To Circumcise or Not To Circumcise?
Once a proverbial given in this and a number of other countries, circumcision has become a hot button issue, intensely debated in both family and medical circles. For decades it was standard procedure for hospital births, but the numbers are quickly declining. Today, 56% of newborn boys are circumcised, although the rate varies considerably by geographic region in the U.S. In 1999, the American Pediatric Association revised their statement on circumcision to acknowledge the “potential medical benefits” of the procedure but concluded “these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” Most of Canada has “de-listed” circumcision as a necessary (i.e. paid for) procedure.
In truth, the decision to circumcise isn’t purely medical even as it becomes increasingly controversial. Intangible aspects play as much or more of a role in parents’ choice as scientific research. For some families, circumcision is an age-old rite celebrating religious covenant. For others, it’s a venerated custom that manifests cultural identity. Families who aren’t influenced by religious or cultural values might choose circumcision for social or aesthetic reasons in an effort to allow junior to look like the other boys at school or like the father. However, other families and experts argue that the practice is a painful, unnecessary procedure that violates the physical dignity and even legal rights of the child.
The history of circumcision is imprecise, but the practice is thought to have its roots in the Middle East. Experts suggest a number of potential reasons behind the initial practice of circumcision, including figurative sacrifice, virility ritual, and cultural hygienic custom. In many tribal societies, circumcision was observed as a cultural rite of passage into manhood. Although circumcision predates religious directive, it eventually became a sacred practice in the early Jewish faith and for the followers of Islam. At various times in history, circumcision was also used to designate social status as well as religious identity. On an odder note, Western societies, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, practiced circumcision to discourage masturbation. In these same centuries, the issue also became medicalized around tenets of basic hygiene. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, the rate of newborn circumcision increased as hospital births rose and the public accepted the medical argument for standard circumcision.
For our part, let’s delve into the medical side.
These days, one of the most commonly cited health reasons for routine circumcision is decreased STD risk. Numerous studies based in Africa show that circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV contraction by 50-60%. In response the assembled research, the World Health Organization/United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS issued their official recommendation of circumcision as one method to prevent the spread of HIV. Critics caution that the “context” of the African epidemic, which is as high as 25% of the population in some areas, is so different from the disease rate (as well as cultural and hygienic practices ) in the West that the protective factor of circumcision isn’t nearly as high in Western countries. Some experts estimate a 10% risk reduction in Western societies (PDF). Other Western-based research demonstrates reduced risk for other sexually transmitted disease like genital herpes and HPV as well as a decrease in bacterial vaginosis risk for female partners of circumcised men. Research exploring the impact of circumcision on infection reduction in homosexual men has been more limited but so far shows a mixed picture of protective influence. A review published this month indicates that circumcision appears to reduce risk in primarily “insertive” rather than receptive partners.
The physiological logic behind circumcision’s reduced infection risk involves the bacterial ecology of the inner foreskin itself, which harbors anaerobic bacteria that appears to fuel inflammation and infection. The inner foreskin is home to the highest concentration of so-called Langerhans’ cells, which facilitate HIV transmission and replication.
A less dangerous but more common problem for uncircumcised males, particularly boys, is recurrent urinary tract infection. Circumcision is considered a standard treatment option for those with recurring UTI or serious complications from an initial case of UTI. Some experts have questioned the usefulness and cost efficiency of routine circumcisions to prevent infections in a relatively small number of boys. According to a British study, 111 routine circumcisions must be performed to prevent a single UTI. However, other experts suggest that there’s more at stake than simple urinary infection risk. Another study found that 18% of young boys in the study who had UTI showed signs of kidney scarring. Follow-up circumcision in these boys substantially reduced subsequent UTI occurrence. As a research commentator noted (PDF) in light of this picture, “[I]f the circumcision had been done in the newborn period would the kidneys have been protected from damage in the first instance?”
In response to these infection-related findings, critics of the procedure counter that diligent safe sex and hygienic measures more reliably protect both the man and his partner from infection. Opponents say that circumcision (or at least the public message about its lower infection risk) can give men an inflated sense of protection against life-threatening diseases and discourage use of condoms, testing and other safe sex methods. Nonetheless, many physicians and public health experts maintain that circumcision is a practical strategy for reducing disease in males and their respective partners.
