskin is left and the penis skin is very tight when erect. HIGH circumcision retains most if not all of the inner foreskin. These are the penises that have more of a shiny sheen for most of the length of the shaft. A LOW circumcision removes most or all of the inner foreskin, placing the scar very near to the head of the penis. These penises have the look of the skin that is on the rest of the body that continues almost to the head of the penis. The inner foreskin and outer foreskin are two different types of tissues. The inner foreskin is the same type of tissue that is inside the mouth and vagina. The outer foreskin is the same type of skin tissue that covers the rest of the body.

The other aspect of circumcision is how much frenulum is left in tact. This is the skin that attaches the foreskin where the head splits. It is perhaps the most sensitive skin on a penis and gives a guy the best feeling. Some doctors cut away all the frenulum. This is unfortunate for these guys because they have no wheres near the feeling that uncircumcised guys have but don't know the difference. Now ad days a lot of doctors like to leave as much as the frenulum intact so that they guy will have a good sexual experience.

Does that answer your question?

You didn't ask about the different shapes of the heads so that can wait until some other time.

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 10:24 am:
There you are header! I’ve been wondering where you’ve been. Just as an aside, I never intended this post to turn into a debate on the pros and cons of circumcision, but as long as it has, I am glad you are here.

Thank you, header, for dispelling the myths and rectifying any false information herein---particular about the AIDS epidemic. With all due respect to Phantom, it must be a fairly obscure few in the medical field that still believe circumcision is beneficial to the infant male. I’ve only seen overwhelming opinions to the contrary.

[I}Circumcision was not widely practiced in the US until after World War II. It reached a peak in the 1970's and is now declining as more and more people learn that it is useless medical practice except in certain cases.

I do think people forget that prior about 1940, there were still a significant number of home births in the United States tended by midwives, an experienced female relative, or maybe a doctor if people could afford one. While hospitals were available, just like today, they were expensive and a luxury of sorts. From the 1920’s through the 1930’s let’s not forget people did not have any money due to the Great Depression.

Very interesting information regarding the minimal, partial, loose, moderate and tight circumcisions as well as LOW circumcisions and HIGH circumcisions---I have seen shiny penises!

Yes, header, your response offered a lot of insight into my inquiry. I’m ready when you are to talk about the different shapes of the heads. I’ve always chalked that up to genetics and nature. Do you mean to tell me there is more to that story?

Thanks again, Header. I know you always cross the "T's" and dot the "I's" in your research.

5 posts
9/24/2006 1:09 pm

I just wanted to point out some facts I found to let header know his source of facts may be a little off.

[QUOTE]Phantom, you are mindlessly repeating myths and spreading false information. It is fine that you are circumcised and enjoy it because you can't do anything about it. So you might as well enjoy what you have left. but because you are circumcised does not give you any right to make disparaging remarks about those who have natural cocks.

First the medical community is NOT finding that circumcision has additional benefits. They are actually finding that the benefits once attributed to circumcision do not exist. All countries, except for the US, that once practiced circumcision widely have basically discontinued it. The AIDS rate did not increase in these countries.[/QUOTE]

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Circumcision reduced the rate of HIV infection among heterosexual men in South Africa by 60 percent, according to a study that provides the first published data about the effects of male circumcision on HIV infection.

The study was led by Bertran Auvert of the French health institute INSERM and included 3,274 young, sexually active men divided into two groups. Men in one group were immediately circumcised while men in the control group were to remain uncircumcised until the end of the study.

The circumcised men were asked to abstain from sex for six weeks after the operation. Both groups were to be tested for HIV at three, 12 and 21 months.

After 18 months, the researchers detected 20 HIV infections in the circumcised group and 49 in the control group. The researchers concluded that because circumcision was so effective at preventing HIV infection, it would be unethical to continue the study for the planned 21 months. They halted the trial and offered circumcision to all the men in the control group.

