Why the problem with circumcision?

Question

I was circumcised at 8 days old as is the religious custom, and I know literally thousands of others, none of whom ever have complications or complaints. I understand problems with getting it done as a teenager or adult though, so don't tell me about that.
Coupled with all the health benefits and New studies, I see no reason why child circumcision is bad. Despite what people say, axial sensitivity is still extremely high, and is not a proven problem (loss of sensitivity) and neither is the argument of discomfort, if you were circumcised at an early enough age

Answer 1

Uhm...hmm...perhaps because if it's not your body, then it's not yours to be removing parts from? Circumcising a non-consenting minor is a violation of human rights and of genital integrity.



The medical benefits are dubious at best. Even if they are proven to be true, an even greater benefit can be achieved through more effective and less risky measures - such as wearing a condom to protect against STDs, which should be done regardless of circumcision status anyways. Also, the medical risks of circumcision - which include hemorrhage, skin bridges, loss of penis, and death, to name a few - by far outweigh any slight medical benefit.



Most of the "new studies" actually disprove old studies about circumcision being beneficial.

If you're referring to studies about circumcision preventing HIV...let me tell you, those studies were highly flawed and poorly conducted.



Loss of sensitivity is guaranteed to happen with circumcision. You can't remove the most sensitive part of a man's body and expect sensitivity to be the same. You can't remove 67% of the nerve endings in the penis and expect sensitivity to be the same. Keratinization is a proven process...it happens when the glans is permanently exposed.



Babies being circumcised feel more than discomfort, they feel intense pain. Just because they aren't able to say, "I'm in pain" doesn't mean they aren't.





"yes, there are many, lower std rates, lower HIV rates, lower rates of cervical cancer in women who's partners are circumcised,"

If that was true, you'd expect to see a correlation trend between countries that do circumcise and their HIV/STD/cervical cancer rates, and countries that don't circumcise and their HIV/STD/cervical cancer rates. But that isn't the case. The USA, where the majority of adult men are circumcised, have the highest HIV and (I believe?) highest STD rates in the developed world. The UK, where most adult men are *not* circumcised, have a very low HIV/STD rate. Clearly, lack of circumcision isn't the issue with STDs and HIV.

Truth is, the majority of men in the USA with HIV or an STD are circumcised. They aren't magically protected just because they're circumcised.

As for cervical cancer, that has, again, been disproved many, many times.



Uhm...your next part about the African countries proves my point. Most African men are circumcised, but they have high HIV/AIDS rates because of the poverty, disease, and lack of safe sex education. Even assuming that African circumcised men DID have a reduced chance of acquiring HIV, I don't know why you automatically assume that that would be applicable to the developed world.



Complications aren't rare at all. Sure, every medical procedure comes with the chance of risks - but THOSE medical procedures are done for actual medical reasons. Or, if they're done for cosmetic reasons, they're chosen by the person who owns the body. Circumcision is the only cosmetic surgery that is forced onto children. It's "cosmetic" because it's medically unjustified and done when the foreskin is perfectly healthy.



Vaccinations don't remove erogenous tissue from the body, and the risks are much lower than in circumcision. And vaccinations actually have medical benefits, unlike circumcision. The two are not comparable.



The major downside of circumcision is that you had your body altered without your consent. Again, I'm staying strong in my position: circumcision is unnecessary, risky, painful, and harmful; the foreskin is a healthy functioning body part; and men should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be circumcised.



If you like being circumcised, good, great for you. But some men hate it.

