Reality Check: 14 Myths About Male Circumcision You Most Likely Believe

14 Myths About Male Circumcision You Most Likely Believe 2

By Lillian Dell’Aquila Cannon

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

When I was pregnant with my first child, I just thought that circumcision was what you did, no big deal, and that every man was circumcised. Then one day I saw a picture of a baby being circumcised, and everything changed. Just one tiny, grainy photo was enough to make me want to know more, and the more I knew, the worse it got. It turns out, circumcision really is a big deal.

Male Circumcision Surgery Myths

Myth #1: They just cut off a flap of skin. 

Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis’s skin, not just a flap. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos.


Myth #2: It doesn’t hurt the baby.

Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies’ pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure.

Myth #3: My doctor uses anesthesia.

Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia – only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don’t? They didn’t think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long (Stang 1998). A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour – if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.

Myth #4: Even if it is painful, the baby won’t remember it.

Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby’s brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999 – STUDY). Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest – does that make it right to inflict pain?

Myth #5: My baby slept right through it.

Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body’s reaction to profound pain and distress. Nurses often tell the parents “He slept right through it” so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?

Myth #6: It doesn’t cause the baby long-term harm.

Reality check: Incorrect. Removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting patient is, in itself, harm (more on this point later). Circumcision has an array of risks and side effects. There is a 1-3% complication rate during the newborn period alone (Schwartz 1990).

Here is a short list potential complications.

  • Meatal Stenosis: Many circumcised boys and men suffer from meatal stenosis. This is a narrowing of the urethra which can interfere with urination and require surgery to fix.
  • Adhesions: Circumcised babies can suffer from adhesions, where the foreskin remnants try to heal to the head of the penis in an area they are not supposed to grow on. Doctors treat these by ripping them open with no anesthesia.
  • Buried penis: Circumcision can lead to trapped or buried penis – too much skin is removed, and so the penis is forced inside the body. This can lead to problems in adulthood when the man does not have enough skin to have a comfortable erection. Some men even have their skin split open when they have an erection. There are even more sexual consequences, which we will address in a future post.
  • Infection: The circumcision wound can become infected. This is especially dangerous now with the prevalence of hospital-acquired multi-drug resistant bacteria.
  • Death: Babies can even die of circumcision. Over 100 newborns die each year in the USA, mostly from loss of blood and infection (Van Howe 1997 & 2004, Bollinger 2010).

Myth #7: You have to get the baby circumcised because it is really hard to keep a baby’s penis clean.

Reality check: In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl’s vagina. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out. All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger. It is harder to keep a circumcised baby’s penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment.

Myth #8: Little boys won’t clean under their foreskins and will get infections.

Reality check:  The foreskin separates and retracts on its own sometime between age 3 and puberty. Before it retracts on its own, you wipe the outside off like a finger. After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy’s shower or bath. Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do. Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else! It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than it was to care for their penises. (Camille 2002)

Myth #9: Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma.

Reality check: Actually, smegma is produced by the genitals of both women and men during the reproductive years. Smegma is made of sebum and skin cells and naturally lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women. It is rinsed off during normal bathing and does not cause cancer or any other health problems.

Myth #10: “My uncle wasn’t circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult.”

Reality check:  Medical advice may have promoted infection in uncircumcised males. A shocking number of doctors are uneducated about the normal development of the foreskin, and they (incorrectly) tell parents that they have to retract the baby’s foreskin and wash inside it at every diaper change. Doing this tears the foreskin and the tissue (called synechia) that connects it to the head of the penis, leading to scarring and infection.

Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn’t know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone’s uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl’s vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change. Rather than preventing problems, such practices would cause problems by introducing harmful bacteria. Remember that humans evolved from animals, so no body part that required special care would survive evolutionary pressures. The human genitals are wonderfully self-cleaning and require no special care.

Myth #11: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised. 

Reality check:  Phimosis means that the foreskin will not retract. Since children’s foreskins are naturally not retractable, it is impossible to diagnose phimosis in a child. Any such diagnoses in infants are based on misinformation, and are often made in order to secure insurance coverage of circumcision in states in which routine infant circumcision is no longer covered.