Results of the study, which will be published Oct. 25 in the journal PLoS Medicine, were first reported in July at an international AIDS conference.

While the authors of this study have called for male circumcision to become part of AIDS prevention efforts in Africa, other HIV experts say the findings must be confirmed by other studies before such action can be recommended.

-- Robert Preidt

SOURCE: Public Library of Science news release, Oct. 24, 2005

Copyright � 2005 ScoutNews LLC. All rights reserved.


WebMD Medical News

Reviewed By�Louise�Chang,�MD
on Tuesday, July 11, 2006

July 11, 2006 -- Male circumcision , if widely adopted in Africa, would prevent 3 million deaths over 20 years. It would work as well as a moderately effective AIDS vaccine.

The prediction comes from an international team of researchers including Brian G. Williams, PhD, of the World Health Organization. They report their findings in the July issue of the public-access, online journal PLoS Medicine.

"Male circumcision could avert 2 million new HIV infections and 300,000 deaths over the next 10 years in sub-Saharan Africa," Williams and colleagues write. "In the 10 years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 million new infections and 2.7 million deaths."

About a fourth of the impact would be in South Africa, which is particularly hard-hit by the AIDS pandemic.

These estimates are based on a 2005 clinical trial that found male circumcision reduces female-to-male spread of HIV -- the AIDS virus -- by 60%.

This would be the same effect as an AIDS vaccine that was 37% effective in protecting both men and women against HIV infection.

Preventing HIV infection of men would slow HIV spread to women. But Williams and colleagues note that women need protection of their own -- a safe, HIV-killing agent that could be applied directly to the vagina prior to sex.

And while it's important to find ways to cut the spread of HIV, it's even more important to get effective treatments to people already infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

"The need to keep HIV-positive people alive through the provision of [AIDS drugs] remains the most immediate priority," Williams and colleagues write.

SOURCE: Williams, B.G. PLoS Medicine, July 2006; vol: 3 pp e262.

� 2006 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved


Age-Old Procedure Could Avert Millions of New Infections Worldwide

By�Charlene �Laino
WebMD Medical News

Reviewed By�Louise�Chang,�MD
on Thursday, August 17, 2006

Aug. 17, 2006 (Toronto) -- A practice dating back to biblical times could soon join the list of powerful weapons against AIDS.

New studies suggest that male circumcision -- the surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis -- could avert hundreds of thousands of new HIV infections and save millions of dollars.

The research, presented at the International AIDS Conference here, builds on last year's finding that circumcised heterosexual men are at least 60% less likely to contract HIV than their uncircumcised counterparts.

Kevin De Cock, MD, director of the World Health Organization's HIV/AIDS program, says that if the findings hold up, the global agency will issue guidelines backing the procedure for HIV prevention.

Male circumcision could avert as many as two million new infections over 10 years in sub-Saharan Africa alone, he tells WebMD.

De Cock says his agency will await the results of two more large studies, expected to be completed next year in Kenya and Uganda, before making a move.

Circumcision Cuts Costs

In the meantime, early results from another, ongoing study of tea plantation residents in rural Kenya support last year's findings.

That study, presented here this week, showed circumcised men were about two-thirds less likely to contract HIV over a two-year period than uncircumcised men.

In yet another study, Yale University researchers projected that increasing circumcision rates by just 10% to 20% could ward off 32,000 to 52,000 infections in Soweto, South Africa alone over the next 20 years.

Other new research suggests circumcision would be cost-effective.

And, despite worries that circumcised men would feel safe and engage in risky behaviors, University of Illinois researchers found that half of recently circumcised men reported using condoms more consistently and paying for sex less frequently.

Obstacles to Overcome

No one's really sure how circumcision might prevent infection with HIV, but De Cock offers several possibilities.

The foreskin is covered with a much thinner layer of cells than the penis, which could facilitate invasion by the virus, he says. Also, the foreskin has more cells that have targets for the virus, De Cock says.