Answer 2

I will give you my best advice on this. I was circumcised at birth, however I am restoring my foreskin. There are 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin. They are specialized fine touch nerve endings, they get stumulated and receive pleasure differently than any other part of your penis. If you get circumcised you will lose that forever. The part that can be restored with foreskin restoration is just the skin (extension of shaft skin that is grown over time) and the head of your penis is remained covered. When the head is uncovered and rubbing against clothing is becomes less and less sensitive over time. And the sensitivity los never really quits. Guys who have been circumcised for 50 years have more senation loss than someone who has been circumcised for 10. The more it rubbs the less sensitive it gets. Because my head is now covered 24/7 like your is, my old dried caloused skin that was causing my sensitivity loss is gone, and I have semi-moist soft sensitive skin back on my head. I can tell you that right now I have noticed a very significant increase in sensitivity. I would say from the difference I have felt that circumcision reduces sensitivity by about 40%. Maybe not half but very very close. Now with my increases sensitivity I have longer orgasms and more powerful orgasms and I enjoy sex a lot more. I honestly believe that if you don't want a circumcision don't let anyone talk you into it. If it's not something you want you will greatly regret it for the rest of your life. Also circumcised penises aren't cleaner or healthier, those are all myths. You should do some research and you will find that your family is supporting all the old myths that have been disproven. There is no difference between an uncircumcised and circumcised penis. You are right, this can easily be fixed with a frenuplasty. You don't need a whole circumcision. I would just go with that, don't get talked into a circumcision. I can tell you that, that sensitivity loss isn't worth the better or healthier life they are tlaking about. That healthier and cleaner life is a myth and doesn't exist. Plus are you talking to people who have felt the difference? How do they know? I would do what YOU want. Don't do what other people want. If you don't want a significant loss in sensitivity then don't go a head with it. Make your own choice, don't ever think you have to please your family. This is your choice for your own body and they need to respect what ever your choice is. -Connor

Answer 3

It's very basic for me: it's unethical to remove a healthy part of the body without the person's consent. In this case, the body part also has a valuable function. I am so very glad that I wasn't circumcised and I am sorry that my partner was, for both his and my sakes. Circumcision affects sexual function; there is more to the issue than simple sensitivity. Yes, most circumcised men can still orgasm. But what they have to do in order to orgasm is different from what an intact man has to do, and that affects the man's partner. There is more of a gliding motion than needing to rely on pressure and friction and ramming, and the intact glans is soft and moist much like inside of the vagina. It's a completely different experience and more comfortable and pleasurable for the woman.

Answer 4

In the US and in other industrialized countries there is ZERO benefit for cutting off parts of your penis. The risk of STDs, HPV and HIV are the sae for the natural penis men and the cut.



Circumcision does in fact cause sexual dysfunction. Most of the worlds men are natural. That allows people to have natural sex, the way we evolved to have it. Circumcision is a weird thing -- a cutting off of the main male pleasure zones. This is tons of pleasure giving nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones. The dynamics of the penis is changed for good. A woman that says she likes cut men is no better than a man that says he likes cut women (circumcised women typically have had their clitoral hood and labia cut off). This is serious genital modification (mutilation) of the male with more nerves cut than female circumcision. It does lead men to want oral and anal more, because vaginal sex is less satisfying after the cut of these parts. Cut men have more premature ejaculation issues as the scar is now the most sensitive part and they have lost control of orgasm timing. It leads to sexual dysfunction at a young age. The cut men in thr world use most of the VIAGRA consumed.



Get ready America, boys are finding out that they have been harmed. Some are really upset, because some percentage of men that have been cut have premature ejaculation issues caused by the scar -- the most sensitive part of the penis after cut. Some have a curved penis and many a tight painful erection. Most will get ED at a much younger age than natural men. The many many problems are only now being discussed, because of the internet. All get the news that they have lost significant pleasure because of what their parents did. Some want to sue

Answer 5

"But scientifically speaking the only downside to a well done circumcision is the potential loss of feeling."



Even a well done circumcision can result in complications. Reactions to anesthesia, hemorrhage, shock, infection, and even death can all occur as a result of a perfectly executed circumcision. I can't imagine taking that risk with my child when the benefits are practically non-existent (see more on that below). Have you read through obituaries and talked to parents who lost their sons due to a "well done circumcision?"



Medical evidence shows that the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks for most boys, so it's not recommended by any medical associations. Since STDs and infections can be prevented by safe sex and basic hygiene, and neither of those have the risks of surgery, it's not medically preferable. Only in some very rare cases (like severe hypospadias in the penis) is it considered medically sound and overall beneficial. If you weigh the potential risks against the potential benefits, it's just not justifiable.



