Slashdot Mirror

I would assume all of the nerve endings are in the glans and below and the foreskin merely covers this.

It's the other way around. The glans is rich in free nerve endings (rough detection of deep pressure, heat, and pain - much like poking your eyes), whereas the foreskin's ridged band and the frenulum are rich in encapsulated nerve endings (fine touch, light pressure, vibration, stretching - like your lips and fingertips).

In short: you thought it was the wrapper, but it is the candy.

in this case it's being done for a very positive reason, which is that it's known to reduce the transmission of AIDS

Nope, the preponderance of evidence say the transmission of AIDS is either unaffected or enhanced by circumcision.

Almost any claims that circumcision protects from AIDS quote the infamous Camp Orange/Orange Farms study. That study consists of an egregious list of scientific misconduct. For example, the circumcised group had received sexual education while the control group did not -- so it's not surprising that men who had a downtime and were taught safe(r) practices will have less AIDS. The researchers' bias was so strong they immediately destroyed the control group "so they can benefit too" before even the data was tabulated.

Let's take a look at other studies:small increase of risk; no effect; large increase. Or for gay men: UK, US, Scotland.

On the other hand, there's a significant increase of MtF transmission.

But, if a study is funded by the Gates Foundation, it will be stopped early "because of futility" of protection, while in fact the preliminary data show a strong increase of risk.

Or, papers outright lie about the conclusion: "Declining Rates in Male Circumcision amidst Increasing Evidence of its Public Health Benefit -- in all categories other than one the "benefit" is negative, and the only category where circumcision slightly wins (heterosexuals with syphilis) had a sample of 6.

(though I'm circumcised, as are most American men, and I don't consider myself "mutilated"

I'm sorry for you. Alas, people who suffer from some malady tend to have a strong bias that "it's the right thing to do". For example, the strongest driver for female circumcision are older women who were circumcised themselves. Same for the deaf.

even if it does (theoretically) reduce a little sexual pleasure

"theoretically", "a little"?!? While you're unable to make this test yourself, you can ask an intact friend: wear regular underwear (ie, not commando, not boxers), retract the foreskin, try walking. For extra bonus, do it where there are people around so you can't adjust (this randomly happened to me a couple times). The chafing is so strong it's a pain. If penises get so calloused such chafing is not noticeable, there's hardly any feeling left.

You seriously have no idea why? Wow.

Cleanliness is the reason. To help prevent the spread of STDs amongst other things.

...

Some of us have large brains and some of you apparently do not.

Thanks for the limited brain compliment. I like those, qualifying the author right off the bat.
As I mentioned before, it's a taboo issue.
I can be polemic as well: Old impotent males getting off on playing with babies dicks and reducing their sensitivity for life - perversion to the highest degree!

For the facts:

Penis foreskin removed, some consequences:

1. Glands penis is no longer protected and exposed to abrasion which causes a hardening of glands penis surface skin - also named orange peel - causing sensitivity reduction in the range of 40 - 60 %.
2. Foreskin has nerve endings and sensitivity - gone.
3. With foreskin removed, the outer skin of the penis can no longer move back and forth during intercourse causing increased friction and abrasion.

Here is a quote from http://www.cirp.org/library/an... :

> During heterosexual activity, the mucosal surfaces of the glans penis and
> foreskin move back and forth across the mucosal surfaces of the labia and
> vagina, providing nontraumatic sexual stimulation of both male and female.
> This mucous-membrane-to-mucous-membrane contact provides the natural
> lubrication necessary for sexual relations and prevents both the dryness
> responsible for painful intercourse and the chafing and abrasions
> which allow entry of sexually transmitted diseases, both viral and bacterial.

Circumcision may have had value in societies in dry climates with very limited water supplies, who knows where this originated. Nowadays it seems to be promoted by religious fanatics and sexual perverts harming males for life!

Fact is that a healthy vagina has an acidic environment due to lactic acid bacteria and prevents disease causing organisms.

So - a penis visiting a healthy vagina frequently may be the best prevention of STD and other (mind)crap.

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.

And notice, their conclusion comes from studying the effects of circumcision within the context of AIDS and other STDs.

It doesn't say for instance, how this will effect the incidence of prostate cancer. So assuming circumcision really does reduce the frequency of masturbation among the male population, it would stand to reason that the incidence of prostate cancer may possibly increase because of circumcision.