Even if the procedure does pan out in the current trials, there are obstacles to overcome, researchers warn.

First is a shortage of health care workers trained to perform the procedure in developing nations, says French researcher Bertran Auvert, MD, who led last year's study. "We need to develop a method that is simple, fast, safe, of low cost, and usable by nurses," he says.

Cultural taboos also have to be dealt with, says Catherine Hankins, MD, chief scientific officer for the United Nations' UNAIDS program.

"Circumcision has deep cultural significance in many cultures," she tells WebMD. "It's tied into the significance of what it means to be a man."

Hankins stresses that circumcision is not a magic bullet.

"It is possible that whatever gains might be made through male circumcision could be wiped out by people letting down their guard," she says. "A circumcised man might think he no longer needs to use condoms. A woman might think, 'He's circumcised, I don't need to raise the issues of condoms.'

"We need to get the word out that circumcision is just one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package," Hankins says.

SOURCES: XVI International AIDS Conference, Toronto, Canada, Aug. 13-18, 2006. Kevin De Cock, MD, director of the World Health Organization's HIV/AIDS program. Bertran Auvert, professor of public health, University of Versailles, France. Catherine Hankins, MD, chief scientific officer for the United Nations' UNAIDS program.
� 2006 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved


Here the potential medical advantages and disadvantages of circumcision are set forth. The surgical procedure itself is discussed elsewhere.

What has been the medical view of circumcision?

In 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." And in 1983 the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position.

What is the anatomy of the penis?

The penis is a cylindrical shaft with a rounded tip. The rounded tip is called the glans. There is a groove (termed the coronal sulcus) between the shaft and the glans of the penis. The fold of skin that covers the glans is the foreskin (the prepuce).

What is a retractable foreskin?

A retractable foreskin is one that can be pulled back behind the groove of the coronal sulcus to expose the glans.

What is newborn circumcision?

Newborn circumcision consists of removal of the foreskin -- the foreskin is resected to near the coronal sulcus -- in the newborn period (before the age of 2 months).

Incidentally, the Latin "circum-" means around (or about). Circumcision is a cutting around.

What is the status of the foreskin at birth?

Only about 1 in every 20 boys is born with a retractable foreskin. This reflects the fact that the histologic (tissue) development of the foreskin is usually not complete at birth.

The foreskin is thus not fully separable from the glans in about 96% of newborn boys. By 1 year of age, the foreskin can be retracted in 50% of boys and by 3 years, the foreskin can be retracted in 80% to 90% of uncircumcised boys.

What does this have to do with circumcision?

It means that the inability to retract the foreskin at birth and in infancy is normal and does not constitute a medical reason for a circumcision.

What is phimosis?

Phimosis is a medical indication for circumcision. It is defined as "stenosis of the preputial ring with resultant inability to retract a fully differentiated foreskin." In other words, phimosis is present if the foreskin cannot be retracted at an age when it should normally be retractable.

How is phimosis treated?

Phimosis can be treated by circumcision or by surgical enlargement of the phimotic ring, the ring of tissue causing the phimosis.

What is paraphimosis?

Paraphimosis occurs when the foreskin once retracted cannot return to its original location. The foreskin is trapped behind the groove of the coronal sulcus. Paraphimosis causes blood to pool in the veins behind the entrapment which induces swelling. The swelling leads to severe pain in the penis and makes it impossible to return the foreskin manually to its original location.

How is paraphimosis treated?

The foreskin, after lubrication, can sometimes be reduced. However, this works only if the paraphimosis is discovered very early. Because of the pain, the child has to have a short-acting general anesthetic or heavy sedation. Paraphimosis may be treated by circumcision.

What is balanoposthitis?

Balanitis is inflammation of the glans while posthitis is inflammation of the foreskin. Balanitis and posthitis generally occur together as balanoposthitis: inflammation of both the glans and foreskin.

