Circumcision: a medically unnnecessary scam!

Nearly half of all males in the USA have undergone the procedure of cricumcision (cutting off of the foreskin) at birth. The procedure typically costs between 200 to 400 dollars.

The foreskin contains as much skin as a whole index card. It is not only a piece of skin, it is part of the sexual organ, and has the same touch sensations as any other part of the penis. Cutting it off is extremely painful, and obviously lots of blood comes out. Unlike hair or fingernails, it is a living tissue, which cannot regrow after it has been removed. Of course, people who have had their foreskin cut off at birth do not remember any of the pain (at least not in the conscious part of their memory).


Some common myths about the advantages of circumcision will be addressed:

Myth: "Circumcision reduces by approximately 3 to 7 fold the risk of getting HIV (AIDS), during sex with an infected person"
This was thought to be true from initial studies in Africa, but was later disproven. Statistically, circumcision does not offer significant protection against being infected with AIDS.

Myth: "If not circumcised soon after birth, up to 10% will later require one anyway for medical reasons"
The presence of the foreskin can lead to more complication in a small fraction of males, however, it is certainly not true that anywhere near a tenth of normal males will have to have their foreskins removed. This is unfortunately a phenomena in the USA, where physicians are all too enthusiastic about removing organs whenever there is a problem.
American doctors frequently remove tonsils, apendix, and dentists frequently remove molar teeth. Rates of gallbladder removal are also higher. In most other countries, even those with high standards of living and good medical care, these body parts are only rarely removed. In the wealthier eastern provinces in China (whose GDP is higher than Wales in the UK), operations to remove apendix are five times less frequent than the USA, and are usually successfully treated with herbal remedies.

Myth: "Most men are circumcised"
The circumcision rate in males for all ages is only 2% in Spain [Castellsague et al., 2005], indicating that less than 10% of males will ever require foreskin removal for medical reasons. And most of that 2% is from muslims that had a circumcision at birth for religious reasons. In Denmark the rate is only 1.6% for males 15 years of age [Frisch et al., 1995], and even this small figure is mostly from the many muslim Turkish immigrants here.

Argument: "If the boy is not circumcised at birth, he will probably have to be circumcised later in life"
It is more likely that a circumcised baby will later try "foreskin restoration" (stretching) or even surgery that attempts to restore, then that an uncircumcised child will later actually need to be circumsiced. Simply because a normal penis gets a rash sometimes when it has not been washed absolutely does not mean the foreskin needs to be removed, but many doctors favor the procedure despite this. Also, overly tight foreskins in teenage boys usually loosen by themselves after several years, but again, if an American doctor is sought, surgery is usually recommended.

Myth: "Research shows that most women prefer the appearance of the circumcised penis. They also prefer it for sexual activity."
That women prefer it because it is a cultural norm in some societies, is not a good reason. Many muslim men in some societies prefer women that have meen completely genitally mutilated, with their hole sewed up. Imagine what would happen if muslim immigrants cut off their female children's labia minora (which is the female equivalent of the male foreskin). They would find themselves in great legal trouble.

Myth: "Hygiene is one reason of circumcision; increased contact of the penis with the vaginal wall, and stimulation, are others"
The inside of the foreskin is recommended to be washed after intercourse, so the hygiene reasoning is mostly a myth. Actually men who have not had their foreskins removed can more naturally go in and out because of the foreskin gliding. Fewer men with foreskins report using artificial lubrication. The foreskin also increases the effective width of the penis, meaning a slightly tighter and possibly more pleasurable fit for the female. Some females have commented that uncircumcised men are more pleasurable for them.

Myth: "In general, sexual function and sensation are the same or better in circumcised men."
Studies tend to find that sexual function is generally slightly lower or worse
for circumcised males, however the statistical difference was very minimal.

Myth: "The problem of overly tender sensitivity of the head of the penis experienced by most uncircumcised men is virtually eliminated"
Sensitivity potentially means more feeling during sex.

 

Don't knock it until you have tried it!

 

Why would I want to cut off part off my penis — a part that has more stimulating pleasure nerve endings than the female clitoris? It can never be regrown.

 

Yes, don't say smoking is bad for your lungs until you have tried it. Male doctors also cannot say anything about pregnancy, etc.

 

Are you claiming that every person who smokes will die from lung cancer?

 

Are you claiming that getting shot is not bad because not everyone who gets shot dies from it?

 

Are you claiming you have the ability to shoot somebody?

 

I think they cut it off only because that's how skin banks get their materials that they can offer for skin grafting on burn victims.

I used to know a girl from Surinam(?) who had been the victim of an acid attack, and they totally saved her face to the point that you wouldn't even know this, using the foreskin of her brother, that he donated for artificial skin growing and grafting.

Apparently foreskins have the base tissue too, that skin grafting from other skin doesn't, so deep wounds can only be fixed with foreskin.