And of course, a truly randomized controlled trial in the US would probably give us an definitive objective answer to this question, but American parents would never stand for that kind of study, so it could never be truly random. Apparently, this pediatric association keeps on mentioning "randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda", so they probably did find some African parents who were willing to exchange their rights to choose for the good of science (or perhaps in exchange for $$$), but one could argue that this kind of selection wouldn't be random at all. For one thing, only the poor would probably be willing to forego their rights like that. And a second thing, those African countries are different than the US. The average life expectancy in Uganda for instance, is 53 years old. In the US, it's 78 years. And one would assume that there are lower incidents of prostate cancer in Uganda simply because they're dying much earlier than we are.

Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.

If you're paying 2 to 3 K, you're probably doing it wrong.

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

What's the going price of carbolic acid (phenol) these days? ~ $10. And mind you, this added cost is only for females. For males, if you forego anesthesia and all the hassles that come with it, you could probably get a normal Barber to do it for only twice his going rate.

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?

As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Apparently, we can thank our puritan roots

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession."
(B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)

Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)

Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903:

"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..."
(Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.)
(The above material is quoted from J. Bigelow, The Joy of Uncircumcising, Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, CA, USA. Thanks to Robin Verner.)

In America, foreskins were not rare at the time circumcision was introduced into widespread practice. Paradoxically, then, the understanding of the intact male organ at that time was somewhat greater than it is today. (In particular, it never would have been possible to promote circumcision on the basis that it was "necessary for hygienic reasons"---this came later, when doctors themselves were mostly circumcised men.)

[...]

Oh, and you've got to love this quote, which can be found on the same page:

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?

As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Apparently, we can thank our puritan roots

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession."
(B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)

Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)

Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903:

"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..."
(Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.)
(The above material is quoted from J. Bigelow, The Joy of Uncircumcising, Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, CA, USA. Thanks to Robin Verner.)

In America, foreskins were not rare at the time circumcision was introduced into widespread practice. Paradoxically, then, the understanding of the intact male organ at that time was somewhat greater than it is today. (In particular, it never would have been possible to promote circumcision on the basis that it was "necessary for hygienic reasons"---this came later, when doctors themselves were mostly circumcised men.)

[...]

Oh, and you've got to love this quote, which can be found on the same page:

Johnson? I don't think the term applies to a micropenis.

Some study material for you - the doctor might be able to help you!

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/bergeson/

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

I guess you would stop the Muslims, Jews and others who practice it. Close to a million people, n those groups.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

just an fyi: The Jewish reasons for circumcision stems from a God given commandment and has to do with being closer to God and distance us humans from our animalistic tendencies. It is not about being healthy or any pseudoscience (other than the fact that its a religious commandment). And if there is medical evidence to prove that ones offspring would die from a circumcision the child is exempt from getting one.

Pseudoscience, you mean. Circumcision is not connected with cancer prevention at all. On the other hand, this is a procedure that destroys half the penile skin (it is double-layered, keep in mind), and more precisely its most erotically sensitive bits , so it's no surprise that it is clearly linked to erectile dysfunction . Oh, how about over a hundred baby deaths , every year, in the USA alone, or life-lasting psychological effects ?

As a mutilated man, I'd fully support a return to Hadrian's law: a total ban, under penalty of death. Stern, but fair!

Of course there are no real scientific studies to show why people who have never been exposed sometimes die of lung cancer, but George Burns lived to 100 and died from fluid buildup in his skull from a fall in the bathtub.

When talking about public health or the climate, anecdotal stories are really just amusing and nothing more. Why some smokers don't die of cancer, it's a statistics game. No one is saying 100% all smokers will die of cancer.

Evidenc on smoking and cancer, I found this study which found smoking was an increased risk factor for penile cancer. I went to that one since all the hits for lung cancer were references to references to studies, and I got tired within 5 mins of searching for the original studies.

There are also thousands of chemicals in cigarette smoke. Benzo(a)pyrene is one that is a carcinogen and causes cancer.

That to me is pretty strong evidence: smokers are more likely to die of cancer than non smokers, and there are chemicals in cigarettes that cause cancer. No one has shown that chemicals inhaled from the cigarette cause DNA damage in human lung cells and those then become cancer cells, but that would be a hideously expensive experiment just to tell us something we already know.