What if an uncircumcised boy has phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis?

Boys who are not circumcised as newborns may later have circumcision for the treatment of phimosis, paraphimosis, or balanoposthitis. When done after the newborn period, circumcision is considerably more complicated.

What is meatitis?

Meatitis is inflammation of the opening (the meatus) of the penis. This opening is formally called the external urethral meatus.

What is the relationship between circumcision and meatitis?

Meatitis is more common in boys who have been circumcised. This stands to reason since, in circumcised boys the urethral meatus is more exposed and likely to be chaffed than in boys that were not circumcised. There is no evidence that meatitis leads to narrowing (stenosis) of the urethral meatus or to other serious problems.

Is it easier to care for the penis circumcised or uncircumsised?

The circumsised penis is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his penis with care. Cleaning of the penis is done by gently, not forcibly, retracting the foreskin. The foreskin should be retracted only to the point where resistance is met. Full retraction of the foreskin may not be possible until the age of 3 or more.

What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?

The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that males predominate among infants with urinary tract infections (whereas females predominate later in life) and that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. Studies in US Army hospitals involving more than 200,000 infant boys confirmed greater than a tenfold increase in urinary tract infections in uncircumcised male infants compared to those who had been circumcised.

What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.

What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases?

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

What might this connection between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.

What is the correlation between sexually transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix?

There is a strong connection between sexually transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 are strongly associated with cancer of the cervix. Herpes simplex virus type 2 has also been associated with cervical cancer.

The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. Cervical cancer is virtually unknown in nuns and virgins.

What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?

Circumcision protects the mate from cancer of the cervix by removing the foreskin which harbors sexually transmitted viruses that promote this common form of female cancer.

What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis?

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is 1 in 600 in the US. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.

Circumcision -- Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance

* Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
* Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
* Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
* Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
* Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
* Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
* Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
* There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

One can never have to much info

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 11:21 am:
Hey, RJ! Thanks for stopping by. I am always open to alternate points of view. Let’s see what we have here.

Very, very interesting information. Hmmm, I know see from which angle Phantom presents his viewpoint. While I feel it is entirely too soon to talk in absolutes, I am pleased that the search for the cure and for the prevention of spreading the HIV virus is alive and well. It tells me there is hope. My one concern is that these seem to be rather rudimentary studies and without strongly prevailing conclusions as I will evidence by the following highlights

- …according to a study that provides the first published data about the effects of male circumcision on HIV infection.

- While the authors of this study have called for male circumcision to become part of AIDS prevention efforts in Africa, other HIV experts say the findings must be confirmed by other studies before such action can be recommended. *Naturally any author of a study is going to call for the implementation of the results of their study. However, this does not mean it is an accepted and recognized practice.

- The prediction comes from…… Those are the words that throw me ‒ “the prediction” as a prediction is conjecture, a guess, a hypothesis that is not yet fully supported by the evidence.

- New studies suggest that male circumcision -- the surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis ‒ could avert hundreds of thousands of new HIV infections and save millions of dollars.

- Kevin De Cock, MD, director of the World Health Organization's HIV/AIDS program, says that if the findings hold up… *Dr. De Cock? How apropos!

- De Cock says his agency will await the results of two more large studies, expected to be completed next year in Kenya and Uganda, before making a move.

- Even if the procedure does pan out in the current trials….. That tells me it hasn’t exactly panned out yet.

You are right, RJ. No one can ever have too much information. Morever, the information you present offers SOME HOPE AND PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE in this fight against the transmission of HIV, particularly the epidemic in Africa. Just the knowledge that different types of research is being conducted provides some solace and leaves me some optimism. Thank you for taking the time to research and share this information.

SirMounts 104M

9/25/2006 3:17 pm

*examines self more carefully, discovers small tattoo of doctor's signature*
Hey, now that's taking things too far!

