Here are the Main Benefits of Circumcision
• It eliminates the risk of phimosis, which affects 1 in 10 older boys and men. This condition refers to a tight foreskin that cannot be pulled back fully, so making cleaning under it, and passing urine, difficult. Phimosis also greatly increases the risk of penile cancer, and is the cause of foreskin and catheter problems in nursing homes.
• It reduces by 3-fold the risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. One in 10 uncircumcised men get inflammation of the head of the penis (which is covered by the foreskin). This rises to 1 in 3 if the uncircumcised man is diabetic. (Diabetic men also have other severe problems.) In contrast only 2% of circumcised men get this condition.
• Means an over 10-fold decrease in risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). Whereas risk of UTI is only 1 in 500 for a circumcised boy; approx. 1 in 50 uncircumcised male infants will get a UTI. This very painful condition is particularly dangerous in infancy, and in 40% of cases can lead to kidney inflammation and disease. Sepsis and meningitis can also result. A lengthy stay in hospital is possible.
• It reduces by over 20-fold the risk of invasive penile cancer, which has a high fatality rate. One in 600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer, which often requires penile amputation.
• Reduces by 30–50% risk of prostate cancer, which affects 1 in 6 men.
• Reduces by approximately 3-fold the risk of getting HIV (AIDS), during sex with an infected woman. That is why circumcision has now been endorsed by WHO and UNAIDS to reduce the AIDS epidemic in high prevalence countries. HIV enters via the vulnerable inner lining of the foreskin of a healthy penis, but can also infect via sores anywhere on the penis (caused for example by genital herpes). In countries that have a low prevalence of HIV the risk of a heterosexual man being infected with HIV sexually is generally low. His risk, especially if uncircumcised, will be much greater if he engages in unsafe sex with people of countries in which HIV abounds.
• It affords substantial protection against sexually transmitted infections such as papilloma (wart) virus (HPV), syphilis and chancroid.
• It reduces by up to 5 times the risk of the man’s female partner being infected by chlamydia or getting cervical cancer (which is caused by HPV). The load of infectious bacteria and viruses that accumulate under the foreskin is delivered into the female genital tract during sex. Chlamydia is rising in incidence and can cause infertility (in both sexes), pelvic inflammatory disease, and ectopic pregnancy.
• It avoids the need for circumcision later for medical reasons (in as many as 10% of uncircumcised males).
• Having a penis with greater esthetic appeal to women, who also prefer it for sexual activity, one reason being hygiene.
• There is no significant difference in sensitivity of a circumcised and uncircumcised penis, nor is there any difference in sensation during sexual arousal.
OV Social
If circumcision reduces the risk of prostate cancer by 30–50%, how does Dr Morris explain that prostate cancer rates are not significantly higher in Europe where circumcision is relatively rare?
If circumcision is so beneficial, why is it that the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend it for all male children? Regarding the claims made that circumcison prevents any kind of disease, the AAP states that "these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." In my state, Medicaid will not pay for a baby boy to be circumcised, because circumcision is a cultural preference, not a nessesary medical procedure. My husband and I decided against circumcising our son, and he has been the picture of health for the first 9 months of his life. His doctor told me that many of the problems that uncircumcised infants have had in the past have been due to the parents forcibly retracting the foreskin in a misguided attempt to clean the baby's penis. I believe that circumcision is not nessesary for my baby boy, if he decides that he wants the procedure when he is older, I will allow it. He alone shoud decide if his penis should be surgically altered.
Less than 1% of uncircumcised men ever need to be circumcised later in life. Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer, and has an equal frequency in America (mostly circumcised) and Denmark (mostly uncircumcised). HPV - a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE - casues cervical cancer, and this is prevented by a) not having unsafe sex, and/or b) a simple vaccine. HIV transmission reduction in African studies is extremely flawed: The circumcised men are taught more about safe sex practices than the ones left out of the study, the rate of "protection" is 50% less chance of contracting it from an infected woman -- abstinance/being faithful to one's wife/partner guarantees 100% protection, and condoms afford 99% protection. I think we see which type of education is needed here : safe/protected and faithful sexual practices, not cutting of the penis and cutting him loose to have sex with any potentially infected partner he wants, under the very false guise of having protection from HIV.
Urinary tract infection? These occur 30 times more often in women/girls than men/boys (either circumcised or not), and less than 1 boy in 100 gets a UTI (circumcised or not). In ALL cases of female UTIs the treatment is ANTIBIOTICS -- NOT cutting their genitals.
There is no medical, social, or ethical defense for this unnacceptible and barbaric practice.
Prof. Morris must have cherry picked all the studies that show the highest benefits of circumcision and ignored the rest (if he is quoting studies at all).
Even fellow arch-circumcisionist Tom Wiswell only claims 1 intact boy in 100 gets a UTI, compared to 1 in 1000 circumcised boys. That means for every 1000 circumcisions, 990 are wasted on boys who would never get a UTI, and one on one who gets them anyway. Meanwhile FOUR in 100 girls gets a UTI without anyone ever thinking of surgery.
The same for his other claims. The studies that show no reduction in sensation are so bad as to be funny. They do that by ignoring the foreskin itself! Any man who has one laughs at such "science".
What a load of bull . If you look at the studies you will see a lot of them were flawed.
The risks of complications far outweigh any negligible medical benefits - if there are any! Which is basically what the whole medical community agree upon. So no, you should definitely not circumcise.
No affect on sensitivity! Are you kidding me?
You can point to a number of hand-picked studies saying there is no difference. But if you look at the studies they are often highly flawed. Are you seriously asking people to believe that a layer of tough skin forming over the glans of the penis has no effect? There have been studies showing that the foreskin is highly concentrated in nerves. Just go to www.sexasnatureintendedit.com to see more on this.
Circumcision is barbaric and has NO benefits. The fact that Dr Schoen is Jewish has likely coloured his view on this considerably - the guy has made a career out of
Your topic heading refers to Repetition Compulsion.
Circumcision for some is a form of Repetition Compulsion that not only involves a person in the personal aspect, but also expands as a form of Societal Repetition Compulsion.
Circumcision, ritual, as a Basic Social Act is an avenue toward an Acculturated Posttraumatic Attachment. This then creates a social common human identity in shared neurosis.
Ritual as the Basic Social Act by Roy Rapport referenced in "Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice," by Dr. Catherine Bell. See: Hobsbawn, eric, et al., "Mass Producing Traditions: Europe, 1970-1914." section "The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge Univ. Press.