Even some adult men have foreskins that do not retract, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with sexual intercourse, it is no problem at all, as urination itself cleans the inside of the foreskin (note that urine is sterile when leaving the body.)

Phimosis can also be treated conservatively with a steroid cream and gentle stretching done by the man himself, should he so desire it, or, at worst, a slit on the foreskin, rather than total circumcision. (Ashfield 2003) These treatment decisions can and should be made by the adult man.

14 Myths About Male Circumcision You Most Likely Believe 1

Myth #12: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)

Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn’t accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.

Myth #13: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

Reality check:  Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What’s worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% – men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Myth #14: Circumcision is worth it because it can save lives.

Reality check: Consider breast cancer: There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and yet no one would advocate doing this to a baby. It is still considered somewhat shocking when an adult woman chooses to have a prophylactic mastectomy because she has the breast cancer gene, yet this was a personal choice done based upon a higher risk of cancer. The lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall 2008). How, then, can we advocate prophylactic circumcision for baby boys?

Conclusion

Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby.

Related Links: 

About the author:

Lillian Dell'Aquila Cannon

Lillian Dell’Aquila Cannon describes herself as a parent, wife, entrepreneur, thinker, armchair psychologist, amateur anthropologist and an information junkie. Her writing has featured on Psychology Today.

You can read more of Lillian’s writing at her website www.moralogous.com or email her directly at: [email protected]

 


Wake Up World's latest videos

 

Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus

 

  • Miracle River

    Great post. Thank you so much.

  • Miracle River

    Great post. Thank you so much.

  • evanescent21

    Do uncircumcised men have just as good a sexual life as circumcised? Im referring to opportunity not stimulation or performance. I am uneasy about ever having sex with an uncircumcised man, probably out of fear of the unknown, but that leads me to assume that most women are more apt to choose circumcised over uncircumcised. I am also curious because I will need to make this decision in October when my son is born. Oh and a side note, we live in the United States.

    • Jeff

      Only about 18% of men on the planet are circumcised. The entrenched cultural biases we were exposed to have been proven extremely harmful to boys in this country. No medical organization in the world recommends this excrutiatingly painful procedure done on healthy happy babies. It violates the doctor’s oath, the baby’s right to bodily autonomy and the parents’ respect for and protection of their children.

      • Warren Roby

        Healthy babes no. Thats cruel!

        • Sebastian Foye

          I think that most babies in Europe and just about anywhere outside US are born healthy. What do you consider healthy about cutting genitals?

      • steinnn

        More like 25-30 %

        • cosmopolite

          Most of that 25-30% are Muslims, Filipinos, and tribal Africans. I see no reason to emulate such cultures.

    • Jeff
      • MissLyssa

        That is so saddening. ? Poor Babies!

        • Khaleesisdoormat

          Poor adult men who have to have the most painful procedure they could ever endure!

          • steinnn

            Do you say that adult men need to be mutilated (aka circumcised)? If so, why do they need it?

          • Khaleesisdoormat

            SOME men do. Usually because their foreskin is too tight for normal sex without a great deal of pain and blood.

          • steinnn

            One in about 16 000 or so?

          • Khaleesisdoormat

            So? That’s not enough for you?

          • steinnn

            Most tight foreskins are easily cured with steroid creams, stretching or a dorsal slit. A circumcision is very rarely needed.

          • cosmopolite

            A careful Danish study published in 2016, found that only 0.5% of nonMuslim Danes are circumcised by the 18th birthday. That is not a valid reason to circumcise every boy.
            After the age of 6-12 months, boys are circumcised under general anesthesia, and can be given pain killers while they recuperate. Circumcision of older boys is less traumatic, if the foreskin has naturally separated from the glans.

          • cosmopolite

            For many/most American urologists, the only way they know how to treat phimosis is circumcision.

          • MissLyssa

            Have you ever watched an infant circumcision? Just because a baby “won’t remember” the pain (not true) doesn’t make it right. Also have you looked at the facts of infant circumcision and not just with an unbias approach as to wether that fact was discovered by a man or a woman, but also with an eye of compassion knowing that circumcision is wrong and medically unnecessary?? Which has been published by the American Association of Pediatrics. Not to mention, if you really look in to it, you’ll find that majority rules amongst men who regret having a circumcision late in life, and would recommend not having one at all, even for infants. Something about decreased pleasure response and the pain, but what do I know? You should check in to it yourself, that is if you don’t find yourself wasting all your time sifting through the gender of every author of every article you find on the subject. ?

