[Rictor]

Hehe

"Jews on First"

Sounds like the start of a promising comedy sketch.

[Unknown Target]

Kazan, do you realize what you're doing?

All you're doing is posting dozens of poltiical topics on an online forum. Stop *****ing and change things - I'm pissy at all this because all it is is "I HATE THIS OMG AMERICA IS DYING! Now let me go back to my  daily life". Please, stop *****ing to us with dozens of news articles and do something.


And by the way - you could campaign against so much more important things than circumcision. I mean, it's basically akin to the recent flag burning amendment being brought up for no real reason - the only difference is that your political agenda doesn't include being reelected.

[Roanoke]

well you'r just playing into the conservitives hands, they know exactly how to use you in this state, this is a flawed, provent to not work, proven to backfire, failed tactic, and your continued charging of the machine guns is not going to ever get you anything but mowed down.

you need stealth.

yeah, less clumsy shock 'n' awe and more surgical strike.

And let's not get on to the foreskin thing eh ? Not like you really needed it.......

[Ford Prefect]

Kazan, do you realize what you're doing?

All you're doing is posting dozens of poltiical topics on an online forum. Stop *****ing and change things - I'm pissy at all this because all it is is "I HATE THIS OMG AMERICA IS DYING! Now let me go back to my  daily life". Please, stop *****ing to us with dozens of news articles and do something.

As I said just a few posts earlier, "*****ing" is doing something. And as annoyed as I may get with Kazan's methods of making a point, what annoys me far more is when people respond with some variation on the theme, "stop *****ing". It's lazy, useless, and lacking in any comic value that might excuse it. If you disagree, try presenting a counterpoint. And if you're tired of getting bogged down in such arguments, (entirely understandable), then you have the easiest option of all: just leave the discussion alone. But don't just try to shove issues under the carpet by telling passionate people to "do something". Kazan is making political use of free expression-- that's a form of action. No one says you have to listen.

[Kazan]

Kazan, do you realize what you're doing?

All you're doing is posting dozens of poltiical topics on an online forum. Stop *****ing and change things - I'm pissy at all this because all it is is "I HATE THIS OMG AMERICA IS DYING! Now let me go back to my  daily life". Please, stop *****ing to us with dozens of news articles and do something.

ford already delt with this nonsense fairly effectively

And by the way - you could campaign against so much more important things than circumcision. I mean, it's basically akin to the recent flag burning amendment being brought up for no real reason - the only difference is that your political agenda doesn't include being reelected.

there is nothing more important than protecting a persons rights.  You act as if since time is being spent on that then something else is being left out - that is the fallacy of false dilema.

trying to make it analogous to the flag burning ammendment is laughable

let's see
Flag burning: form of expression, violates the rights of no one
Circumcision: [in most cases] amputation of healthy tissue (typically without anasthetic) from an infant male.  Equivalent proceedure that would be performed on females (clitoral hood amputation) is already illegal.  Impossible to reverse this proceedure (partial reversal possible).  Serves Zero medical purpose

have any more stupid diatribes laced with false dilemas and false analogues for me?

or would you care to explain what your REAL PROBLEM is?

[aldo_14]

To be fair - and this is neither an arguement for or against but merely an informative factoid - there is an arguement that circumcision can have health benefits.

[Kazan]

To be fair - and this is neither an arguement for or against but merely an informative factoid - there is an arguement that circumcision can have health benefits.

which is old and based upon erronious information that has been proven inaccurate by more recent studies

first sentance contains an error

Globally approximately 25% of men are circumcised for religious

incorrect, <=15%

METHODS: We have used, where available, previously conducted reviews of the relation between male circumcision and specific outcomes as "benchmarks", and updated them by searching the Medline database for more recent information.

they didn't conduct original research - they trolled the database

RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases

The HIV infection study failed to take into account external factors that play a much bigger role (condom usage, sexual behavior, etc)

the Penile Carcinoma study was also severely flawed - 80% of the people with carcinomas were greater than 80 years old - when correcting for the age skew it showed an equal rate of penile carcinoma

the UTI study relied on faulty methods and failed to take into account external factors that can cause it - even if we accept it as valid the required number circumcisions performed to prevent 1 UTI was 111 circumcisions - most of these "UTIs" however were caused by improper hygiene such as underwashing, overwashing, attempting to forcibly retract the foreskin (it does not become retractable until 5-10 years old and not fully retractable until as late as 17)

the rate of decline of ulcerative sexually transmitted disease transmittal was less than 1% decrease - wear a farking condom!