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 10:35 am:
Well, how about that, SirMounts? And at your age and all! Now that is what I would call a signature circumcision. I must say, you have mighty fine eyesight for a man of 95 years of age, too!

Always a pleasure when you stop by!

header1979 38M
507 posts
9/25/2006 3:40 pm

Those who think circumcision affects the aids rate are overlooking the fact that the US, which has the highest rate of circumcision outside of countries where it is done for religious reasons, also has and AIDS rate for times higher than Europe where circumcision is rare. You cannot compare conditions in Africa with those in advanced western nations. Comparisons are only valid when other factors are held constant. You need to compare the AIDS rate in the US with other nations that have comparable health standards and hygiene, such as Europe, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. South and Central American also has a lower AIDS rate than Africa.

The studies stated that that they are not conclusive and don't understand the correlation. It could be that other factors in the African culture come into play.

If foreskins were the carries of disease, the human race would have been wiped out millenniums ago.

The advantages quoited of circumcision quoted above have all been disproved. A tenuous correlation at best can be made and some of the incidents described are so rare that a person would more likely be struck by lightening than have a condition caused by having a foreskin.

Circumcision is mass hysteria in the US. Remember, it originated in the US by religous fanatics to stop masturbation.

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 11:24 am:
Those who think circumcision affects the AID rate are overlooking the fact that the US, which has the highest rate of circumcision outside of countries where it is done for religious reasons, also has and AIDS rate four times higher than Europe where circumcision is rare.

Excellent argument, as if the rest of your post.

8 posts
9/25/2006 11:48 pm

WOW my head hurts---I mean my brain is spinning, all these facts and figures tossed out here and there's not thing one a circumcised male can do to change his stature.... do the make a fore-skin implant ?

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 12:10 pm:
Well, hello, 8inchhero4u and welcome to my blog! So your head is spinning a bit, is it? LOL! Well, that’s a good thing---it means all that has been written has at last thought provoking.

Actually, there are some things a circumcised male can do to change his stature. There are surgical and non-surgical techniques that are used in foreksin restoration. The information I’ve provided below is simply an example obtained by a quick Google search and is in no way comprehensive. Actually, Wilkipedia ‒ Foreskin Restoration, is an informative article that gives the Reader’s Digest summarization of available techniques.

Surgical Restoration - From a site called Wired News:

Foreskin reconstruction surgery can be a difficult procedure. Dr. E. Douglas Whitehead, director of New York Phalloplasty and president of the American Academy of Phalloplasty Surgeons, performs penis enlargement but has chosen not to offer foreskin reconstruction.

"I know there's a demand for it," Whitehead said. "If there was a surgical technique that I considered produced good results, I would offer it to patients. I simply don't believe there is a technique out there at the moment that I would embrace."

The procedure involves a cut around the circumference of the penis, after which the surgeon slides the skin to fit over the glans. That leaves a portion of the shaft of the penis exposed, so another surgery is done to take tissue from the scrotum to cover the shaft.

Dr. Harold Reed, a surgeon in Miami, Florida, offers a slightly different procedure, but doesn't always recommend it. "For people who have the time to spend on the stretching technique, just stretching the penile skin I think would be the best approach of all," Reed said.

All of the men who have restored their foreskin seem to be pleased with the results. Griffiths said that when he had restored himself about halfway, he noticed a new and pleasurable sensation while taking a shower. "I pulled foreskin back and put a fine spray on it," he said. "I went through the roof ... in a very good way."

Non-Surgical Restoration - From Wikipedia

Nonsurgical foreskin restoration, accomplished through tissue expansion, is the more commonly used method of foreskin restoration. Both the skin of the penile shaft and the mucosal inner lining of the foreskin, if any remains after circumcision, may be expanded.

