I read a study indicating this may be the case.
Could anyone please clarify? Removing your tonsils will prevent tonsilitis later in life, removing your breasts will prevent breast cancer, removing your uterus will prevent uterine cancer, removing the appendix will prevent appendicitis. . .etc. Do you see my point? UTIs only affect 1% to 2% of boys, while the chances of complications from infant circumcision are between 1% to 5% (including infection, bleeding and penile damage). Therefore UTI prevention cannot be justified by circumcision, but rather good hygiene.
The studies on circumcision and HIV have mostly emanated from sub-Saharan Africa. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the evidence is 鈥渃omplex and conflicting鈥? and would not justify routine circumcision in developed countries with low prevalence of HIV.
Penile cancer is a rare disease, affecting only 1 per 100,000 in developed countries. The rarity of the condition is such that it can not justify routine male infant circumcision.
This is what some major health organizations say of infant circumcision:
- AAP (USA): "The procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being."
- NHS (UK): "It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest that it is has any medical benefit."
- CPS (Canada): "We recommend that circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
- RACP (Australia): "After extensive review, the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
edit: PeaceNow, below, circumcision does not remove "excess skin." It removes the foreskin, which is actually a natural and important part of the penis, with many protective, sexual and sensory functions. There is no evidence that circumcision prevents HIV, as a matter of fact it's the opposite; statistics show that in the US where circumcision was performed on up to 80% of males in the recent past, HIV transmission rates are high while in Europe, Asia and South America, where male genital mutilation is rarely performed, the rates are much lower.
Yet certain individuals are trying to promote circumcision to ostensibly prevent HIV in African men. Among the most prominent proponents are Dr. Daniel T. Halperin of Harvard University, and Stephen Lewis of the Stephen Lewis Foundation--formerly the Special Envoy to UN Secretary General. Gee, these men have religious affiliations that practice ritual male genital mutilation. Obviously they are biased for this practice; could this be unethical? Especially since one is from a publicly funded university?
The African statistics that they use to try to justify spreading this mutilation on unsuspecting African men are flawed.
They don't take into account that after circumcision, these men will believe that they are immune to HIV, and the women will falsely believe this also. It is going to INCREASE HIV transmission--and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that!
HIV is caused by a virus; not by a foreskin!!!! no its not! its a big pile of rubbish!!
how can not having a bit of skin at the end of your dick stop you from getting aids! ha ha... surely its got something to do with the amount of people he has sex with and if he uses a condom all the time all not!!.. these `studys` are very dangerous!!! what will they teach boys that there ok to have lots of unprotected sex with lots of women cos there not circumsized so they wont get a STI! its rediculous....
these studys dont tell you about who the men where if they use condoms or not, if infact they have much sex or not, they couls be men who have ever only had sex with one woman, there wife..? its very dangerous to just take them at face value you have to look at al the variables that could affect it. theres no medical reasons for you to have your son circumsized and it will not stop him from getting an STI/AIDS/ETC. only good sex education will!... No. There is no conclusive evidence that it helps protect against HIV. NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! don't be so god damn ingonorant! By leaving a boy uncircumcised, if he's not satisfied with it he can always get cut and end up satisfied in the end. One survey found that about half of circumcised guys would have preferred to had made the decision themselves:
http://www.jackinworld.com/qow/q15.html
Circumcision has become less common. Circumcision rates were as high as 90% back in the 1960s and 1970s (that's partly why today's adults are so... brainwashed, I supposed you could say, about thinking that circumcision is better) but they have fallen to as low as 14% in some states. Here are the statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/U...
The USA is the last developed nation doing it to a large number of newborns without religious or medical needs. (Europeans, Latin Americans, Japanese, and most Australians, Canadians, and Asians don't circumcise):
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html
Christianity doesn't ask for circumcision, either. In fact, sections of the Bible are harsh against circumcision, and the Catholic Church even condemned the surgery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcisio...
In a medical study, it was found that females are more likely to hit orgasm with an uncircumcised man:
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/...
The lubricated foreskin (on the inside... like your eyelids) slides up and down during sex and masturbation to stimulate the head (which is why you don't hear of uncircumcised guys needing lube to masturbate).
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
Studies have found that circumcision reduces sensitivity (this article also mentions how it has lost popularity in the USA in recent times):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2855...
And despite being more sensitive, uncircumcised guys still last in the same six minute range (average) that circumcised guys do:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...
Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs...
Which makes sense, that's how circumcision was promoted in the USA:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/...
Increases erectile dysfunction rates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez...
If too much skin is removed in circumcision, it can make the penis smaller since the penis needs some skin to expand during an erection:
http://drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=21&actio...
http://www.altermd.com/Penis%20and%20Scr...
And circumcised boys have a 10% chance of acquiring meatal stenosis, which is when the opening of the urethra (pee hole) closes up and needs surgery to reopen. (compared to a 1 in 100 chance for UTI, for example)
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.h...
There's pain involved, often why doctors don't want you in the room when it's done:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circum...
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1f21e.htm
(you can search online for a circumcision video, too)
Circumcision does not completely stop penile cancer. The American Cancer Society has already confirmed the myth that circumcision = no cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/conten...
If circumcision did stop penile cancer, then penile cancer would not be more common in the USA (most circumcised adults) than in some European nations, where circumcision is not practiced other than for medical/religious reasons.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.htm...
And a new study found that circumcision does not reduce your chances to get HIV/AIDS. Unlike other studies, this one was done in a developed nation; the USA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22096758/
Of course, there are other risks associated, but those are typically the ones due to surgery. You can research it more here:
http://shorl.com/deprygyfrykiny
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_ba...
As far as cleaning goes, it's really simple. For the first years in life the foreskin doesn't pull back. That prevents stuff like poo/fecal matter from touching the head. Later on all it takes it 5 to 10 seconds to pull the foreskin back and rub the head; it even feels good.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_ba... No it doesn't prevent any of those things. It is a needless barbaric, damaging procedure. It is dying out though thankfully in the USA, which is the only western country that still does it. The rate at the moment is 55% which is still too high. In the rest of the world circumcision is less than 1% for non-religious reasons.
Here is a good place to get an unbiased opinion on all the diseases you mentioned:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/
Non-religious circumcision began in England in the late 1800s and it became extremely popular in English-speaking countries between 1920 and 1950. England introduced the practice to the U.S. At the time, it was believed that masturbation caused a host of different illnesses. Masturbation was considered extremely immoral and many children,both male and female, have been circumcised throughout the years because parents discovered them "in the act." To this day, who doesn't remember the threat associated with masturbation that "you'll go blind?"
It was known even in the late 1800s that the removal of the foreskin (the only moveable part of the penis) would reduce sexual sensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.
A noted Jewish sage, Rabbi Moses Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed, expressed the following:
"...people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation... How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. ...Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement,and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment..."
It was believed that masturbation caused blindness,mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and a host of other ills. It therefore made sense to some physicians that genital surgery would stop masturbation and prevent the onset of these illnesses.
"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 pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment..." John Harvey Kellog, M.D., Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington,Iowa; F. Segner & Co., 1888.
When it was finally realized that masturbation did not cause illnesses, the foreskin became the blame for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.
All of the medical reasons for circumcision have been eliminated by experts.Circumcised men are not immune to suffering from these diseases. The surgery offers no warranty. Circumcision simply removes excess skin at the head of the penis.
It is a cleanliness issue. In theory it becomes easier to be or stay cleaner when the skin has been removed.
Prevention is sort like, if you wash your hands more frequently you prevent potential disease.
Hope that helps. yes, yes having the skin on the end of your penis chopped off will help to prevent you catching aids.... |