          • Khaleesisdoormat

            Yes, I have. In fact, I’ve even been through the procedure. Can you say the same?

    • Leigh Kornishev

      It’s down to about half in the US these days.

      Also, if you google, there are lists of famous men who were not circumcised. Many of them have been very popular with the ladies.

      There are a lot of women who won’t have sex with circumcised men, because it can be painful and irritating. And they find it upsetting to see that the man was mutilated as a baby.

      Personally, my husband is intact. And I’d strongly prefer any partner to be intact. But I wouldn’t fail to love someone who had had their foreskin amputated any more than I would fail to love someone who had any other body part cut off.

    • VASaint

      I prefer uncircumcised. I think it’s more natural, I hear it’s more pleasurable for the man. I’ve been with an uncircumcised man, and wish more were uncut. I think they’re sexy as hell! The one I was with was probably the best lover I’ve ever had.

    • MissLyssa

      A woman who chooses a circumcised mate for that reason alone is misinformed. There is no reason to be afraid of an uncircumcised man. And there is also no reason to get your son circumcised beyond any other reason than looks. The American Pediatric Assoc has declared that circumcision is NOT medically necessary for the health of your son. Idk how we can still practice it as safe and sane adult humans who have the responsibility to protect* our children. Imagine having been through female-genital mutilation for yourself our your daughter. And then ask yourself if you still need to think about it.

    • egaode

      I find this attitude really strange – I think maybe it only exists in the U.S. Why would you feel uneasy about having sex with an uncircumcised man? That is the penis in its natural state. It is designed for comfortable sex for both of you, while the uncircumcised penis is dryer, harder and less able to lubricate itself naturally. I have never had sex with a circumcised man and would feel uneasy about *that*. It’s like saying women should cut off their labia.

    • roger’d

      Not to be too explicit but I am uncircumcised and personally did not find it to be a problem. Keep in mind that when erect, an uncircumcised penis looks almost the same as a circumcised one because in most cases the foreskin retracts to leave the head of the penis open. Hope that makes sense. Also, I am the only uncircumcised male that my wife has been with and she prefers how I am able to perform during intercourse – because all of my nerve endings are intact I do not need to do a blunt “in and out” motion to feel it, rather we can rub our pelvises together and I can pleasure her more effectively inside. I hope this helps. I understand your concern but please remember that it is cultural bias causing it. From what I understand more and more males are being left uncircumcised these days.

    • cosmopolite

      Some American women who came of age last century find the intact penis distasteful. But the women your son will interact with around 2040 will probably differ from those women in a number of ways. What we deem sexually appealing is a social construction, and the iron law of social constructs is that they can and do change over time. Many American women have trouble enjoying penetrative sex, and some women who’ve been with both kinds of men use social media to reveal that intact works better for them. the upshot is an openness about the natural penis that is growing over time.

    • Chives

      It is known that circumcised men enjoy not only more sex, but also more varied sex. A UK publication just posted that 67% of circumcised men are happy with their status. Only a very small portion were dissatisfied with their being circumcised. Most of the difference was uncircumcised men that would have preferred to be circumcised as infants.

  • tillthen

    If one stands back and looks at circumcision objectively, intelligent humans can only come to one conclusion: IT IS BARBARIC! Thank God, I missed the knife.

    • Rich

      Well said.

    • Rich

      Well said.

  • Leigh Kornishev

    Number 14 might be more thorough if it included the rate of death from circumcision. It implies that there’s a higher rate of death from foreskin than from removing foreskin.

  • Sheileagh

    This info. is appalingly stark but so necessary to be presented to the public.

  • David Biviano

    “with an uncircumcised man, it does not affect size or performance in any way” – but it does! It is painless and comfortable and intimate – so many women have reported this!