The skin is pulled forward over the glans, and tension is applied either manually, by using weights, or by using elastic straps. In the second two cases the problem of attaching a device to the skin arises, for which there are different solutions. Surgical tape may be used to attach weights to the skin, or to attach an elastic strap. An example of a device using elastic straps is the T-Tape method, which was developed in the 1990s with the idea of enabling restoration to take place more rapidly. Many specialized foreskin restoration devices that grip the skin with or without tape are also commercially available. Tension from these devices may be applied by weights or elastic straps, or by pushing the skin forward on the penis.

The amount of tension produced by any method should be adjusted so as to never cause pain or discomfort, and may be seen as a limiting factor in foreskin restoration. There is a risk of damaging tissues from use of excessive amounts of tension or applying tension for too long. Websites about foreskin restoration vary in their recommendations, from suggesting a regimen of moderate amounts of tension applied for several hours a day, to recommending periods of higher tension applied for only a few minutes per day.

Tissue stretching has long been known to stimulate mitosis, and research shows that regenerated human tissues have the attributes of the original tissue. Unlike conventional skin expansion techniques, however, the process of non-surgical foreskin restoration may take several years to complete, and depends on the amount of skin available to expand, the amount of skin desired in the end, and the regimen of stretching methods used. Patience and dedication are often needed; support groups exist to help with these . The act of stretching the skin is often described informally as "tugging" in these groups, especially those on the internet.

So, there you have it, hero! I hope this helps your head to stop hurting and spinning!

RedMenice 47F

9/26/2006 3:07 pm

I've HEARD that a few companies make "aids" that can re-stretch what skin you have....use at your own risk.


SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 12:12 pm:
Hi, Red, I am glad you came back to follow up on your post.

I did see a site with a device by the same name called "TugAhoy" that can be googled. Like you said, use at your own risk.

8 posts
10/2/2006 3:35 pm

Hi Sensuous,
OK,OK, I admit I didn't do the research . The post you provided is very informative, but also sounds risky and painful.
For those 2 reasons I think 99.9 % of men wouldn't do this, it's a guy thing. Hell we have enough problems with the thought of a vasectomy.

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/2/2006 6:10 pm:
Oh, heck ‒ you didn’t have to do the research! That’s what I’m here for! There used to be enough discussion about this topic on the Advice Line that long ago I researched the entire subject---which by the way---was not supposed to be the focus of this light-hearted post---but I wasn’t shocked by the direction it took once the horse was out of the barn---and that’s okay.

I agree that it sounds risky and painful and my question is---is it really worth it? Evidently there are many men who think so. From what I have read, men have all kinds of reasons for wanting their foreskin reinstated---physical discomfort, emotional duress, psychological, and the list goes on. Also, foreskin construction also plays a part in people wishing to obtain a sex change.

I couldn’t agree with you more in your reasoning---you are so on the mark---many men have enough problems with the mere thought of a vasectomy---the idea of surgery seems pretty over the top. Besides, you could see physicians in the above article, to their credit, were not too hip on performing the procedure themselves. That oughta tell ya something!

Stop back again, hero! Hopefully there will be some more posts that make your head swim---in a good way!

8 posts
10/2/2006 11:22 pm

Dear Sensuous, I am very intrigued by the way you can communicate your thoughts in the written word, I wish I had 1/10th of your talent.I took this post as being light hearted from the very beginning. As I kept checking back, it grew into the mass of information we see today. Thats why when I made my 1st post I was kinda being sarcastic.
........................B U T.........................
I think you have the real makings of an article for the website magazine. Maybe there is some guys out their that would like this to be done (ouch). It's probably an item they never covered or considered.
On a lighter note ! A.B.C (t.v) carries a show "Americas Funniest Videos" - we've all seen it ! It seems like every week they have a segment on guys RACKING themselves, and YES it's funny to see others in pain. But every guy knows that feeling, getting his balls smacked so hard that he curses the very GOD that put him here. And whats worse, his buddies will even laugh at him. So the next time your with a man and your watching this show, you will see him flinch a little or even cross his leg's in some sort reflex action, and at the very least, (if you ask him) he will say that made his balls tingle......