As for the other physical conditions circumcision is meant to prevent, many experts say that the evidence just doesn’t support the need for routine circumcision in every boy. The nonretractable foreskin in childhood is often a misdiagnosis, since separation of the glans happens over time (a protective feature) and may not even be noticeable until puberty. Common infections can be treated with a plethora of modern medications like antibiotics and steroid creams. As for penile cancer, the risk is so low (approximately 9-10 per million men) that circumcision choice shouldn’t be based on this concern.
Then there are the medical complications. They can be everywhere from aesthetic-based to functionally impairing. Infection rates hover close to five percent. Significant narrowing of the urethra occurs in anywhere from 5-10% of circumcisions and must be addressed with follow up treatment. Injury to the urethra can occur. The least common but most dramatic complications include partial to full penile amputation or even the rare death from serious infection.
On a considerably lighter note, critics also suggest that circumcision compromises sexual pleasure. They argue that the foreskin, as host to a dense network of nerves, is a functional erogenous zone in itself.
Although it’s likely impossible to reach any definitive conclusions regarding the issue, self-report research on men who are circumcised in adulthood show mixed results. In one such study, the majority of men did not experience a decrease in libido or pleasure. Eighty-two percent reported the same (44%) or enhanced (38%) penile sensitivity. A smaller study (PDF), however, recorded patients’ written comments about the impact of the procedure on their sex life and calculated that nearly half of respondents experienced less penile sensitivity after circumcision.
Now that we’ve laid out some of the arguments and medical research, we want to hear what you have to say. What is your thinking on the subject, and what factors have or would influence your choice to circumcise or not circumcise? Thanks for reading and contributing.
Get Free Health Tips, Recipes and Workouts Delivered to Your Inbox
Posted By: Worker Bee
circumcision is a socially accpetable form of child abuse. It seems people never have seen a video of infant circumcision (got to youtube). It’s really painful. It’s quite inhumane and barbaric when the baby is strapped down. I couldn’t even finish the video. At least adult male circucision is performed with informed consent under general anesthesia, it looks like more a medical procedure but infant circumcision is torture.
Circumcision is barbaric genital mutilation. Period.
Perhaps a more ‘primal’ take on this topic: has anyone seen this documentary :”the disappearing male”?
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/chemicals.html
It’s about the effect certain chemicals increasingly prevalent in our society are allegedly having on the male sexual/genital development in the womb and beyond. This worried me when I saw it. More so when I have a son who has had to have a medically required circumcision due to a condition not dissimilar to one mentioned in this disturbing documentary. Its about stuff in plastics, shampoos, toys, bottles etc, leaching into our systems.
Ouch! I’m thinking that nature gave men a foreskin for a reason. Why get rid of it? Or is it something like a dogs 5th toe that is genetically going out anyways?
The US idea that there’s something wrong with humn penis is just crazy. Circumcision is a cure in search of a disease and none of the so called benefits of circucision manifest in the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGTtm56R2A
My crowd does it for religious/cultural reasons, but a useful side-benefit is much lower cervical cance rates in jewish/muslim women. (Also nuns for obious reasons .) And a reduced sensitivity tends to work to the female partner’s advantage. as ther journey becomes as interesting as the arrival! Definiteky its not essential, but has useful advantages for women!
As regards sexual pleasure, circumcision has 0 benefits.
The Number One complaint of circumcised males in America is premature ejaculation, which occurs because the specialized, erogenous nerve endings in the foreskin that let a man know what his penis is feeling and allow him to ride the wave to orgasm are missing. Without them, a man goes “Ooh, ooh, oops! Sorry, honey, it’s because I’m so sensitive.” Nope, it’s because he lost what was rightfully his, a normal penis, with the 20,000-70,000 nerve endings that encircle the opening of the foreskin.
At the other end of life, the exposed, calloused, desensitized, glans becomes more and more difficult to stimulate. It’s no surprise that males in the US have a high rate of erectile dysfunction, and the USA has the highest sales of Viagra in the world.
You cannot alter form without altering function. When a male’s foreskin is amputated, it affects him for life and his partner’s sex life is affected as well. The mechanics of sex must be altered to compensate for what was lost. As CJ Fallier wrote in JAMA in 1970, “…the fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the circumcised male, the satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience it was meant to be.”