We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health

and right here they outright lie

http://www.circumstitions.com/References.html

i'm going to start quoting myself off another forum with highlights of the above link

[Kazan]

Abstract: Female genital mutilation (FGM) is known to cause a wide range of immediate and long-term complications for women subjected to the practice. Male complications due to FGM have, however, not been described before. The objectives of this study were to explore male complications and attitudes with regard to FGM. A village in the Gezira Scheme along the Blue Nile in Sudan constituted the basis of the study. Interviews were carried out according to a pretested questionnaire, using structured questions withopen-answer possibilities. Married men of the youngest parental generation and grandfathers were randomly selected from up-to-date election lists. All respondents except one agreed to be interviewed. A total of 59 men were interviewed, 29 young men and 30 grandfathers. Male complications resulting from FGM, such as difficulty in penetration, wounds/infections on the penis and psychological problems were described by a majority of the men. Most men were also aware of the female complications. More young than old respondents would have accepted a woman without FGM to become their daughter-in-law (p50.03). A majority of the young men would have preferred to marry a woman without FGM. This proportion was significantly higher than among the grandfathers (p50.01). Female genital mutilation can no longer be considered to be only an issue for women. The acknowledged male complications and attitudes described may open new possibilities to counteract the practice of FGM.

Abstract: This article explores dominant discourses surrounding male and female genital cutting. Over a similar period of time, these genital operations have separately been subjected to scrutiny and criticism. However, although critiques of female circumcision have been widely taken up, general public opinion toward male circumcision remains indifferent. This difference cannot merely be explained by the natural attributes and effects of these practices. Rather, attitudes toward genital cutting reflect historically and culturally specific understandings of the human body. In particular, I suggest that certain problematic understandings of male and female sexuality are deeply implicated in the dominant Western discourses on genital surgery.

on the subject of Balanitis (what the kid in the article probably has)

Birley and colleagues found that balanitis was associated with more frequent daily washing of the genitals with soap and could be managed by restriction of washing.

hmm something I was unaware of - a form of phimosis can be caused by circumcision - so it's a disorder you encounter in BOTH circumcised and uncircumcised individuals

CONCLUSIONS Phimosis with a trapped penis is an infrequent but important complication of circumcision. This condition is more likely to occur in older infants and those with poor attachment of the penile skin to the shaft. [This "poor attachment" is blaming the victim. Penile skin is not attached to the shaft in the intact male, but glides freely over it.] Early recognition allows outpatient treatment with excellent results, avoiding operative intervention with general anesthesia. [Leaving the baby intact would avoid the problem - one of the claimed reasons for circumcision - entirely.]

Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

oh look. smegma has anti bacterial/anti-virtal properties, who would have thought those speciall immune system cells in the foreskin would do anything

Mycobacterium avium causes disseminated infection in patients with acquired immune deficieny syndrome. Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a pathogen associated with the deaths of millions of people worldwide annually. Effective therapeutic regimens exist that are limited by the emergence of drug resistance and the inability of antibiotics to kill dormant organisms. The present study describes a system using Mycobacterium smegmatis, an avirulent mycobacterium, to deliver the lytic phage TM4 where both M. avium and M. tuberculosis reside within macrophages. These results showed that treatment of M. avium­ infected, as well as M. tuberculosis­ infected, RAW 264.7 macrophages, with M. smegmatis transiently infected with TM4, resulted in a significant time- and titer-dependent reduction in the number of viable intracellular bacilli. In addition, the M. smegmatis vacuole harboring TM4 fuses with the M. avium vacuole in macrophages. These results suggest a potentially novel concept to kill intracellular pathogenic bacteria and warrant future development.

a medical journal warning their doctors that circumcision may actually be considered illegal if challenged?

