Anonymous wrote:I think there's lots of room for reasonable people to disagree on this issue. I was swayed by the reduced incidence of penile cancer and STD's, but as many have pointed out, an educated person in a first world country doesn't generally rely on a circumcision as protection against STD's, and Gardasil will probably be a preventative against penile cancer.

I've also had doctors tell me that circumsized boys have a reduced incidence of UTI's.


Interestingly, I thought that the best way to research this would be to find a study of men who had circumcisions done as adults. There is such a study, but these men were mostly doing the procedure to treat condyloma, a congenital conidiotn in which the foreskin is shortened and causes pain. These test subjects were therefore so relieved to be getting a circumcision, that their opinions on life before and after didn't seem quite relevant to the average guy.

This has always been fascinating to me. Why do doctors and parents alike think it reasonable to amputate healthy skin simply to potentially protect against a UTIs? What will you do when your daughter gets a UTI?

Doctors should also be explaining these facts: 1) baby boys, regardless of their circumcision status, are going to get fewer UTIs than girls, and that 2) the reduction in UTI's by circumcision applies only to the baby's first year of life (after that things even out naturally and the number of UTIs is still lower than girls), 3) breastfeeding provides significantly more protection against UTIs than circumcision does in that first year of life, and 4) the studies used to come up with this data have been hotly contested for a variety of reasons - while meanwhile other studies have come out that circumcision actually increases the rate of UTIs in newborns. And of course, the most important tidbit: if your son (or daughter) gets a UTI, they can easily be treated with antibiotics.

Lastly, there is some debate about the entire UTI issue anyway, and many - especially those from countries who do not routinely circumcise - believe that the reason there is any increase in UTIs in intact boys, is due to the forcible retraction that has historically been practiced in this country; NOT because intact penises are more likely to become infected.

Anonymous wrote:I think there's lots of room for reasonable people to disagree on this issue. I was swayed by the reduced incidence of penile cancer and STD's, but as many have pointed out, an educated person in a first world country doesn't generally rely on a circumcision as protection against STD's, and Gardasil will probably be a preventative against penile cancer.

I've also had doctors tell me that circumsized boys have a reduced incidence of UTI's.


Interestingly, I thought that the best way to research this would be to find a study of men who had circumcisions done as adults. There is such a study, but these men were mostly doing the procedure to treat condyloma, a congenital conidiotn in which the foreskin is shortened and causes pain. These test subjects were therefore so relieved to be getting a circumcision, that their opinions on life before and after didn't seem quite relevant to the average guy.

Last time I looked, a condyloma was a genital wart.........

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe "sludge" isn't the right word, I would liken it to discharge of the male variety. I guess some men have fluid (pre-cum) that comes out at times during the day. He has that, and unless it's right-from-the-shower, it never smells/tastes fresh.

Sorry for TMI, but that's how I know that I will fight tooth and nail for a son of mine to have one. That and the ridiculous amount of bladder infections I've gotten.

You do realize that the urethra and the vagina are entirely separate holes? More often than not, UTI's are caused by e coli and that is from another hole. It may not be your husband that has the hygiene problem, just saying.

Yes, because well, let's see, I'm not an idiot. So yes, I realize they are 2 separate holes, but they are right next to each other. And so how would your fantastic logic on my hygiene explain how I never got them before and now get them regularly. Did I suddenly stop wiping after I crap?

I think there's lots of room for reasonable people to disagree on this issue. I was swayed by the reduced incidence of penile cancer and STD's, but as many have pointed out, an educated person in a first world country doesn't generally rely on a circumcision as protection against STD's, and Gardasil will probably be a preventative against penile cancer.

I've also had doctors tell me that circumsized boys have a reduced incidence of UTI's.


Interestingly, I thought that the best way to research this would be to find a study of men who had circumcisions done as adults. There is such a study, but these men were mostly doing the procedure to treat condyloma, a congenital conidiotn in which the foreskin is shortened and causes pain. These test subjects were therefore so relieved to be getting a circumcision, that their opinions on life before and after didn't seem quite relevant to the average guy.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe "sludge" isn't the right word, I would liken it to discharge of the male variety. I guess some men have fluid (pre-cum) that comes out at times during the day. He has that, and unless it's right-from-the-shower, it never smells/tastes fresh.

Sorry for TMI, but that's how I know that I will fight tooth and nail for a son of mine to have one. That and the ridiculous amount of bladder infections I've gotten.

You do realize that the urethra and the vagina are entirely separate holes? More often than not, UTI's are caused by e coli and that is from another hole. It may not be your husband that has the hygiene problem, just saying.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe "sludge" isn't the right word, I would liken it to discharge of the male variety. I guess some men have fluid (pre-cum) that comes out at times during the day. He has that, and unless it's right-from-the-shower, it never smells/tastes fresh.