Although I agree with a lot of what you say, the high rates of Viagra sales are from two things (IMHO)
1. Poor diet, which affects everything.
2. Tons of Viagra ads that try to make us think that Viagra is the only answer, and that every man should use it.
Here’s my two cents: 1) medically it appears more helpful than harmful.
2) Physically, speaking from experience, I can say the uncircumcized feels like the man is wearing a baggy that is sliding back and forth. Sorry, but it is not a good experience for the recipient. The foreskin basically slides on and off the head, and there is less stimulation for both parties. Of course, certain men don’t care whether the woman enjoys it anyway. Uncircumcized men I’ve known also seemed more preoccupied with theirs, inspecting it for problems and irritation more often than circumcized men. I’m all for naturalness in general, but this is one area that can be improved. We don’t run through briars unclothed anymore, so I don’t see the need for the foreskin, and I certainly don’t miss it.
You are a piece of work.
No, you are a piece of work. I normally don’t get this angry at some person on the internet, but you have done it. Congratulations. Circumcision whether it’s good or bad is not serious enough to be called genital mutilation. Or are you seriously suggesting all circumcised men have mutilated genitals? Thanks.
Yes, Robert, by definition men who’ve had a part of their genitals cut off have mutilated genitals.
It’s a fact. I’m not happy about it, but there you go.
Yes, of course they are mutilated!
Hmm, last time I had intercourse with my wife I distinctly remember my foreskin not sliding on and off of my glans !
As a man with a foreskin I can tell you that
that depends, at least in my case, on the degree or intensity of the erection.
I think that is something that depends on the person in question… as each is made/formed differently.
I’ve had more stimulation from the ones I’ve been with, and less from the one who have been circumsized. I’ve had this “baggy” issue that you speak of.
ack. never had the baggy issue.
Like the post but I have to respectfully disagree though. There are no more medical benefits to being circumsized. My wife is a PA and has specific training in this and even she disagrees with that statement. This sounds more of a personal opinion then based on fact. Again this is your choice and I can understand the stigma associated but again CW isn’t always the answer.
Uncircumsized feels like a baggy? I will admit I have never heard of that one before but again to each their own. I do feel my sexual prowess has never had any issues and has actually been quite astounding. I think of it as a more natural way to be. On this site we preach eating more organic, unaltered and natural foods, working out to get back to more of a primal existence so why is this argument any different? If evolution wouldn’t have wanted foreskin there then it would have eventually gone away on its own. Yes we do not run through the briar patches anymore but we confine our manhood in boxers or tightie whities that are made to absorb sweat which leads to bacteria and if any dirt gets in there then it stays unnoticed until we cleanse. Not very appealing to me.
Foreskin offers more protection from the elements. When this practice first started most people wore the same clothes they worked in everyday so dirt, grime, bacteria and everything under the sun would have access to a very important part of the man.
hmmm… this makes me think of the book, Guide To The Perplexed… people should probably read the part about circumcision… i am not getting my sons cut.
troy
The bottom line is this procedure violates the bodily integrity of a child. What gives you the right to do this?
Instead of parents forcing this unnecessary procedure on unconsenting minors, how about simply doing the right thing, which is to wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?
WHAT is the rush? Do you suspect your pre-teen child is going to pick up or spread a STD? Do you imagine that the child will develop some severe foreskin-neuroses? How about being solid and loving parents and developing the child’s self-esteem before chopping off body parts? Maybe we should do plastic surgery at 5 when we think a nose is not as pretty as it should be and we need to avoid the child’s social discomfort because of it. Or maybe we should remove the mammary glands of infants to prevent breast cancer later in life.
The rush is because nearly no adult male would willingly let a doctor go near his genitalia with a scalpel, unless it was medically necessary. But adults holding a child down and forcing them to have parts chopped off is somehow more palatable to people?! Would I call this mutilation? Maybe. But minimally it is child abuse.
We did not get our son circumcised when he was born. We did a good amount of research before he was born and the arguments for it were just not there…especially the infection myth. He’s almost 10 with one infection during that time. He’s incredibly conscious and hygenic about the whole issue.
I applaud Christoph for taking this as his cause as I too personally believe that it is a completely unnecessary procedure (rooted in religion for the purposes of de-sensitization) that determines how one deals with pain for the rest of their lives.
