Time to end circumcision?

[a_unique_person]

It would also not be harmful per your reasoning to tattoo a child at birth. I disagree that it is not harmful. There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read. I have an amputation of a couple of fingertips. They are on my left hand, so I can function normally. Would it be ok to amputate fingertips for religion or beauty? Edited to clarify a point.

So I have heard too. What have I been missing out on all these years?

 

[Guest]

furthermore, women report better intercourse experience with uncircumcized males (because the foreskin allows for a much less abrasive motion -- the foreskin slides up and down the penis as a sheath, instead of the penile skin moving back and forth against labia and vaginal walls).

I've never seen an uncircumsised dildo.

I would think the rim of the head of the penis actually stimulates the G-spot.

And abrasiveness? What kind of penis do you have anyway?

 

[Christian]

Thanks Victor for the response.

Three more benefits that should be considered are:

1)circumcised males are at a lower risk to contract HIV

2) 20% of of uncircumcised males cary the papiloma virus (which causes 99% of cervical cancer). Only 6% of circumcised males do.

3) Women with high "risk lovers" (more than 5 sexual partners) are 58% less likely to develop cervical cancer if their lover is circumcised.

Dr. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, epidemiologist, at the Harvard University School of Public Health told Newsday says he would recommend the practice for all male babies.

*The Week* reports that scientist predict that the general adoption of this practice could reduce cervical cancer death by 23 to 43%.

With all the benefits conbined, the practice is, as I said before, worth considering.

 

[Smalso]

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/brigman/

FYI

Edit: Dr. Brigman is currently Chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Houston.

 

[KillerX]

For those out there who feel they've been slighted:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html
Grow it back.

 

[Darat]

Thanks Victor for the response.

Three more benefits that should be considered are:

1)circumcised males are at a lower risk to contract HIV

2) 20% of of uncircumcised males cary the papiloma virus (which causes 99% of cervical cancer). Only 6% of circumcised males do.

3) Women with high "risk lovers" (more than 5 sexual partners) are 58% less likely to develop cervical cancer if their lover is circumcised.

Dr. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, epidemiologist, at the Harvard University School of Public Health told Newsday says he would recommend the practice for all male babies.

*The Week* reports that scientist predict that the general adoption of this practice could reduce cervical cancer death by 23 to 43%.

With all the benefits conbined, the practice is, as I said before, worth considering.

So are you advocating a position of non-consensual medical treatment, surgery etc. for a potential reduction in a health risk to another person in later life?

 

[Nikk]

I've never seen an uncircumsised dildo.

Thats because youv'e only seen american dildo's

 

[corplinx]

Now that I think about it, in one of those gospels that was left out of the Bible, I think Jesus basically told someone that circumcision was not mandatory (I believe it was the gospel of Thomas).

Now you know why they had him crucified, obviously he was bigtime heretic.

 

[Smalso]

I am circumcised, but none of my boys are. Just one more barbaric relic that is dying out.

Now, as for body piercing, where the hell did that come from. Ears, ok, but nipples, eyebrowes?

I consider the deliberate mutilation of the genitals of a baby to be a barbaric practice for which there is no justification, and nothing I have read so far has convinced me otherwise. Some people pierce the ears of baby girls and I am against that, too. When a person is of an age to decide for him or herself what type of mutilations he or she wants to have done to his or her body--circumcision, body piercings, tatoos or what have you--fine.

Why is it ok to pierce the ears but not other body parts? Different strokes for different folks.

 

[CSSMariner]

Puts me in mind of a line I heard when I was a kid.

In the Classified Section of a paper.

"Wanted, one circumcision specialist. Several skins a day with a good chance to get ahead."

No, I am not, and I was born in 1944.

 

[Fade]

1)circumcised males are at a lower risk to contract HIV

If this is true, the difference is negligable. The size of the HIV virus (really tiny) wouldn't be effected by the slightly tougher skin of a circumcized penis. It has the wonderful urethra to get into anyway.

So, instead of just saying so, want to provide a link and/or an explanation of the physical process involved?

2) 20% of of uncircumcised males cary the papiloma virus (which causes 99% of cervical cancer). Only 6% of circumcised males do.

A quick run on google found gobs of sites which have quotes like

The hypothesis that cervical cancer is caused by smegma of the male foreskin was invented in 1954 by Wynder. His study was found to be invalid, because most of the cervical cancer patients in his study incorrectly reported that their husbands were uncircumcised. These women had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. They gave the answer they thought the doctor wanted to hear.

and

Preston established quite clearly that there was little evidence to support a relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer, cervical cancer, or cancer of the prostate

3) Women with high "risk lovers" (more than 5 sexual partners) are 58% less likely to develop cervical cancer if their lover is circumcised.

