summary: doesn't seem a big deal either way, but i plan to research it more
foreskin (first 3 seems to be contradicted by other video)
- has a lot of nerve ending
- is a natural lubrifiant
- protects glans from being desensitized
- increases risks of HIV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng
- in 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement in which they said that the benefits of male circumcision outweighed the risks of the procedure [and should be covered by insurance]. CDC concured
- health orgs in other countries don't advocate for this procedure
- the actual rates of urinary tract infection were 1.1% (uncircumcised vs 0.1% (circumcised) (not from RCTs)
- case control study have reported that men who are uncircumcised have a 3x greater chance of developing penile cancer. (although would need 300,000 infants to prevent 1 case because it's a rare cancer)
- a systematic review of 26 studies found that circumcised men are at a lower risk of syphilis or chancroid. There might be some protection against herpes, but it's less significant.
- lower risks of HIV
- non-zero, although quite rare risk of surgical complications
- pain
- evidence about the time for recovery in infants is unclear
- a study said no penile sensitivity difference found; an RTC said after circumcision they experienced increased sensitivity and had an easier time reaching organism (Mati's note: I wonder if that was long lasting or temporary)
- a systematic review and meta-analysis found that circumcision was unrelated to sexual dysfunction, premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, or difficulty achieving orgasm
- surgery more complicated, has greater risks, and cost more as adults
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tRncUbscZY
h/t Raphaëll Maïwen for researching the best videos and sharing them with me
Want to print your doc? This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