AND, we wanted our son to be able to REALLY enjoy sex throughout his life. Trust me, he will thank us when he’s older.
Thank you.
I come here for the Primal, not for the moral debates, but this post has made me think.
I may need to pursue this cause further.
The only thing that is irritating about this page is the incessant commenting by Christoph.. God it is so annoying ! For god’s sake stop replying to each and every comment !! Its like ruining the entire discussion thread!
I agree – a bit too passionate on the matter – makes me want to go get circumcised now just to spite him
A congratulate him on it, because all too often this debate ends with some snide and misguided comment.
He’s pushing it beyond that and forcing people to think about, even justify, their attitude, while also correcting a lot of myths.
Keep it up Chris!
I don’t believe in taking away people’s body parts without asking them. Doesn’t seem very nice or fair.
Those who are upset with the comparison to female circumcision should read Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu’s work. She makes the exact arguments that pro-male circumcision proponents do. I think people are just uncomfortable once they realize that these arguments have no weight. And at least in Ahmadu’s culture, the procedure is done on people old enough to consent, which she did after doing much research on the subject.
http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=2434
Well-said Melissa, I don’t either.
my kid is uncirced and half-Jewish. if he wants to have himself circed at age 18, he may, just as it would then be his choice to get a tattoo or body piercings. but i certainly wouldn’t encourage it! (tattoos actually i wouldnt mind, solong as they are artistically rendered and tastefull, lol).
I’ve brought up the major — and varied — points I wished to make.
I brought up several points no one else made, and learned from several great points others made.
I learned more than I expected or could have imagined I would when I woke up yesterday and checked my favourite fitness blog about other men’s experiences in particular, and their thoughts on sexuality and even their penis.
This thread has made me mad, even sad, but at the same time I’ve seen there are one heck of a lot of fantastic people here, male and female.
I see people who can cut through conventional wisdom and focus on the underlying truths.
I’ve seen people who care about children, even male children, a lot. I’ve seen people bare their souls on private sexual matters which, for all my comments, I have not done.
I realize the popularity of male sex organ mutilation is falling fast.
No, it isn’t fast enough for my taste, but it’s still come a long way.
I’m grateful to learn from my Australian friends that it is much rarer there than here in North America, and this news too also brings me hope.
I don’t mean to compliment everyone and I won’t pretend that I do.
But I mean to compliment a lot of you, and our host for giving us this venue.
I have an inkling as to what his private views are on the subject and I could understand him not wanting to get into the most concise descriptions of them for business reasons.
Or I could be wrong about that.
I hope you’ll keep a few things in mind:
Female genital mutilation (including removal of the clitoris) does not stop women from having orgasms. That is a myth. It’s based on false data.
Sure, it diminishes sexual feelings, but there are other nerve endings.
Likewise, circumcision in males. It mutilates, it changes sexual response, but it doesn’t generally destroy it utterly.
There are so many points I could rehash from above, but I will give you that as food for thought.
The differences between male and female circumcision are those of degree, not of kind.
What right do we have to change someone’s sexual response, or physical form in their most private and personal organs, WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION?
To cut them; to amputate.
Good day, people.
Christoph, I think you added a LOT to the conversation, and I don’t have any problems with your style (the truth hurts I guess). Thanks! For a lot of folks that I know it’s been a topic of shallow consideration, and my husband and I were the only ones who gave it much thought, and came to the same conclusion as you. My Boomer mother in law insists uncut is unsanitary, like it’s so easy to keep a diapered vagina clean haha. My OB said “it’s for either cultural or religious reasons, not medical” and those are the last reasons I’d do anything at all much less genital mutilation.
I have a dime-sized scar on my upper-arm from vaccination, performed at birth in an eastern European country. You can bet that shot hurt like a mofo. Since it was done without my consent (as is all childhood vaccination) and it left a scar (which actually did lead to a traumatizing social experience when I was about 10yo), is that mutilation, too?
Of course any procedure done on your behalf while you are a child (because of you lack of capacity to do so) in order to prevent or minimize serious illness that might happen DURING childhood is entirely different than circumcising an infant. There is no impending and common genital disease (while a child) that would necessitate such an action. When a child grows up they can look at the facts and data themselves to determine whether circumcision will be better for them.