An editorial comment on Svoboda et al.'s paper, it puts doctors and parents on notice that their ethical and legal right to circumcise will be challenged:

"The authors carefully make the argument that circumcision, in the absence of a medical indication, may be unwise and may actually be illegal.
..."If circumcision becomes less commonly performed in North America, the legal system may no longer be able to ignore the conflict between the practice of circumcision and the legal and ethical duties of medical specialists. This document is worth a read by all of us who perform newborn circumcision."

The Journal of Urology is the official journal of the American Urological Association. This editorial comment seems to be a quasi-official warning to urologists.

cost/benefit anyone?

Christakis et al. studied the patient records of over 350,000 babies and concluded that the medical risks and benefits of circumcision are about equal. They did not include complications that did not require medical treatment, such as unaesthetic outcomes, complications that appear many months or years later, like meatal stenosis, or complications that can be ignored until puberty, like removal of too much penile skin. These swing the balance right against infant circumcision, and even more when you attach any value (as Christakis et al. do not) to the possession of an intact foreskin.

oh look! urologists talking about the clitoris/hood glans/foreskin as the same things!

The prepuce is an integral, normal part of the external genitalia that forms the anatomical covering of the glans penis and clitoris. The outer epithelium has the protective function of internalising the glans (clitoris and penis), urethral meatus (in the male) and the inner preputial epithelium, thus decreasing external irritation or contamination. The prepuce is a specialized, junctional mucocutaneous tissue which marks the boundary between mucosa and skin; it is similar to the eyelids, labia minora, anus and lips. The male prepuce also provides adequate mucosa and skin to cover the entire penis during erection. The unique innervation of the prepuce establishes its function as an erogenous tissue

and i'm not even 1/3 of the way down the circumstitions reference page!

satisfaction with a non-circumcision treatment for standard pathological phimosis (uncut males), continued probable misdiagnosis of developmental phimosis (which you grow out of) as pathological

A survey of 197 boys (3 months - 18yrs) treated for phimosis with triple incision instead of circumcision. Satisfaction with the result was high. Of 128 parents or older children responding, 108 (84%) were satisfied with the function and 102 (80%) reported a good cosmetic outcome. 119 (93%) would recommend it to other parents. Doctors found excellent functional and cosmetic outcome in 71 (77%).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The surgeons still appear to be scalpel-happy: they operated to please parents who wanted a quick result when spontaneous resolution is the norm - if the boys had true phimosis at all.

just last year

This article offers a critique of the recently revised BMA guidance on routine neonatal male circumcision and seeks to challenge the assumptions underpinning the guidance which construe this procedure as a matter of parental choice. Our aim is to problematise continued professional willingness to tolerate the non-therapeutic, non-consensual excision of healthy tissue, arguing that in this context both professional guidance and law are uncharacteristically tolerant of risks inflicted on young children, given the absence of clear medical benefits. By interrogating historical medical explanations for this practice, which continue to surface in contemporary justifications of non-consensual male circumcision, we demonstrate how circumcision has long existed as a procedure in need of a justification. We conclude that it is ethically inappropriate to subject children - male or female - to the acknowledged risks of circumcision and contend that there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful.

this paper, 57 years ago, killed circumcision in the UK - incidence rate of non-theraputic circumcision has fallen to roughly .5% in the UK

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/

hey something from here in Iowa!

This law student at University of Iowa argues in detail that it should:
"The 1999 Task Force on Circumcision policy statement ... has flaws and may ... be culpable for failing to adhere to the generally accepted scientific and professional preference for valuing methodology in assessing the soundness of existing information. The responsible course of action for the AAP would be to admit that the evidence does not now support, and never has supported the continued routine performing of circumcision on infant males."

more ethics

one of the first articles to be critical of the ethical issues underlying both male and female genital modification, pointing out the contradictions in other articles in the same journal defending MGM. Points out the universal nature of genital mutilation and the irrelevance of the claimed reasons. Analyses individual vs customary rights.