The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine infant circumcision. See here: http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Where-We-Stand-Circumcision.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token



Quoted from their page: "The existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision."



In some African countries, circumcision has actually increased STD rates. I believe that more organizations like the CDC, the WHO, and other health organizations world wide should be putting far more money into promoting safe sex practices and condom use - including making condoms readily available and affordable (or free) for those who need them. Our sex education programs in this country (the US) are extremely lacking, and our health organizations are spending more money and manpower researching and studying the risks and benefits of circumcision in relation to STDs, as opposed to promoting the most effective forms of STD prevention - safe sex practices, including, but certainly not limited to, condoms.



Here's a very interesting article on why many circumcised men seem satisfied with their penises: http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm



My husband was circumcised as an infant, and he really wishes he wasn't. There are growing numbers of men who are becoming more and more aware of the risks of circumcision and the benefits of having a whole prepuce (foreskin), and more and more men are expressing their displeasure with having been circumcised.



Also, the female genitalia is not meant to be penetrated by a circumcised penis, from a biological perspective. Women are meant to have sex with intact penises, complete with a prepuce. The prepuce has some pretty significant sexual functions. I've been with both intact and circumcised men, so I can testify to the benefits. Circumcised men tend to scrape the vagina and pull moisture out because the ridge around the head is exposed. Intact men have the prepuce to cushion that ridge.



See here for more information on the sexual side effects of circumcision for women, and the sexual benefits of the prepuce. It contains explicit images: http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/



Here's another very well done video discussing the lack of evidence based medicine behind circumcision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Lm396q8KA&feature=player_embedded#at=481 It's very professionally done and doesn't contain heavy bias. It's a pretty cut and dry dissection of medical data.

Answer 6

In developped countries there is **no evidence that circumcised males have less stds**

Why do you think pro-circumcision zealots rely on dubious trials conducted by other pro-circumcision zealots in countries where many people even lack running water? Couldn't they just compare datas from Europe and USA to show us the wonders of circumcision? Or show us how Australian uncut males are plagged with infections and STDs compared to the (culturally identical) cut ones? Or how the collapse of circumcision rate in New Zealand has led to public health disaster?

Stop being so naive dude. Circumcision in USA started as a mean to prevent kids from masturbating (supposedely) and then has been rationalized again and again, claimed to cure diseases as random as tongue cancer and epilepsy.

Answer 7

There are no health benifits to circumcision. We have something called soap and water in this country. Men aren't too stupid to know how to clean and I resent your implication of that. The only time circumcision has medical benifits is when a man has a specific problem. Which a vast majority of uncircumcised men don't.



Circumcision does remove a ton of sensitivity, and if you actually got to exsperience some difference you wouldn't agree that it's still very high. I restored my foreskin after being circumcised for 17 years. I more than doubled my sensitivity. Yeah sex can still be good circumcised but when compared to sex natural there really is no comparison.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say discomfort from circumcision hasen't been proven. Yes it has. My fiance had too much skin removed from his circ and it left him with painful erections. There is your proof.



The studies reffering to low STD, HIV, and Cervical cancer rates have not been proven. Correlational studies can't prove anything. Plus the cervical cancer studies have been disproven for years now. Europe has an overall circumcision rate of 5%. The US has an overall circumcision rate of 75%. Why does Europe have three times lower the HIV and STD rate of America when circumcision is 15 times more common in the US and Europe? Thos studies do not PROVE anything. You need to learn the difference between an exsperiment and correlational study. Also obviously circumcised men can get HIV and STD's, therefore circumcision is not a sufficient way of preventing the spread of HIV and STD's since people who participate in these behaviors circumcised or not are going to get the diseases anyways. Condoms and education are the way to stop the spread of HIV and STD's, not circumcision.