So you are scarred for life – for the possible benefit of not getting certain diseases as an infant/child. So… do we need to circumcise infants because of some childhood disease? The “urgency” is purely cultural and because the victim is simply defenseless so it is easier to do then than to convince your teenage or adult son to go through with it for the “religious, health and aesthetic benefits”. No choice, no argument.
It is basically a case of ruthless opportunism: get it done while the child cannot prevent it.
My husband is intact, so is my son. Funny story about how I came to realize my husband was not cut. We were 18 at the time (ugh, 15 years ago?) and 6 months into our relationship. We were two horny kids that had a lot of fun. We were at a bbq and one of the guys there decided to “make fun” of another guy there about not being circumcised. then my husband (then boyfriend) piped up and said “i am not circumcised”… everyone looked at him with a little shock. even myself. haha, he had always been, um, full attention when i was around him, so i never noticed. anyway, all the guys there dropped it right away. maybe it’s because they respected my husband and it really wasn’t something to “make fun of”.
i will say this. all kids get make fun of. if my son is in the locker room getting remarks, i sure will give him some things to say to come back with. but it might not be his penis they make fun of. they might make fun of his ears, his head (um, the one on his shoulders) because he has a huge head! hahaha… kids are cruel no matter what.
and as for women, my son doens’t need a woman in his life that thinks his penis is “gross”. she doens’t deserve my son. i get really sad when people think someone’s natural state is “gross”…
By any definition of the word, circumcision is, by its very nature, mutilation. Our sensitivity to the practice, or lackthereof, is entirely cultural and religious.
Many of us look in horror upon similar practices performed in other countries, yet see no comparison to our own outdated system.
We congratulate ourselves that, in these modern times, we continue to practice infant mutilation because it is somehow better for the child. We have convinced ourselves that this is the case, but the reality is, we are only fooling ourselves.
It is done because we are used to doing it. Because we have done it for so long we can’t remember not doing it. Because it is now the norm and it would look funny if we didn’t.
This practice is a result of thinking that sex is bad. It never had any scientific basis. We do fall back to Grok many a times and this is one where it makes sense too. If it was healthier to be circumcised (enough to matter), we would have not had that skin to begin with.
Hindus never had this practice. We were quite open in sexual matters prior to the arrival of muslims. We did become sexually closed (and still continue to be closed) with their influence, but luckily didn’t get this practice.
America is still not sufficiently open sexually. This will take a lot of time. This practice will go away when the society opens up. It is evident that there is still a lot of ways to go for Americans
.
I was. We are expecting in April and “if” its a boy we may leave him with a ‘covered wagon.’ The bacterial and HIV argument seems like more WHO fodder for telling us what to do. It seems very Grok like to just let nature be natural. Man did not evolve because we chopped some skin off and all of a sudden we saved humanity.
In my circle of friends in HS I remember one guy who would always talk about how he was not circumcised and how cool it was. There was not a day that went by where after football practice he’d walk around the locker room without a towel to prove it. The kid was nuts and ended up fighting in Iraq and someone posted on his wall on Facebook “Larry with his covered wagon.”
I am 43 and I was circumcised at 12 year old. It was painful and took about 2 weeks to recover.
I think that circumcision should be left in the hands of the individual who can make an informed decision about it. There is no medical necessity to circumcise the child at birth. As for circumcising the child so he doesn’t “different” from daddy, I think that’s an ignorant and vain reason to do it.
The correct approach would be to avoid any non-medically necessary intervention of the body. Certainly a primal man wasn’t circumcised. That was a rite introduced by religion and the need for tribal distinction.
I’ll bet Grok had some tattoos. So what’s the difference? Still hurts when done, still “self mutilation” as some put it… just a thought…
The difference is that circumcision is an outdated religious practice and it’s hidden under the guise that it’s more sanitary or safe for the person, which is far from the truth. There’s typically no choice that goes along with said procedure. It’s become the norm as has most stuff within conventional wisdom. People just follow along because it’s the easy and comfortable thing to do.
A tattoo is a tattoo. There’s no hidden agenda as to what a tattoo is for.