This write-in survey has been criticised because an anti-circumcision source was among those used to recruit respondents, but what is striking is their agreement as to how sex is better with intact men, descriptions that are in accord with the neurological facts.

Patel found a high incidence of complications, mainly minor, (35 haemorrhages, 31 meatal ulcers, 8 infections, 8 meatal stenoses, 1 phimosis) among 100 babies circumcised at one hospital in Kingston, Ontario.

(that's a MINIMUM 35% and maximum 82% incidence of complications - yay for ****ing around with healthy tissue!)

"Given a risk of UTI in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to treat to prevent one urinary tract infection is 111. In boys with recurrent urinary tract infection or high-grade vesicoureteric reflux , the risk of urinary tract infection recurrence is 10% and 30% and the numbers needed-to-treat are 11 and 4 respectively [i.e. 10 boys or three boys being circumcised to no purpose.]. ... assuming equal utility of benefits and harms [an assumption they were forced to make because of the lack of data about the harms of circumcision], net clinical benefit is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection."

more evidence of misdiagnosis of pathological phimosis

Objective: To investigate the incidence rate of circumcision for phimosis and other medically indicated reasons in Western Australian boys from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 1999.
Results: The rate of medically indicated circumcisions increased in boys aged less than 15 years during the study period. [A small increase was to be expected, corresponding to the decline in routine circumcision over that period.] ...
Conclusion: The rate of circumcision to treat phimosis in boys aged less than 15 years is seven times the expected incidence rate for phimosis. Many boys are circumcised before reaching five years of age, despite phimosis being rare in this age group.

Masturbation as the justification of circumcision

"In this column, I shall briefly retell the story of what, until relatively recently, had been the most commonly diagnosed and most enthusiastically treated mental disease in the history of medicine, namely, masturbation."

Circumcision is mentioned as one of its "cures".

pain is forgotten? O'RLY?

Taddio et al's first paper showed that circumcised babies reacted more strongly to the pain of being vaccinated than intact ones, months after their circumcisions.

Taylor details the innervation of the ridged band of the prepuce, suggesting its great importance in sexual functioning. He also calculates the size of the prepuce as much greater than is commonly believed.

Found a significant but small effect of circumcision. It would take 195 circumcisions to prevent one UTI. You can see a graphic illustration of that figure.

(a UTI almost certainly caused by uncleanliness)


Cost/benefit strikes again

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision
Robert S. Van Howe, MD, MS, FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Marquette, Michigan
A cost-utility analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.

UTI defense?

The conclusion of this misleadingly-titled paper is a resounding "NO!" The authors argue that by colonising the baby's foreskin with the mother's benign bacteria, breast-feeding is a better protection against UTI than circumcision.

[Kazan]

here is something i was just tickled to hear

I am not getting involved in this thread other than to mention that Dan Savage, who does the always-entertaining Savage Love syndicated write-in column (which I read on the Onion), responded to a question on the subject you all are arguing about:

I am a 22-year-old female and I've been with my 21-year-old boyfriend for two years. I love him a lot and our sex life is great. But I have one issue: He isn't circumcised. It weirded me out at first because I had never fooled around with a guy who was uncircumcised, but I came to terms with it because I loved him. It has recently started to bother me again because it makes giving him head more difficult and a little more unpleasant.

I mentioned it to him once a few months ago at a bad time and he became defensive. Is it wrong for me to ask him to get circumcised?

Cut It Please


So you asked your boyfriend to cut off a chunk of his cock and he reacted defensively. No ****? Really? But, hey, you brought the subject up at a "bad time," so maybe that was the problem… or maybe there's just no good time to tell someone that his genitals disgust you and that you want him to have an important, nerve-packed chunk sliced off.