The situation seems similar to climate change: it's impossible to trace carbon from tailpipes or powerplants to the atmosphere and prove that they are raising the temperature. Nonetheless, we are emitting a lot of carbon, the last few years have been warmer than average, and carbon soaks up more heat.

This [medicalnewstoday.com] article from Medical News Today says it's a widely accepted notion and goes on to say more research is needed.

This [cancer.org] article from Cancer.org says there is strong evidence that the two are linked, and that more research is needed.

Researchers saying more research needs to be done is not a safe indication that something is uncertain. Find me a research paper that -doesn't- suggest more research is needed, and I'll show you a paper by a retiring scientist. We always put that on there: there's always more research to do, and always more grants to apply for.

Suggesting that your paper is the last thing that needed to be said on a given area of research is usually not true, would be quite arrogant, and is not a good career move.

Just one example of said belief here.

I disagree with your interpretation of his answer. It seems to me his explanation is against the thought 'if we were supposed to be circumcised, wouldn't God have us born without foreskin?' I don't see the implication that the foreskin is a mistake, only that God's creation does not imply that the creation is not intended to be changed. Tell me if you think I'm totally off-base here.

More importantly, it's pretty obvious that we're talking cultural Judaism rather than religious Judaism (even most of the Jews in Israel don't believe in God). Otherwise, the question wouldn't have needed to be asked, and the answer would have just been God told us to. So the question becomes: do they circumcise for religious or cultural reasons, and are either acceptable. Put another way, this isn't necessarily a question about religious 'mutilation', but of cultural.

But famed jewish philosopher Maimonides had an even more disturbing view. He acknowledged that the foreskin was useful, that it had sexual functions, that removing it hampered one's sexual capacity. And circumcision should be done because of that. I kid you not, that's a guy who thought an inferior sex life was a moral goal. How demented does one have to be, to take that shit seriously?

Again, while I may be totally off base about this, it still seems to me to be a reflection of the change of mainstream Judaism toward acting cultural norms rather than religious belief. If we were speaking merely of belief, the Genesis quote would be enough. However, if you have a Jewish man who does not believe in God, you need another reason.

Long way of saying: if the person promoting circumcision is doing so for ulterior motives, I agree that is wicked. I have a hard time, though, condemning someone for circumcising a child in good faith and for the perceived good of their child.

In fact, it is true.

Just one example of said belief here.

But famed jewish philosopher Maimonides had an even more disturbing view. He acknowledged that the foreskin was useful, that it had sexual functions, that removing it hampered one's sexual capacity. And circumcision should be done because of that. I kid you not, that's a guy who thought an inferior sex life was a moral goal. How demented does one have to be, to take that shit seriously?

can tell you that the child displayed little evidence of pain, as I was right there with the doc as it was done, and it heals quite quickly.

Liar. It hurts -- a lot. [Warning: Link is to a surgical demonstration video of the circumcision of a male baby.]

And no, not "everybody else" does it. The number of uncircumsized males in the US is increasing, actually. You might find the numbers surprising if you have time to look it up.

I did.

Which, by your admission, is a tremendously small number of the male population. And if you become suicidally depressed because you're having disappointing intercourse, I'm guessing it's not just about the intercourse.

You wouldn't know... you've never had sex with your foreskin intact.

The various parts of the penis, including the foreskin, form a functional whole. The foreskin is the primary sensory tissue of the penis. The ridged band of the foreskin is built to trigger orgasm and ejaculation.

There are specialised structures in the ridged band which detect the gliding action of the glans.

Even if the nerves have some function after circumcision, they would be severely damaged and buried under a layer of scar tissue, and would not function in the same way. (This ignores whether any particular circumcised male has enough shaft skin left for the gliding action to even be possible.)

http://research.cirp.org/func1.html

There are also Oestrogen receptors and other structures present in the mucosal lining of the foreskin, and their function is not known, but should not be overlooked.

Maybe with enough studies like this circumcision rates in the US will continue to drop. If they're looking for it I'm sure they'll find a correlation between condom use and circumcision with complaints of sensitivity.

Here's a decent link to circumcision rates by region: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ Combined, 73% - 81% are still being cut in the USA. In 1932 around 30% of the USA populations was circumcised. It seems to have peaked in 1965 and will hopefully continue to drop. But it's studies like this that get things going.