  • David Biviano

    Not sure what you’re saying here. I just read a paper yesterday describing how circumcision became mandatory among Jews during the Babylonian period, to enforce the priestly authority after the defeat of the kings, and to bond the men in the tribal blood ritual. God only know what God thinks about all this! 😀

  • montezaro

    So – God makes no mistakes. Yet in this case he screwed up an we have to correct it?

    • MissLyssa

      Right. ?

      • Panagiotis Jones??????? ?????

        First of all, Christians also follow the books of Moses (supposedly), meaning that there is no actual difference in that manner. In Genesis, it says man was created in his image, which would be perfect. Now, I think we can all agree in no way humans are perfect, neither mentally nor physically. So, the Q’uran is as inaccurate as any other book. Why anyone ever decided to cut penises, beats me.

        • MissLyssa

          Somehow it was considered unclean from a religious perspective.. Back then they didn’t have access to clean water so they probably suffered from simple things such as yeast infections, as well as such trivial things as build-up of smegma, etc. But yes to say we are created perfect, that we are saved through the grace of god, but to claim the only way a man can be clean is through circumcision is contradictory. Medical findings show that foreskin kept intact is actually beneficial to the health of the wearer..

          I personally think the recommendations of the CDC and American Assoc of Pediatrics that are pro-circumcision, are reflective of today’s modern, greed-fueled society.. Whereas we are told and given “factual evidence” from governing bodies that state circumcision is necessary even in adult males, only to ensure a constant-steady supply of foreskin to a more cosmetic industry-Face Cream.

          Yes, ppl have believed for centuries that young tissue cells will keep them youthful. Now we have ppl willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for an ounce of baby penis skin cream. I honestly believe this is why we are told such conflicting standpoints on circumcision. Imagine if we were told the truth. “We want and need your son’s to endure the most traumatic pain your child can experience just mere days after their birth, so that we can have a steady supply of penis foreskin to smear on our faces.” No One, would accept circumcision if they only knew the truth about it. ?

          • Rich

            “Somehow it was considered unclean from a religious perspective.. Back then they didn’t have access to clean water so they probably suffered from simple things such as yeast infections, as well as such trivial things as build-up of smegma, etc”

            You are speculating and parroting popular myth, and you are writing as if unaware of the nature of smegma: universal among mammals, both male and female.

    • Rich

      Good question.

  • Gisele

    I used to work across the hall from where they circumsized babies — it was HORrible!! I still wonder if that is misogyny comes from!

    • cosmopolite

      In all cultures, the vast majority of circumcisions are performed by men. In my experience, women are more willing to have an open mind about the foreskin than circumcised men do. I grew up in the USA and never once heard a remark blaming circumcision on mothers or on any female attitudes.

  • Mr_Joshua

    I’ve lived all 54 years of my life without foreskin
    and never missed it. Now here is something that is NOT a myth. As a man
    who was “player” in his younger, unmarried days, I can tell you without
    reservation and after intense interviews with the many many women who
    have performed 0ral on me (seriously), that a cut man will get far
    more head than a man with a foreskin. And that is a fact because most
    of the women I’ve questioned admit to being more willing to do the
    business and they are far far more likely to enjoy it more too. And that
    people is no myth. That alone is worth the cut.

    • Major Mad Dog

      That has not been my experience. You really don’t know what you are missing, oh wait, you do know what you are missing, and it is part of your penis.

    • Julie V

      From a lady, I prefer uncircumcised men. And, love giving them head way more than circumcised men. I was only with circumcised men until my mid 20’s so it wasnt like I grew up on foreskin (lol).. the first one scared me a bit, but I grew to love it and now it is by far my preference. Perhaps ladies in the US are just culturally imposed to prefer circumcised, sad for them. A foreskin makes it all so much more fun.

    • cosmopolite

      When oral is on the menu, every sexual “meal” should begin with 30 second in the bath, where men wash under their foreskins, and women use a washcloth to clean their undercarriages.
      Intact men don’t need blowjobs as much, because they enjoy handjobs more, and women find it very easy to indulge their enjoyment of handjobs.