Sorry, CIP, but just as it would be wrong for a man to ask his big-clitted or big-lipped girlfriend to have her genitals mutilated for his comfort, it's wrong for you to ask your boyfriend to do the same.

Savage Love

useful information

This is what is lost to circumcision

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

1. Full penis length and circumference.
2. Protection (of the glans)
3. Ridged bands.
4. Gliding action. (during coitus)
5. Specialized sensory tissue.
6. The frenulum.
7. Proper blood flow.
8. Immunological defense.
9.  Langerhans cells.
10. Proper lymph flow.
11. Estrogen receptors.
12. Apocrine glands.
13. Sebaceous glands.
14. Dartos fascia.
15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans.
(16-18 are extremely low-incidence surgery complications and are not worth quibbling about)
19.  Electromagnetic "cross-communication." (this is something that needs further research but is a possible benefit)

and there is no medical reason to perform routine circumcision, occasionally there is a medically warranting situation (phimosis, paraphimosis, etc) but they're very rare and should only be applied in those specific cases.

in the general case any benefits can simply be replaced by bathing and wearing a condom (there is supposedly a very slim decrease in the probability of female->male HIV tranmission, which sorta makes sense with less mucosal tissue and what remains being keratinized - but it's stastitically insignificant and i believe it is even within the stastical margin-of-error of the study)

[edit]
restoration info

Things on the list I have highlighted in red can be partially/fully restored via surgical or non-surgical restoration, the other items are permanantly lost

and the list of conditions which can arouse for medically warranted circumcision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_retraction

At birth, the foreskin is usually still fused with the glans . As childhood progresses the foreskin and the glans gradually separate, a process that may not be complete until the age of 17.

bolded part is important - this often leads to misdiagnosis of pathological phimosis

Forcible retraction may lead to bleeding, scarring, pathological phimosis or paraphimosis, and often pain. Adhesions after forcible retraction, especially in infants, can fuse the foreskin with itself or the glans, leading to skin bridges. The Canadian Pediatric Society poses the question of whether increased UTI and balanitis rates in uncircumcised male infants may be caused by forced premature retraction.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

American Academy of Pediatrics caution parents not to retract their son's foreskin, but suggest that once he reaches puberty, he should retract and gently wash with soap and water. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians as well as the Canadian Pediatric Society emphasize that the infant foreskin should be left alone and requires no special care.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis#Incidence

Phimosis is a medical condition in which the foreskin of the penis of an uncircumcised male cannot be fully retracted.

A number of medical reports of phimosis incidence have been published over the years. They vary widely because of the difficulties of distinguishing physiologic phimosis (developmental nonretractility) from pathologic phimosis, definitional differences, ascertainment problems, and the multiple additional influences on post-neonatal circumcision rates in cultures where most newborn males are circumcised. A commonly cited incidence statistic for pathologic phimosis is 1% of uncircumcised males.21112 When phimosis is simply equated with nonretractility of the foreskin after age 3 years, considerably higher incidence rates have been reported.[4]59 Others have described incidences in adolescents and adults as high as 50%, though it is likely that many cases of physiologic phimosis or partial nonretractility were included.8

(you "grow out" of physiologic phimosis)


Paraphimosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphimosis

Paraphimosis is a medical condition where the foreskin becomes trapped behind the glans penis, and cannot be pulled back to its normal flaccid position covering the glans penis. If the condition persists for several hours or there is any sign of a lack of blood flow, paraphimosis should be treated as a medical emergency, as it can result in gangrene or other serious complications.

Paraphimosis can often be reduced by manipulation. This involves compression of the glans, then movement of the foreskin to its normal position, perhaps with the aid of a lubricant. If this fails, the foreskin may need to be cut (dorsal slit procedure) or removed by circumcision. An alternate method (the Dundee technique) entails placing multiple punctures in the swollen foreskin with a fine needle, and then expressing the edema fluid by manual pressure.

Balantisis this is probably what the boy in the article has

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanitis

Balanitis is inflammation of the glans penis (Greek: balanos). When the foreskin (or prepuce) is also affected, it is termed balanoposthitis.