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

The UN Commission on the former Yugoslavia defines circumcision as sexual assault and a human rights violationlink

In Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Childlink the phrase, "traditional procedures prejudicial to the health of children," refers to the practice of circumcision. The circumcision of male children, therefore, violates numerous provisions of various international human rights instruments,Link A Link B Link C and must be considered unethical medical practice.

Doctors Opposing Circumcision has released a detailed report on human rights and the circumcision of children.link

Pain relief. Circumcision is an inherently painful procedure. Contemporary medical ethics requires that anesthesia/analgesia be provided for painful procedures on children. Provision of pain relief, however, cannot make an unethical procedure ethical .

A few points if i may.

You seem to agree that circumcision performed at birth is ineffective at preventing STDs, however seem to suggest that when performed as an adult it lowers the chance of infection.

Since there is no difference medically in circumcision as an adult or child, i can only assume that the effect is caused by social or mental changes. An indirect and physically unrelated result from circumcision. I'm unaware of how their social system works in Africa, so I'm skeptical if such actions taken in a first world nation would have any repeatable effect, epically when performed in a country where the women take it for granted.

Moving onto actual medical studies, reading from the CIRP, it suggests backed up with multiple reports, that those without foreskin suffered higher rates of STD and other various infections. The reason provided being that the skin removed coats the penis in an enzyme that attacks and destroys the cell walls of bacteria.

Another thing they talk about is how circumcised males have a more risky behavior, including lower usage of condoms (possibly due to the fact that they would have reduced penal sensitivity being further reduced by a jacket)...

It all sounds biased against circumcision, but regardless I'd suggest you take a read yourself:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

TLDR: The part they cut off helps keep the penis healthy and better protected, while circumcised men tend to take larger risks in their sexual activities including lower condom usage.

Well, there's no conclusive evidence that it is harmful either, now is there?

So as a circumcised male are you comfortable fucking chicks that you know are HIV positive or whom have chlamydia? Hell no I suspect. Safe sex practices would seem to me to be more appealing then slicing off a functional part of your body.

Why limit yourself to one preventive method, when multiples are available? Each barrier to disease helps. And perhaps it is time for you to define the "function" of the foreskin, if you're going to keep referring to it that way. What function am I missing? What can I not do, as a circumsized male?

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States.

Oh, for goodness sake. From my previous post: "Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000)." I gave you the actual incidence; you give me comparative opinion as if it meant something more. Furthermore, of those 1 per hundred thousand, the hundred thousand contains many, many circumsized males, a number approaching 80%, every one of which serves to increase the risk to uncirsized males, because that's the demographic that gets the disease. If it is one per hundred thousand, but 80,000 will not get it because they are circumsized, you're now sitting at one per the remaining 20,000. Why I have to explain this to you, I can't imagine, the data is right there. That's your risk. Your kids risk. I wasn't hiding the details, I put them right in front of your nose. To me, that risk is unacceptable if it can be eliminated, and it can.

And the appendectomy prevents one from ever having appendicitis, yet I don't see newborns undergoing this procedure as a preventive measure.

It is a deep procedure, one that opens the body cavity and the intestine; that's why. Otherwise, you would, just as you see them being innoculated against various diseases, just as you see the umbilical being removed, just as you see them being cleaned before being brought to the mother's arms. Nature doesn't get everything right. When we can see a problem, or a potential problem, it is perfectly reasonable for us to act decisively.

I also like how you can make the claim that it doesn't bring about reduced function.

Well, again - you're making the claim, I'm not. I addressed it as a claim made by the anti-circumcision block. So I ask you again: What "function" am I missing? I'm agreeably sensitive; I'm fertile; I'm happy; I'm clean; I'm disease-free; I'm at lower risk than you are for a number of disagreeable and in some cases life-threatening conditions; so what is my alleged "problem", according to you?

Isn't it for him to decide if he loses any functionality?

No. Children are, and should be, subject to the parents decisions about health related matters. Newborns in particular are incapable of making decisions in this regard as are some people right into adulthood, and sexual activity will probably be initiated before the person can make the right decision, if indeed it ever does - you, for instance, have elected to remain at higher risk, and to expose your partners to higher risk, and this indicates to me that it would have been better to get it done as an infant - you would not now have the option of raising the risk floor for others, regardless of what you might prefer for yourself. In the meantime, educating people that uncircumcised males present higher risk to them as sexual partners is important.