      • Chives

        I find your statement: “When oral is on the menu, every sexual “meal” should begin with 30
        second in the bath, where men wash under their foreskins, and women use a
        washcloth to clean their undercarriages.” quite comical. Yes, you are right about uncircumcised men having to wash their smegma collectors before using them. A few females out on a ladies night a few years ago brought up just how turned off they were by foreskins, smell and smegma in uncircumcised guys and as one lady stated, it almost always became a mood buster for her to have her boyfriend have to “go scrub himself” every time before intercourse or oral.

        As for intact men not needing blowjobs as much I disagree. No guy “needs” a blowjob. Guys “want” a blowjob and circumcised men seem to be living that want way more than uncut guys. Just an observation (also stated by women who can stay anonymous under their aliases) on social media.

        • cosmopolite

          What you deem “comical” is what my wife does and what she taught me to do as part of our marriage. Your use of “smegma collector” is a gratuitous insult that evidences your bias.

          “A few females out on a ladies night a few years ago brought up just
          how turned off they were by foreskins, smell and smegma in uncircumcised guys…”

          Such sentiments are mainly heard in the USA. I live in a country where men under 30 are seldom circumcised, and I hear no talking or joking of the sort your describe.

          “….it almost always became a mood buster for her to have her boyfriend have to “go scrub himself” every time before intercourse or oral.”

          Her mood is so awesomely fragile, that I wonder how she gets through the ups and downs of life. I wonder how such a woman could have sex while having preschool children in the house. Or while having an aged parent in failing health. Life often falls short of the ideal, yet most of us come to terms with that and get on with life.

          “As for intact men not needing blowjobs as much I disagree. No guy “needs” a blowjob. Guys “want” a blowjob…”
          When I wrote “need”, I was being sarcastic.

          “…and circumcised men seem to be living that want way more than uncut guys. Just an observation (also stated by women who can stay anonymous under their aliases) on social media.”
          I do not understand you here.

          I submit that intact men are less insistent on fellatio, because they derive more satisfaction from PIV and handjobs. This is consistent with Laumann et al (1997; a study based on a stratified random sample of subjects), who found that intact men are less likely to admit to straying off the PIV ranch than circumcised men do.

    • cosmopolite

      When oral is on the menu, men and women should clean their genitalia before entering the bedroom. Circ status does not alter this requirement.
      Don’t put too much faith in what women are willing to say to your face. Rely instead on what women say to each other in social media, esp. when login in under aliases.

      • Chives

        Cosmopolite, I agree with your statement understanding that you live in a culture where you have running hot and cold water, electricity and a nice home over your head. How does this hold true for millions of people who dont have the abilty to “clean their genitalia before entering the bedroom” when they dont have what you have?

        • cosmopolite

          If there is water clean enough to drink, there is water clean enough to rinse off the tip of the penis before sex. If a household has neither such water, nor bar soap, it has far bigger issues than sexual hygiene.
          My concern is routine infant circumcision in the first world. My point is that hygiene and public health in the first world are of a standard to make routine circumcision unnecessary.

        • Stein Andersen

          Homo sapiens would have gone extinct if all those foreskin infections and other problems would actually have been a problem. Soap and showers haven’t been around for that long, and there still are tribes all over the word that still keep their foreskins without any problems. How come?

  • Dia

    This article raises really good points about this issue. Here is a website which delves deeply into it and educates about the physical and psychological effects of circumcision: http://www.circumcisioncomplex.com

  • Julie V

    Right of passages? I have little respect for them when they cause risk to the person. From FGM to the head scars of the South Sudanese tribes.. if they cause pain and have no real value, they need not exist. In fact they often cause great damage. Errors of our ancestors, fed by ignorance. Hebrew people may be excellent in some fields and abilities, but perhaps alternatives for this should be considered, such as genetics related to brain function, access to certain developmentally impactful foods, certain education or cultural practices. All of these sound like they may have a more likely influence on intellectual abilities than circumcision. Certainly for any factor, no lines should be assumed, nor implied with the goal of influence, without proper study. And, on the pheromones note.. I am very often attracted to uncirc men, so I wouldnt say it disrupts those being released at all.. nor would humans have evolved with foreskin if it did greatly interfere in our attraction/reproduction. 😉

  • Val Kenyon

    Foreskins are highly sought after because of the stem cells. I believe doctors are farming them. I know of at least one local (Busselton Western Australia) doctor that retracts little boys to cause damage and then they advise circumcision under medical reasons. It’s disgusting and it happened to my grandson at age 3

  • MissLyssa

    Women are legitimately afraid because they lack information and/or unwilling to educate themselves.