Thanks for your insight......and peace to all !

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/3/2006 11:02 am:
WOW my head hurts---I mean my brain is spinning....

LOL! Okay, now I get it! THANK YOU for drawing me a diagram! LOL!

You know, I tend to speak "sarscasm" as a second language. Therefore, I have to be very, very careful with speaking/writing to someone I don't know very well as not to accidentally offend them. Often, while I think I'm funny, the other person doesn't! So, if I can help myself, I try to take it easy.

Too funny!

Hippink 36F  
4498 posts
10/8/2006 7:31 am

"The studies stated that that they are not conclusive and don't understand the correlation. It could be that other factors in the African culture come into play.
If foreskins were the carriers of disease, the human race would have been wiped out millenniums ago."

Agrees with Header.

None of those studies mentioned CONDOMS. I'm quite absolutely DISGUSTED that they wasted all that time, effort & money on circumcising men who didn't have the facts, when GIVING THEM CONDOMS was the RIGHT thing to do!!! That is USING innocent, naive people as GUINEA PIGS!

UNSAFE SEX is the main cause of the spread of AIDS, NOT natural penises!!!

Anyway, WHEW! Boy, did you ever get into it with this one, SW3!
I didn't answer this one before because I had no idea. But I have read about the different methods used to circumcise, which Header graphically described here. Method used would obviously mean different methods leave different kinds of scars. GOD, that is HORRIBLE & disgusting that such a thing is done everyday to poor, defenseless babies. I'm cringing, and I don't even have a penis.

Circumcision must be STOPPED!!! It is WRONG!!!
Hippie XXX

How to Get Laid on AFF The Basics
Have fun, play safe!


10/18/2006 12:55 pm

Holy Crap! What the hell happened here?

SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/18/2006 4:40 pm:
Sigh! ~shakes head~ E X A C T L Y !!!!

A simple light-hearted blog gone MAD! I was afraid of this. I knew, I just knew the minute I saw Phantom's words it was all over but the shoutin'!

I did post a comment saying something about this blog post IS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF CIRCUMCISION and then I deleted it as I decided that's the beauty of a thread---not to control it---but to let it go where it may. I think.

RedMenice 47F

10/18/2006 8:00 pm

I simply MUST say.......that I've spoken about this blog to MANY people on AdultFriendFinder and offline.
I thought it was a fantastic topic....and I obviously came back again and again to check and see who said what next.


SensuousWoman3 replies on 10/19/2006 7:56 am:
And I am very glad you have come back time after time, Red, as well as thrilled that you enjoyed it so much to have mentioned it to others. When I read your remarks, all I could think was, “Really? Wow!” It IS an extremely worthy topic for discussion and one that I have seen and participated in many times on the Advice Line and in blogs such as header1979.

You know when you envision something but it doesn’t turn out anything like you pictured it? Say how a date might go? How a dinner party might play out or perhaps a party? How you picture yourself looking one way when you leave your hairdresser’s shop yet find you look nothing like how you envisioned you going to look? I guess that is what I meant in my response to Shooter----it is a Blog Gone Wild!

As I finally concluded, the beauty of a blog thread is not to attempt to form it or control it, rather to let it go wherever it may take us. If one really wants to be a control freak, they can exercise the option of approving every post before it appears on one’s blog or to delete comments that they don’t feel fit their preconceived blog vision. That just seems way too “Bree Van De Kamp” ala Desperate Housewives to me. (I know, lame analogy, but so fitting.)

I personally detest over-structured parties, vacations, etc., where the event is more about the host or the event planner–--WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FUN DAMMIT!---than it is about ensuring one’s guests all have a good time and stimulating conversation. As long as all parties are respectful, that is okay with me.

Thank you for coming back yet again and sharing your thoughts. Don’t be a stranger!


Become a member to create a blog