If you kid gets AIDS then maybe you should have taught him to use condoms. Are you really bold enough to think that being cut lowers your chances of contracting it to the point that you don't protect yourself?

No. Please don

No, really, I mean it. I'm 100% serious about it. Worth the hassle? HELL YEAH.

I hate to break it to you, but chicks prefer circumcised men.

Hopefully they arent circumcised, or the aliens will think we are a barbaric race that mutilates each others private parts, and as well fail to give them an accurate picture of real male anatomy. It said that the hosts are from Europe, where they are a more decent and civilised society that respects the basic bodily integrity rights of all persons and do not mutilate helpless children, so I am sure they are intact. In fact, 80% of the worlds population is intact (although it should be 100%, except for those who have made their own choice as an adult). Otherwise they would not be given an accurate picture of the real, complete human body if we sent them pictures of mutilated men, in fact, mutilated men are missing one of the most fascinating and wonderous parts of their body, the most densely innervated and spiritual parts of the body which is designed for the specific purpose of giving its owner intense and unwordly pleasures. The foreskin is probably the most densely innervated fine touch centre on the human body, MGM removes over 20,000 specialised nerve receptors.

Do not believe the myths. The foreskin is a very healthy and normal part of the body. In fact, in Europe and Japan, where circumcision is nearly unheard of, the life expectancies are in fact the highest in the world, and far ahead of the US. Japan is #6. Sweden, also a mostly intact country, is #7. The US is #48. Sure there are other factors, but this shows MGM is not needed for good health and that people do fine without it. They also have an AIDS rate that is half that of the US and a penile cancer rate in Europe that is lower than that of the US. In fact, nearly all problems the foreskin is blamed on can be fixed without circumcision, or are often not serious at all to require such a drastic amputation. Amputation must only be considered a last resort option, in the most extreme necessity.

Circumcision is nothing less than an unnecessary mutilation of the male body, decision to make greedy doctors money, an unnecessary amputation of a healthy body part without their owners consent, and a stealing of up to 95% of erogenous pleasure from men for the rest of their life, and a deprivation of their most basic human right to a whole body. If an adult wants to have them selves circumcise, go ahead, its your choice, and your body. But do not do it to children, who are too easily coerced and cannot give full consent. By prohibiting unnecessary, elective MGM of children we are preserving the persons right to make the decision for themselves as a fully informed and consenting adult, when they have the best chance of making the right decision for themselves. Its our bodies and it should be our choice, regarding such clearly unnecessential and unnecessary mutilations.

For more info:

http://www.cirp.org/
http://www.nocirc.org/

Agreed. If trimming the labia could be shown to protect against HIV, would we be promoting that? Circumcision removes important tissue - many countries (most of Europe, China, UK) don't do it.

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

Okay, I don't have a source offhand for anthropological evidence for why circumcision came about, but I'm sure I can cook up a few on Lexis Nexus or Wikipedia (I read it in some magazine for a class a few years back).
And yes, you lose upwards of 50% (60% is typical) of the nerve endings because they are most concentrated in that area.
Refs: http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

You need professional help, mutilator. I mean what is it with you people and circumcision? Its like the crazed muslims and their hatred for women or something. Go back to the middle ages where you belong please. Irritation aside, you made a good and well informed post besides that, which I found interesting. But I'd thank you to get off the slicing little boys penises bandwagon.

There has been quite a bit of headscratching about this, and there seem to be several factors involved:

Don't forget that bizarre turn-on -- dry sex. Painful for women, but apparently strangely enjoyable for men, it also significantly increases the chance of infection for both. I'm not talking about women who have sex when they aren't in the mood. It is a lot more extreme then that -- some women use chemicals like bleach to remove natural lubricants and irritate the tissue to make it swell up, others actually insert little bags of vaginal potpourri to absorb the fluids and dry themselves out - I bet Martha Stewart is already making plans to break into that market.

Anyone who thinks I'm kidding, here are 3 articles, out of thousands, on the practice

Salon 1999
Time 2001
The Lancet 1998

They could use a marketing campaign over there - "Lube - it does a body good!"