Sorry for TMI, but that's how I know that I will fight tooth and nail for a son of mine to have one. That and the ridiculous amount of bladder infections I've gotten.

Yeah, I don't think that's normal at all and I have never had a bladder infection in my life. Been married 19 years to an uncirced guy.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe "sludge" isn't the right word, I would liken it to discharge of the male variety. I guess some men have fluid (pre-cum) that comes out at times during the day. He has that, and unless it's right-from-the-shower, it never smells/tastes fresh.

Sorry for TMI, but that's how I know that I will fight tooth and nail for a son of mine to have one. That and the ridiculous amount of bladder infections I've gotten.

it doesn't sound normal, you should tell him to have that checked out. Yuck.

I have been with both types and never experienced anything like that.

Unless of course you assume that circumsized men ALWAYS smell like they came fresh out of the shower (have you smelled your own discharge after not showering all day?)

Maybe "sludge" isn't the right word, I would liken it to discharge of the male variety. I guess some men have fluid (pre-cum) that comes out at times during the day. He has that, and unless it's right-from-the-shower, it never smells/tastes fresh.

Sorry for TMI, but that's how I know that I will fight tooth and nail for a son of mine to have one. That and the ridiculous amount of bladder infections I've gotten.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like something unusual might be going on with 15:24's DH. My DH is intact and hygiene has never been a problem. If there's "sludge" involved after showering, there's something wrong.

Wow. I agree. DH is uncirced and never has problems like that! Ew.

Sounds like something unusual might be going on with 15:24's DH. My DH is intact and hygiene has never been a problem. If there's "sludge" involved after showering, there's something wrong.

Well, this was a fasinating read.

My husband is not circumsized. It really bothers me.

Sex is NOT different, so I don't know where that came from, but it is faster. Uncircumsized men are more sensitive and thus I have found either ejaculate within a couple minutes or go too long then get sensitive and can't finish.

I have had an unbelievable amount of bladder infections with my husband. I only had 2 before him in about 20 years of being sexually active, and they were from not peeing post-sex. I always pee post sex with my husband but at least twice a year I have a UTI.

The hygiene factor is gross. You can't stay on top of this, no matter how much you try. There's alwasy going to be, um, sludge in there, even an hour post-shower. I'm basically off oral. And I love it. But I just can't do it anymore.

That said, he wouldn't want to circumsize our son (if we have one) and I'm so adamant about it from this experience that nothing will be able to stop me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My intact son had his son circumcised. I asked him why...he said that he wished I'd had him done as a babe---he didn't think a foreskin was worth the trouble of cleaning and the discomfort of waiting through the partially retractable period. Also, he was deployed and stated that sand in the foreskin is a major pain...

Being circumcised does not mean not having ANY foreskin at all, so I am not sure why he thinks he wouldn't have had the sand issue if he had been circumcised... I am sorry but this sounds bizarre to me.

I asked him, because all of the circed guys who go on and on about how much they miss having a foreskin and that is what he told me. I have no idea if he got done as an adult....I didn't ask him that, and it's been a long time since I've seen him nude. And most of the circed penises I've seen have negligible foreskin---and as a va nurse, I've seen quite a few!

The former approach was to remove nearly the whole foreskin, so the men of our generation tend to have very little remaining foreskin. The risk, of course, is winding up with not enough skin post-puberty and painful erections. The newer approach errs on the side of leaving more skin (hence parents now complaining that a circ is botched or incomplete because DS has more foreskin left than dad and dad's generation). This is actually another reason why circ'ing to look like Dad makes little sense to me, because 2011 circs tend not to look like 1975 circs anyway.

Anonymous wrote:My intact son had his son circumcised. I asked him why...he said that he wished I'd had him done as a babe---he didn't think a foreskin was worth the trouble of cleaning and the discomfort of waiting through the partially retractable period. Also, he was deployed and stated that sand in the foreskin is a major pain...

That is not really relevant. Mr Bush is gone and in the future the people of the middle east will fight their own wars

Nay!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My intact son had his son circumcised. I asked him why...he said that he wished I'd had him done as a babe---he didn't think a foreskin was worth the trouble of cleaning and the discomfort of waiting through the partially retractable period. Also, he was deployed and stated that sand in the foreskin is a major pain...

Being circumcised does not mean not having ANY foreskin at all, so I am not sure why he thinks he wouldn't have had the sand issue if he had been circumcised... I am sorry but this sounds bizarre to me.

I asked him, because all of the circed guys who go on and on about how much they miss having a foreskin and that is what he told me. I have no idea if he got done as an adult....I didn't ask him that, and it's been a long time since I've seen him nude. And most of the circed penises I've seen have negligible foreskin---and as a va nurse, I've seen quite a few!