And 87.3% of all statistics are invented on the spot

Anyway. If your partner is a dirty bastard.. sure.. he will more likely give you some sort of disease. But, cleaning your penis effectively negates -any- drawbacks to being uncircumsized.

 

[HarryKeogh]

i am uncircumcised and very glad for that. growing up in america i was definitely the odd man (or penis) out and was teased a little bit. y'know how kids can be. but i've never had so much as a rash down there. i just wash it everyday like any other part of my body. it seems odd to me to lop something off because it might get infected. i'll let nature decide through evolution which bodyparts to modify or get rid of at birth.

 

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
So are you advocating a position of non-consensual medical treatment, surgery etc. for a potential reduction in a health risk to another person in later life?

This is an interesting question. I believe the answer depends on the location.

In a population (third world country) that is ignorant of many aspects of higene, and that anthropological study reveals historical risk habits (well ingrained), this procedure can save many lives.

I think it is unnecessary in develop countries where education in this regards is high.

Fade wrote:
So, instead of just saying so, want to provide a link and/or an explanation of the physical process involved?

Yes, of course, I'm sorry.

Cervical Cancer

And 87.3% of all statistics are invented on the spot

I'm sure you're not suggesting I did that.


Anyway. If your partner is a dirty bastard.. sure.. he will more likely give you some sort of disease. But, cleaning your penis effectively negates -any- drawbacks to being uncircumsized.

Well, I see your point of reference is develep country where men (supposedly) don't have multiple partners, use condoms, clean themselves regularly, etc.

As you can understand that is a high standard rarely held up in third world countries. As I understand it, scientist advocate the practice because faced with this reality, the simple procedure saves many women's lives.

So, until most of the world population evelates its educational level in this area, it seem to me it is a legitime procedure under those conditions.

 

[DrBenway]

In a population (third world country) that is ignorant of many aspects of higene, and that anthropological study reveals historical risk habits (well ingrained), this procedure can save many lives.

The third world isn't aware of the benefits of washing the penis? I'm not sure I buy this.

What well ingrained historical risk habits are you thinking of?

 

[Denise]

I've actually heard this reason for why humans started male circumcision. Don't laugh now... It's because a lot lived in desert regions and they had a problem with sand getting under the foreskin.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've actually heard this reason for why humans started male circumcision. Don't laugh now... It's because a lot lived in desert regions and they had a problem with sand getting under the foreskin.

As humans have managed to work out how to live in just about every continent and climate, they have had to adapt to an incredible range of conditions. I have heard this theory too. As most of us don't live in deserts, then it is hardly a reason to continue the practive now, or, if we do, we get to wash properly.

Can't imagine what it would have been to perform the circumcision in the tribes that waited for puberty.....

 

[Denise]

Christian, from the website you cited..

But it adds many now thought that as long as uncircumcised men are careful about keeping their genitals clean, the risk of cervical cancer in their partners should not be any greater than that for circumcised men.

Cancer Research UK adds: "It is likely that this association has risen because certain religious groups who practice circumcision, such as the Jews, also have a low risk of cervical cancer due to low levels of promiscuity."

Either way, why not let a male decide for himself when he is an adult?

 

[DrBenway]

The sand theory makes some sense.

There's also the Star Bellied Sneetches theory: circumcision was a means of proving tribal affiliation. At least, until everyone started doing it.

 

[Christian]

DrBenway asked:
The third world isn't aware of the benefits of washing the penis? I'm not sure I buy this.

I live in a third world country. A lot of men here don't even shower daily here.

But, it is not only a matter of washing the penis, it is properly washing the penis.

Many people here have fungus on the skin, finger nails, etc. because they don't shower correctly.

Remember, lot of people get cavities not because they don't brush their teeth but because they do it incorrectly.

My wife is a dentist, and she says most people don't do it properly (this includes highly educated people all over the world)

What well ingrained historical risk habits are you thinking of?

Yes, latin american men are notorious for promiscuity. The expression *macho* comes from this culture of multiple women. Here, as in many cultures, it is a sign of virility and superiority in the male population.

These habits, passed on for centuries, can't be erradicated with seminars, or sex education courses. This is why I mentioned that it must be looked at from an anthrological perspective.

 

[Christian]

Denise wrote:
Either way, why not let a male decide for himself when he is an adult?

This is a fair question. If the procedure were as fast, cost effective, convenient, then, yes, I would think that to wait for approval would be best.

This is clearly not the case.