I’ve not heard of tattooing your newborn babe, and I’m sure many folks would be appauled at the thought of permanantly changing a newborn’s body right after birth in that manner. Why is it any different w/ circumcision (which is actually cutting OFF part of a newborn babe’s body–not just decorating it…)
What if someone wanted to cut off the pinky toes of their newborn babe? Would everyone be a-ok w/ that? Sounds barbaric, but is no less barbaric and hurtful than circumcision…
It disturbs me when people compare circumcision to female mutilation. The foreskin is not needed. Ears and breasts are essential to hearing and feeding a child. I liked the “cutting off the labia” part, but inner and outer labia do play a part in protecting the vagina from infection.
From what has been studied, it seems like the foreskin is much like wisdom teeth. Something left over that causes more problems than good in some cases.
I do believe a male should be able to make the decision on his own. But what about abortion and piercing your child’s ears when they are too young to ask for it? It’s hard to draw the line.
I think we need to put less value in human life (take ourselves down a step on the food chain). Then we won’t be urged to “be like everyone else” and more focused on “how am I going to catch dinner?”
You may want to do a little reading on wisdom teeth before you declare them unnecessary. Before humans started eating industrial foods, and suffering the inevitable, epidemic vitamin K2 deficiency that goes with them, wisdom teeth were functional. For further reading check out the excellent series of articles over at Whole Health Source titled “Malocclusion: Disease of Civilization.”
Grok used his wisdom teeth, because his mouth had room for them.
They are the same thing and the clitoris isn’t “needed” either.
The foreskin contains anti-bacterial ezymes (sp?) that also protect the glans from infection.
That’s why horses and many other male mammals have foreskins. We cheerfully castrate ‘geldings’, so would have no hesitation in ‘circumcising’ horses if it did any good. But we don’t, because it’s pointless for health.
As someone once put it, an eyeball without an eyelid is not a cleaner eyeball.
1/12/2010
Circumcision health benefit virtually nil, study finds
André Picard, Public Health Reporter – From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail, Published on Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010
While it is the most common surgical procedure in the world, there is virtually no demonstrable health benefit derived from circumcision of either newborns or adults, a new study concludes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/circumcision-health-benefit-virtually-nil-study-finds/article1427972/
The sole exception seems to be using circumcision to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV-AIDS in adult males in sub-Saharan Africa, though it is unlikely that benefit carries over to other parts of the world where rates of HIV-AIDS are much lower.
The research, published in Tuesday’s edition of the Annals of Family Medicine, shows that, despite claims, there is little evidence that circumcision can prevent sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
There are also risks to the surgery that, while rare, range from sexual dissatisfaction through to penile loss.
“Patients who request circumcision in the belief that it bestows clinical benefits must be made aware of the lack of consensus and robust evidence, as well as the potential medical and psychosocial harms of the procedure,” said Guy Maddern, of the department of surgery at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Adelaide, Australia, and lead author of the study.
In newborns, he said, the surgery is “inappropriate” because it offers no therapeutic benefit.
About one-third of males worldwide undergo circumcision, the surgical removal of the prepuce (or foreskin).
The procedure is done principally for religious, cultural and social reasons.
Religious male circumcision is practised under both Jewish and Islamic law, and it is an integral part of some aboriginal and African cultural practices.
The main social reasons the practice has continued is a widespread desire that boys resemble their fathers, and a belief that boys who undergo circumcision have fewer health problems.
The new study, a systematic review (a compilation and analysis of previously published research), looked only at the latter point.
Dr. Maddern and his research team found no evidence that uncircumcised men have higher rates of penile cancer. In fact, they noted penile cancer is extremely rare and seemingly unrelated to the presence of a prepuce.
The belief that urinary tract infections are more common in uncircumcised males is not backed up by research. Dr. Maddern noted the fewer than 2 per cent of boys suffer urinary tract infections which “makes it unlikely that preventive circumcision of normal boys would outweigh the adverse events associated with the procedure.”
Finally, there was no evidence at all that there are fewer sexually-transmitted infections among circumcised males. The exception was a study in sub-Saharan Africa that showed doing the surgery on adult males reduced their risk of contracting HIV-AIDS. (However, rates of HIV-AIDS were not reduced in their female partners.)
Rather, Dr. Maddern said, the prepuce seems to act as a barrier against contamination and, by helping maintain a moist environment, enhance sexual pleasure.
