Should Boys be Circumcised?

Recommend (1) Comments (4)

Most of what NOCIRC says is fiction and fantasy.

All credible research shows that not only is the foreskin useless, it is detrimental to health.

- It traps bacteria that then invade the urinary tract of infant boys, and older males of all ages. That is why the rate of urinary tract infections is 10 times higher in uncircumcised infant boys when compared with circumcised infant boys. Whereas 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 uncircumcised infant boys get a urinary tract infection, over their lifetime this rises to 1 in 6. Alarmingly, at least half of these infections in infant boys lead to permanent kidney damage. So why risk it?

- HIV enters via the foreskin or a lesion on the pe.nis. The WHO have endorsed circumcision for prevention of HIV infection after large, well-conducted randomized controlled trials showed reduced the risk by 60-75% - i.e., being uncircumcised was associated with an average 3-fold higher risk. See the WHO website for more information. Thus NOCIRC's claim about langerin protecting the p.enis from HIV infection is not supported by clinical trials. If it offers any protection, this is insufficient to prevent all infections.

- The immune system cells in the inner lining of the foreskin act as portals for the entry of HIV into the body and its subsequent destruction of the immune system to cause AIDS. That HIV, human papillomavirus, genital ulcer disease, syphilis, chandroid, genital herpes, thrush and other infections are all higher in uncircumcised men shows that the immune system of the foreskin is at best only partially effective in prevention of infection. This applies to the bacteria, such as E coli and pseudomonas that cause urinary tract infections in infants and older males.

- The foreskin is not needed for an erection. Research shows that most men circumcised as adults state that sex is better after their circumcision. The foreskin prevents the full sexual pleasure of intercourse. In some men it gets in the way, is uncomfortable, causes pain during penetration and generally a nuisance. Circumcised men do not have a lower sensitivity of the flaccid p.enis nor less sensation during arousal, as shown by research by Kimberly Payne in Montreal using thermal imaging measurements (see: www.circinfo.net for ref). Data obtained in a flawed study funded by NOCIRC that attempted to measure sensitivity of fine touch pressure receptors has been properly analyzed by Waskett and Morris and shown to not differe between the circumcised and uncircumcised groups (ss: www.circinfo.net for reference).  If the claims of NOCIRC about gliding, etc were to be true, then one could say that the uncircumcised pen.is is a good tool for rape. Is that their message? I would think that women expect very much more from a man these days.

- Good research shows consistently that there is no difference in time to ejaculation between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For example, in a study of 500 couples, intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (= time from start of vaginal intromission to start of intravaginal ejaculation, recorded by stopwatch) was 6.7 minutes (range 0.7 to 44.1) in circumcised men, and this did not differ statistically from the time found in uncircumcised men of 6.0 minutes (range 0.5 to 37.4) (Waldinger et al. 2005). These times were similar in the Netherlands, UK, Spain and the USA. Intravaginal ejaculatory latency time decreased significantly with age: in men aged 18-30 years time it was 6.5 min, compared with 4.3 min in men over 51 years (P < 0.0001). The data were not affected by co.ndom use. For more about these various studies see www.circinfo.net and references section (National Health and Lifestyle Survey by Laumann et al. 1997; Fink et al. 2002;  Collins et al. 2002, Richters et al. 2006; Senkul et al. 2004; Masood et al 2005; Bleustein et al. 2005;   A US study involving a battery of quantitative somatosensory tests to evaluate the spectrum of small to large axon nerve fiber function found no difference in sensitivity of the glans pe.nis between 43 uncircumcised and 36 neonatally circumcised men (Bleustein et al. 2005). The authors controlled, moreover, for factors that can alter neurologic testing (age, erectile function status, diabetes, and hypertension).

- Given the lack of difference in sensation and sensivity, the NOCIRC claim about a calloused peni.s is not supported. Moreover, histological examination of autopsy specimens by Prof Roger Short and colleagues show no difference in keratin, indicating no difference in degree of callous, should any exist in each type of peni.s

- Some men suffer from erectile dysfunction and impotence, but this has nothing to do with their circumcision as NOCIRC would like others to believe. The claim by NOCIRC that circumcised men are sexually and psychologically damaged and don't realize it or are in denial is not supported by credible research. Those men who are successfully duped into believing that any sexual problems they might have stem from their circumcision are advised to contact the anti-circ groups, thus perpetuating the cult and increasing its membership.

To conclude --- NOCIRC's claims cannot be supported, contradict scientific research findings, and should be disregarded for the nonsense that they are.