Sorry to spam but I believe the word you're looking for is: Circumcision

As in: ... its only a matter of time before Chinese officials find a way to circumvent the circumcision; or

In Soviet Russiah, firewall circumcise you!

Common sense isn't. Circumcision is not only unecessary, but risky and detrimental to one's health.

The only reason to circumcise is religous - there is no medical reason, and there are good medical reasons not to.

There is no extra care required to be uncircumcised - basically, leave it alone, wash the outside (as you would circumcised).

http://www.cirp.org/

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

That bit about crazy doctors was an antecdote (though perhaps not an untrue one), nothing more. And men don't have cervixes, which makes getting cervical cancer rather difficult, wouldn't you say? :)

And a few hundred years ago circumcision was not routine; when it first became as such it was in the late 19th/early 20th century to prevent "masturbatory insanity" -- sexual pleasure from masturbation was thought at the time to cause many physical and psychological problems, which is of course completely false, but that was the major reasoning to get circumcision ritualised in U.S. hospitals. The man to thank? The very same that makes your breakfast cereals, J.H. Kellogg.

Also, numerous studies show that circumcision causes infants to sleep poorly, be fussier, and have increased heart rates compared to those that do not undergo the procedure. This is, of course, not surprising, since it is an extremely traumatizing experience. http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
Oh, did I mention that even though these are "supposed" to be conducted with anaesthetic, many times they are not because anaethesia in infants is a very quick way to kill them? And since the infant does not have a developed spinal clamp, they feel more pain than adult in a similar position would? And since the foreskin is still attached to the glans and is not due to detach for several years that it is forcibly ripped away from it? Does that really sound like something you want to allow be done to an innocent child?

So no, you're wrong, thanks for playing, though.

I just googled up this. I have no idea about the authority of the organisation, but the stuff there corresponds to what I remember of a BBC documentory on the subject a while ago (Radio 4 is a wonderful thing).

Actually, any pair of statements of the form ``19th century loonies thought X was a cure for masturbation'' and ``19th century loonies thought X was caused by masturbation'' for any X has a reasonable chance of being true.

Not that we are any better, substitute `obesity' or `cancer' or `artificial additives' or `mobile phones' for `masterbation' as appropriate.

(of course, with the new generation of phones with video etc, ``mobile phones cause masturbation'' is going to come true)

The only valid point that you make is that (some people) find a "cut" penis more aesthetically appealing.

Check the facts in this study published in the Journal of Urology.

Not that Men's Fitness is a trusted medical authority, but they have some information, also. Great quote here:

The perception that foreskin is unhygienic is a myth, says George C. Denniston, M.D., president of the Seattle-based Doctors Opposing Circumcision. "Foreskin protects against disease; it doesn't cause disease. If foreskin is unhygienic, eyelids should be considered unhygienic."

Here's another article with links to some other resources.

Speaking from personal experience (I'm uncircumcised), every woman that I have ever been with has found my equipment very aesthetically appealing. As long as you wash it, it stays clean (just like feet or armpits).

This isn't informative--it's mostly wrong. Catholics, as do most (all?) Christian denominations, do baptize. As for circumcision, it has its roots in Judaism and the bible, but is mentioned as being unnecessary in several places in the New Testament. I do believe the Catholic church discourages the practice. See here.

This is exactly what you need. A thorough study about the matter. :-)

Since I'm 100% swede, I'm not mutilatited either, as they don't do that stupid stuff here. ;-)

Privacy is not a basic human right. Not like freedom to not be murdered, beaten, or starved. There are a lot of human rights violations going on right now, but certain levels of tracking don't even show up on the human-rights-violations radar.

The guys who wrote the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights almost half century ago seemed to have different opinion than yours ;-)

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

More to follow.

From The History of Circumcision

The modern use of Hebrew circumcision as a medicalized practice dates from about 1865 in England and about 1870 in the US.8 The procedure accepted for medical use essentially was the Jewish peri'ah. Moscucci reports that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation.13 Gollaher further describes the history of medicalized circumcision.8 No scientific studies were carried out to detemine the efficacy and safety of circumcision prior to its introduction into medical practice8 Nor were any studies conducted to determine the social effects of imposing genital alteration surgery on a large portion of the population.

• Karma whores fully explained.