 

Boys don't clean under their foreskin because they don't want to touch themselves. Thus it is more hygenic to cut off the foreskin. Parents are loath to do proper bathroom checks where they roll up their sons forskin to see if any lint or scum is present underneath.

 

some live longer because of less stress, stress kills too

some die of cancer... same with those that enjoy the sun, some get cancer, some don't

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap3.htm

some of the oldest people to have lived.. were smokers

 

If you don't want to cut it, that's fine, but don't expect me to be interested in you if I know you haven't had the snip.

 

I really don't understand why something as insignificant as this generates such heated comments. I wonder if there is a bit of religious intolerance at work here?

 

Cultures that practice female genital mutilation (even if it is part of the religion) are vilified. The practice is outlawed in the US. Circumcision is genital mutilation in much the same way. Yet, it remains legal and accepted. Why is that?

 

Because there's some medical benefit to it. Whether or not it's worth/unnecessary is highly debatable. Female genital mutilation is typically done for much more sinister reasons.

 

Don't you think it is logical to ask those who impose genital mutilation to justify it, rather than the other way around?

 

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your source from Anders Hoveland? Having previously worked in the HIV/AIDS field for a number of years I'm going to have to refute what you have said unless you can show some actual scientific data on what you claim are "myths". The male foreskin's surface area is porus enough to let many viruses through, however, most bacteria are to large in size to be able to penetrate through the foreskin. This is why you hear about bacterial infections primary source of entry either being through the urethra or dermal skin openings (sores or abrasions on the surface area). Viruses can get through this layer of skin. In fact, both tropic forms of HIV, CCR5 and CXCR4, are not only small enough to get through the foreskin, but can also bind with cellular receptors that are much smaller than a human cell. Bacteria, which are much larger in size, are unable to penetrate dermal skin without an entry point. In addition, another reason I'm curious about your source is the fact that they state "protection against being infected with AIDS"...as one cannot become infected with AIDS. Any Virologist or medical professional knows that AIDS is simply a set of conditions that arise from the acquisition of HIV, and one reason that makes me doubt your sources credibility.

Most of what you're saying here is nothing more than circumstantial evidence based on old data sets, and reported by people's feelings on the issues rather than actual science. You also quote medical studies representing eastern Chinese practices and treatment of conditions with herbal remedies. Herbal remedies are fine, as many medicinal treatments originally drew from that pool, but frankly the removal of organs by these physicians is lower because the incidence of death is also higher. So, to say removal of organs in some of these countries are "five times less frequent than the USA" can also be down to the fact that their medical practices are not exactly on par with the United States, both in cleanliness and preparation and in the ability of the physicians to diagnose and treat the conditions.

The male foreskin is removed for a proven medical reason, whereas the removal of the female labia minora by cultures has not been proven to have any medical purpose. Therefore, to put labels on the two totally seperate skin tissues only detracts from the real issue, which probably has more to do about masculinity and power than anything else.

 

I would have protested my own circumcision, but I am told that I was quite young at the time, and had not developed the faculty of speech.

Alas, my foreskin was gone many years by the time I figured out how to express my opinions.

And my daughters were born, not surprisingly, without penises. So there was little opportunity for me to make any decisions regarding this business of cutting off of foreskins.

Same story with my granddaughter.

So, the point is moot.
For me, anyway.

And I don't feel strongly enough about it to take it on as a crusade.
Not at this point in my life.

 

I did justify it you ignored my post. Mommy and Daddy don't want to take little sonny's pecker and peal back the foreskin to insure there is no lint or bacteria growing there because sonny is to scared to touch his own dick and properly wash it. ie. hygiene.

 

did you just say boys don't want to touch themselves ?

 

Flatter yourself much.
Who offered it to you ?

By the way, how does yours look and smell ?

 

There's no compelling reason to get circumcised.

But like any cosmetic surgery, there's no compelling reason *not* to, either.

So in the end, it's a personal decision. I wouldn't campaign against it as an evil -- simply point out that it's unnecessary and there can be medical complications.

 

Prior to puberty. They don't want to go blind or grow hair on their palms.

 

are you kidding ? They can't keep their hands off the thing.

then why do I wear glasses ?

 

I was taught it was dirty, I myself didn't like touching myself when I'm a kid. My sister is having problems with her son peeing on the floor because he refuses to touch his dick to aim it properly. Prior to puberty they don't like to touch themselves.

 

All my boys are circumcized, as well as my boy grandchildren. I believe it is preferable and have never had a complaint from any of my male children. It is easier on them.

The only thing i would like changed. I would PReFER that it was done on day eight but the doctor is too sorry to do that. It would be an easier surgery for all combined. Secondly. I notice that there are some doctors, i don't know how many, that because of their own personal beliefs, do a sorry job of it. I do it do it for religious reasons but rather for long term health.