According to the study, the only medical justification for circumcision is to treat boys or men with penile abnormalities.
http://dvgstar.blogspot.com/2010/01/circumcision-health-benefit-virtually.html
Yay!
Great post, thanks.
I should add though that it’s not just a matter of preventing a dried-out glans – the foreskin itself is a major sexual source of pleasure, equal to the clitoris. The glans is actually quite insensitive compated to the foreskin.
Put it this way, the foreskin is more sensitive than your fingertips, yet the glans is a lot LESS sensitive.
(I say more senstivie than fingertips not just from nerve-ending density but because they are specialist, pleasure-producing nervers. They are also the only nerve endings in humans that detect moisture, rather than the results of moisture, such as ‘slippery’)
My husband is circumcised. His glans is extremely sensitive. It takes me longer to climax than it does for him. He doesn’t have a problem getting off quickly if we’re both ready. If he had his foreskin still (his was removed as an infant), he would get off so quickly that I wouldn’t have time to get there too. Then there would be a sleeping man next to me and I’d probably lie there feeling unsatified. I think that maybe (for some men, like my husband) not having that extra bundle of nerves is a good thing. It helps keep things equal in the bedroom department.
I know this may not be true for everyone, but that’s jus from my personal experience.
Cutting of the foreskin isn’t like cutting of the tip of your finger. If you had a nerve-packed flesh covering over your finger at birth and it got cut off before you could even remember what it was like to have it, you’d still have sensation in your finger and you wouldn’t evn know what you were missing.
A lot of times this objection is given: “He’s already so quick that it’ll just leave even less time for me.” The reality is that it is more likely he’ll be able to receive the same feelings and last just as long, but replacing pounding with a more gentle motion that facilitates the prolonged close-contact that leads so much more easily to female climax. See http://www.helium.com/items/477183-how-male-circumcision-hurts-women (second page)for a more detailed explanation. (The author doesn’t go into the dryness-UTI connection; I wish she did!).
This site is very graphic, but explains The Top Ten Ways Circumcised Sex Hurts Women: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
I think circ is more similar to cutting off the eyelid than the tip of a finger.
My family and husbands family are from Holland and circumcision just doesn’t happen there. Just because it happens more often in one area does not make it the norm. I believe it is marketed to public in a very underhanded way. It is a multi million dollar industry that uses the remains of the ‘operation’ for its own gains.
I copy and pasted this from http://www.whale.com
“According to the Alternet article Foreskin Face Cream and Future Beauty Products, “human foreskin fibroblast is used in all kinds of medical procedures.” For example, foreskin is used for burn victims and for eyelid replacement and for those with diabetic ulcers (who need replacement skin to cover ulcers that won’t heal), to making creams and collagens in the cosmetics industry (yes, the product that is injected into puffy movie-starlet lips).
One foreskin can be used for decades to produce miles of skin and generate as much as $100,000 — that’s not the fee from a one-time sale, but the fees from the fibroblasts that are created from those original skin cells.
One of the most publicized examples of the foreskin-for-sale trend involves a skin cream that has been promoted by none other than Oprah Winfrey, according to the article. SkinMedica, a face cream, costs more than $100 for a 0.63-oz. bottle, used by many high-profile celebrities (such as Winfrey and Barbara Walters) as an alternative to cosmetic surgery. Winfrey has promoted the SkinMedica product several times on her show, and her website, which raves about “a new product that boosts collagen production and can rejuvenate skin called TNS Recovery Complex. TNS is comprised from six natural human growth factors found in normal healthy skin … the factors are engineered from human foreskin!”
I also don’t NEED two arms…or two legs…or some of my fingers…
My answer is no to genital mutilation, man or woman. There’s no need, and the arguements in favor are not sufficient. Leave it be the way nature intended.