Vaccinations and circumcision really can't be compared on this level. Because vacinations aren't cosmetic surgery, they don't take away sexual pleasure and function, and they don't result in neural and vascular damage. Yes there are risks with vaccinations just as with circumcision, but there are also risks with giving your child cough syrup. Doesn't mean that giving cough syrup to your child is just like a circumcision. People like Eric and I aren't saying that people should never be circumcised. We are only advocating that males make their own decision about what they want to do with their own bodies. Not everyone sees a benifit in mutilating their genitals. I certainly can't stand it. You obviously like it. Why does that mean, that just because YOU enjoy being circumcised, that all males have to be forced to what you like? Why can't you let other men make their own decision.



I don't understand what people don't like about allowing people to make their own decisions about their own body. Since when are so many people in America against freedom of choice?



-Connor

Answer 8

"But scientifically speaking the only downside to a well done circumcision is the potential loss of feeling."



Isn't that bad enough? What is the value of a blood warmed nerveless dildo?



Sooner or later you will find it difficult to maintain an erection during sex, because you can't feel enough to keep yourself stimulated!



And to compare male genital mutilation with vaccinations, get real, I remember the fear of polio, for thousands of young people that meant life in an iron lung. The other diseases that we vaccinate for have similar real threats, not just mostly supposed and rare ones.



More baby boys die from "circumcision" than would get cancer of the penis if they were left intact, (even mutilated males get cancer of the penis)



Your claims of benefits do not hold up. The non-mutilating nations of Europe have much better statistics on all these items than the US even with all the mutilating that has been done here!



Male infant or child genital mutilation is a human rights violation.

Answer 9

the problem about this issue is always controversial is because it is inhumane when parents decided to have it done for their children w/o giving them a choice to decide whether they want to do it in the early age.



and yes hygiene means a lot, but what about HUMAN RIGHT?



some do it because of religious doctrine. well i just can't understand the reason since i am Asian and i have no problem with that. but following a rule so blindly, plus dehumanize a person's right to make his own decision to do the surgery, it is illogical and irrational to me.



so my conclusion is, a person should have the right to decide whether or not he needs to get circumcision in only the circumstance about hygiene-concerning. other than that like a ritual to recognize someone is an adult by having the surgery is just something that i can't understand. time has changed. and it's not about being respectful to a culture, it's about being respectful to human rights.

Answer 10

1. The foreskin is highly erogenous tissue. It contains 20,000 – 40,000 touch-sensitive nerves that produce exquisite feelings of pleasure. Circumcision removes most, or all, of these highly erogenous touch-sensitive nerves. Cut off. Stripped away. Gone forever. And although a circumcised man can still derive pleasure, sex with a circumcised penis can be deficient in many ways. Certainly, circumcised sex is not the sensual experience nature intended.



http://xrl.us/ForeskinSexualFunctions



2. On an intact penis, the foreskin supplies sufficient shaft skin for a comfortable erection. Scientific studies have shown that when the penis becomes erect, the length of the penis shaft can double. Where does the skin come from to cover that longer shaft? From the foreskin. The foreskin--after it moves to the shaft upon erection--has been scientifically shown to provide a doubling of shaft skin.



In contrast, circumcision may cause a man to have only half the shaft skin nature intended. On a baby, the skin removed during circumcision may seem small, but on a fully grown man, it can amount to a loss of one-third to one-half of the man’s penis shaft skin system. This loss is equivalent in size to a 3” by 5” index card--about 15 square inches. Insufficient shaft skin can cause abnormal bowing of the penis when erect. An overly tight shaft skin can often compress the penis’s inner tissue, which can create a discomforting erection for the circumcised man. And insufficient shaft skin, due to circumcision, is the cause.



http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/5broomstick.html



3. The foreskin acts as a natural gliding mechanism to reduce friction, chafing, and dryness during intercourse. Because of the foreskin’s unique gliding mechanism, sex is less abrasive to the vaginal walls of the female. Many women have commented that sex is much more comfortable when the man has a natural, intact penis. Because of the gliding mechanism, sex is also more comfortable for the man, resulting in no chafing, soreness, or burning after intercourse or masturbation.



http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/1hook_scrapes.html



4. The foreskin works to retain lubrication during intercourse by bunching up at the vagina’s entrance. It acts as a dam to block lubrication from escaping. This bunching-up action of the foreskin also provides a delicate pressuring that excites the woman’s G spot, helping her to achieve vaginal orgasm.



http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/2hook_pumps.html



5. Nature designed the penis head to be an internal organ. On the intact man, the purpose of the foreskin is to keep the glans and surrounding tissues protected, moist, and sensitive, for the most complete enjoyment of sex. The foreskin’s moisture keeps the penis head spongy and resilient, which gives both partners a more sensuous experience. The foreskin protects the penis head from drying out and from the abrasive effects of clothing, in much the same way that a woman’s vulval lips protect the female’s sexual parts.