Lack of aeration and irritation because of smegma and discharge surrounding the glans penis causes inflammation and edema.

Escala and Rickwood, in a 1989 examination of 100 cases of balanitis in childhood, concluded that the risk "in any individual, uncircumcised boy appears to be no greater than 4%." (Escala, 1989). Øster reported no balanitis in 9545 observations of uncircumcised Danish boys (Oster, 1968). Balanitis in boys still in nappies must be distinguished from the normal redness seen in boys caused by ammoniacal dermatitis (Simpson, 1998).

Many studies of balanitis do not examine the subjects' genital washing habits. However, O'Farrell et al. report that failure to wash the whole penis, including retraction of the foreskin in uncircumcised men, is more common among balanitis sufferers (O'Farrell, 2005). Birley et al., however, found that excessive genital washing with soap may be a strong contributing factor to balanitis (Birley, 1993).

Posthitis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthitis

Inflammation of the foreskin of the penis (the prepuce).

An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his penis with care to prevent infection and inflammation of the foreskin. 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.

[Bobboau]

ok, none of us care, ok, and bringing up a twlve page argument on the subject at the drop of a hat is the reason it gets brought up  to mock you, yes we all know it's unnesisary and damageing, but we don't realy care

[Unknown Target]

Kazan.
We don't care.
Most people don't care.
You're the only one who cares.

EDIT: Funny thing is, I typed this before Bob posted, but he posted before me.

[Kazan]

(talking to bob)

I was merely quoting myself - took some simply copy+pasting, aldo brought up something from a medical journal, and I dismissed it and gave reasons why it was flawed, then brought out the citations to the medical journals.

Aldo was actually attempting to play devils-advocate so I just saved myself the time and just went straight to source citations


maybe you should care!

[Kazan]

We don't care.

then why did you bring it up

Most people don't care.

most people live in countries that don't engage in the practice

You're the only one who cares.

and If i have evidence to the contrary is that going to make you cry like the little infant you are behaving like?

[Kazan]

and bringing up a twlve page argument on the subject at the drop of a hat is the reason it gets brought up  to mock you

yes, because $DIETY FORBID i have the resources handy to actually backup my argumentation.

Damned IF i do, damned if I don't!

[Turambar]

i had it done when i was 4, i remember being asleep, and it itching when i woke up

i think it was for medical reasons.

[aldo_14]

(talking to bob)

I was merely quoting myself - took some simply copy+pasting, aldo brought up something from a medical journal, and I dismissed it and gave reasons why it was flawed, then brought out the citations to the medical journals.

Aldo was actually attempting to play devils-advocate so I just saved myself the time and just went straight to source citations


maybe you should care!

I can't be arsed going round looking for the counter arguements right now (or later), and I don't care / can't be arsed about arguing over it because of the issue of informed consent IMO overweighing the medical arguements in any case.

[TrashMan]

Bah.... stupid people on both sides on the fence...

"The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha."

Someone praying ruins your experience? Get a life!

What? It seems that a VAST majority of the people in that district are Christians. They have the right to pray anytime, anywhere as far as I'm concerned.  I see this as a case where the minority is triyng to force the majority to thing the way that suits them most.

[SadisticSid]

For me getting circumcised - I had it done last year after ages of procrastinating - was one of the best decisions I've ever made. Yes, it was hell to deal with for little more than a month afterward, but it has improved sex immeasurably for me.  I don't see how anyone can make an informed critique of it without experiencing both sides of the coin.

[Kazan]

but it has improved sex immeasurably for me.

how so 98% of people who get it done as an adult report the exact opposite


oh... wait longer - wait until keratinization has become more severe

[Kazan]

i had it done when i was 4, i remember being asleep, and it itching when i woke up

i think it was for medical reasons.

waiting till that old you were probably diagnosed with phimosis - and it was probably a misdiagnosis (99% of cases of phimosis are doctors poorly trained in the care of an intact foreskin)