And speaking as a woman…foreskins are fun
Ok, my dad has a webbed toe (or is it toes?). If they had fused two of my toes together at birth in order to look like my dad, I wouldn’t be able to experience the pleasure of wearing my Vibrams. Of course, I could always go barefoot, if I had a webbed toe. See, the foreskin is kind of like the Vibrams. It keeps the skin sensitive, and protected. Running in Vibrams is kind of like running barefoot, but it feels really good because your skin doesn’t get rubbed off as fast. Running barefoot however, feels a lot like running in Vibrams, but you have to be a little more careful with your technique to avoid wearing through your skin. You can’t go pounding away. Ahem. Well, you can, but it might hurt for a few days afterwards; but, hey, the skin down there heals pretty fast anyway. As far as lotion is concerned, running on that stuff is seriously dangerous, plus you have to use a ton on a long run, and then you have to clean up after yourself—yikes. So, leave the soothing creams on the shelf and just go raw. What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger. Practice makes perfect. I say, just go out and run, and don’t worry about whether or not you have a product of society on your feet, or if you are Groking it.
“It is important to remember that there are no vestigial organs or body parts. Each and every part of the body serves a specific, important purpose. If the foreskin failed to serve a purpose, it would have disappeared millions of years ago. Drs. Cold and McGrath conclude that, over the last 65 million years, the foreskin has offered reproductive advantages. It must also be remembered that sexual selection has refined the external genitalia of every creature, including man. The human foreskin is the product of millions of years of evolutionary refinement, and, as such, the human foreskin represents the epitome of design perfection.”
Did you know that in other primates the glans is far more sensitive then the foreskin, but in humans it’s reversed? A man’s foreskin has 20000 nerve receptors(more then the clitoris) and is more sexually pleasurable(to the woman as well).
You don’t need much to bring an uncircumcised man to orgasm. And that’s a good thing
I was under the impression it doesn’t take much to bring a man to orgasm, circ or not.
Some really um obstinately ignorant people on this site apparently. Gj guy who responds to every post. Can’t believe a guy would say he doesn’t miss his foreskin when he never had the option to try it out. How idiotic is that. Can’t believe a girl would say “it is what it is” when faced with the reality of her own shallowness regarding penile aesthetics.
The depths of american gullibility, shallowness, and plain idiocy is mindblowing. Esp. For a site as progressive as this one.
I don’t have any children yet, but if I do , they’ll be circumcised as babies. The reason: it’s cleaner and prevents possible problems. It’s much, much worse for a guy to have it done when he’s older due to a problem with erections or whatever.
I don’t regard it as mutilation, btw, because there are medical benefits for doing it (even if some don’t recognize them). It certainly can’t be compared to female genital mutilation, which is extremely dangerous AND done only to prevent women from experiencing sexual pleasure. Huge difference.
If you don’t believe in circumcision for boys, fine, but don’t judge those who do.
Lol It’s cleaner? How would you know being a female and all. Someone’s been drinking the kool-aid heavily.
Has nothing to do with “believing it.” How about you do some real research before spouting off.
If you would look through the lens of evolutionary biology it’d be apparent why boys are born with a foreskin. Or are you a religious person who likes to bash that which does not serve your convenient “beliefs?”
Karen,
That’s an old wives tale. I am quite clean, I assure you. If you practice good hygiene, you have no issues. I can speak from experience, ’cause I got the parts and they’re all intact.
Women can get yeast infections. Are you suggesting that we should remove their genitalia?
Asinine – all sorts of dark and damp body areas need to be cleaned regularly; mouths, armpits, genitalia, between your toes… butt-cracks! – I am sure we could work out barbaric ways to make all of those get less dirty and stay clean with some creative chopping or surgery. How about you teach your kids to clean properly… everywhere? And what is it to you anyway whether HIS penis is clean? You are not his partner, and you are NOT him, so what business is it of yours? And, so what anyway? Let’s imagine – horror of horror – your now adult child is not as clean as he should be, surely he should has the right to ignore hygienic practices and suffer the consequences.
On the other hand, if you don’t believe in female circumcision for girls, fine, but don’t judge those who do. Is that really the way you want to logically argue this?
“…prevents possible problems.” And it CREATES other possible problems. “It’s much, much worse for a guy to have it done when he’s older” Wht’s your evidence for that claim? “due to a problem with erections or whatever.” Circumcision is very, very rarely necessary for a “problem with erections”. In counties where doctors are taught more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, they have a variety of alternatives, surgical and non-surgical, to circumcision. And in countries where parents how to take care of an intact baby and not forcibly retract his foreskin, all penile problems are fewer than the US.
OK, I won’t judge you. But your kids may.