6. An intended purpose in nature’s design of the foreskin is to make intercourse more comfortable and pleasurable for the woman. Anecdotal reports, and preliminary scientific evidence, indicate that women find intercourse with an intact man more satisfying and rewarding due to the extraordinary gentleness, sensuality, and mutuality of the experience.



http://xrl.us/WhyWomenLikeNaturalSex



In contrast, these women report that when men are circumcised, they thrust rougher and tougher, and they are often overly forceful in their thrusting movements--sometimes to the point of banging and pounding.



http://xrl.us/BigBangSex



Certainly, circumcised sex, for the woman, as well as the man, is not the sensual experience nature intended.



http://www.SexAsNatureIntendedIt.com



The answers are in the book Sex As Nature Intended It.



Here is a link to read the ebook version as a PDF document on your computer

(requires Adobe Reader or other PDF doc reader installed on your computer).



http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/ebook.pdf

.

Answer 11

New Study in Kenya finds no association between male circumcision and lowered HIV rates

Answer 12

There are no health benefits to male genital mutilation, called circumcision.



Circumcision is damage, neural and vascular damage to the penis which always reduces sexual feeling, function and ability, as well as the pleasure in masturbation and sex.



Circumcision has no standards; the damage varies wildly from individual to individual. The usual loss of sexual feeling is about 50-75%, but can be much more in some cases.

The location and depth of the wounds to the penis vary---anywhere from the base to the glans.

Some individuals even experience complete sexual dysfunction as a result of the mutilation.



Circumcision is not "one size fits all."



Health benefits? HIV rates and STD rates were and are higher in the USA than in the countries where circumcision is rarely done to males, such as in Europe, Scandinavia, South America and most of Asia.



False statistics were used about some diseases to try to promote circumcision so unscrupulous doctors could make money from mutilating the genitals of children. Many doctors belong to the religions that try to impose circumcision on all males; they're highly biased.

It's easy to make money from mutilating infants' penises. Infants cannot complain, they can't defend themselves, they cannot bring suit nor charges against the mutilators. By the time most individuals realize the damage that has been done to them, it's too late to bring suit.



The doctors charge parents for the mutilation, and then turn around and sell the amputated infants' foreskins for about $200 each for use in various things, such as cosmetic creams. It's big business.



There are hundreds of thousands of males who hate and resent the violation of their bodies and their rights by the mutilation forced on them; I'm one of them.



Not a proven problem? It is for me. I experienced complications as a result of the genital mutilation forced on me as an infant. I didn't know what was wrong with me for years, until I finally found out about non-surgical foreskin restoration, which has vastly improved my sexual feeling and function. Orgasms are much more intense than I ever thought possible.



Most circumcised males are not aware of their diminished sexual feeling/function. Sex still feels good to most of them, but they, like you, have no concept of what it feels like to have a complete, undamaged, intact penis with all of the normal working parts.



Circumcision is one of the major reasons for the high usage of Viagra-type drugs in the USA.



Most of the males in the world are not circumcised----about 80%. It's normal for a male to have a foreskin.



Normal people don't mutilate children's genitals.



That's why there are groups like NORM---Natiional Orgamization of Restoring Men, NOCIRC,

Intact America. Most of the world doesn't need these groups, because most of the world is filled with individuals who think that genital mutilation is perverse and barbaric.



I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you, because if I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.





Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.



A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.



ERIC

Answer 13

This is not a question

Answer 14

i have no problem with it all as i got cut for medical reasons