    • Chives

      NO, Its what they have been used to and known their whole lives. How did you become such a know-it-all? You are very biased to what you believe and talk down to all that dont agree with you!! So how about you pull up your pants and give your mouth a chance??

  • Sharktooth Martin

    Ah, leave it alone. It’s a good thing.

  • Willa

    For me this whole convo feels so absurd! Did you guys know that for example the whole Europe has sex with uncircumcised penises! And they most certainly are very happy about it.
    Penises are not created to be cut and they work perfectly fine without any help of scissors – better actually since the circumcised penises were invented to lower the sexual enjoyment (same goes with the cruelest of cruel female circumcising) – so cutting your baby’s penis will only make his sexual life worse if any.
    Pease, don’t hurt your babies.

  • Beth

    I think circumcision is ridiculous. You clearly do not understand research. At all. If you want people to take you seriously, find someone to explain what all those studies actually mean. Stop presenting ecological data as causal.

  • Jack

    What a load of bullshit! I myself am circumcised and let me clear out all the lies that this brainless individual has put up! lie 1 I have a child new born… He has a lot of forskin which will not involve cutting the entire tip off also your foreskin serves no purpose what so ever it does not contribute to any feeling….
    Lie 2 this is the 21st century even if it hurts the baby he will not remember it I myself as living proof and a psychology fact if any human go through too much pain and I mean too much the brain blocks that memory and forgets it forever!
    Lie 3 yes the babies do sleep all the way through it some may not depending on how much anaesthesia is given but 99% of babies have no recollection of even the operation nor any long term damage or pain intolerance as a matter of fact my pain threshold is super high!! it infuriates me that the fact that all this is based on full on bullshit!!

    Lastly at least my penis is clean theres no nob cheese that I have to clean daily or how bad it stinks which is disgusting! Never believe what the internet tells you people especially uneducated ones

    • egaode

      The foreskin serves no purpose?? You clearly don’t know much about anatomy.

  • Bob Ortiz
  • Sebastian Foye

    Please read myth 10 or 11. It was most likely not actually needed.

  • Hannah Jannelle Ballard

    Who cares if you know more or less about a subject than someone else if you’re just going to point that out to people on the Internet without proving yourself either way.
    It comes off pathetic and annoying that you would bet some random person on the Internet all of their belongings that you are MORE right about something they also feel passionately about.
    Insecurity and overcompensation, why not just skip embarrassing yourself next time?

  • Hannah Jannelle Ballard

    Who’s patronizing who?

    • TheBigDG

      Who’s patronizing WHOM..whoops I was just patronizing.

  • Zoheb Zico Walid

    Being circumcised is good. Circumcised men fall below of 60% chances to get infected by HIV. PERIOD!!!

  • greta

    All I know is Scriptures tell you babys are to be circumcised at 8 days old and I’m not one to question HIS ways. I truly feel sorry for those who do, as I’m sure they do not do half of the things HE told us to do either- therefore will not be in the Book of Life.sorry
    I wonder how many who are against circumcision are for abortion. 100 baby a year hmm proof where? What about how many have died from vaccines etc not to mention the millions dead from abortions and doctor related deaths

  • Julie V

    Yes, I do know what I am talking about. How would you plan to settle such a bet? Why do you feel doing so is so vital? You came out lashing with no ideas, logic, or facts of your own. Did your capitalization make you feel powerful? (p.s. I just won everything you own.. pretty sure I know more about the fact that Im attracted to uncirc men than you do lol)

  • Hector

    The human body is sovereign, period.

  • Khaleesisdoormat

    Interesting that most of these anti-circumcision articles appear to be written by (largely unqualified) women. Yet, as a man if I were to publish opinions about what women should do with their body, or that of their infant, I would castigated for it.

    • egaode

      You have a point, but I think the reasoning is that circumcision is generally done to infants, so women end up choosing – all the more reason why it’s kind of horrible. If you want to get circumcised when you’re older, by all means – go ahead. But should mums (and/or dads) really be making this choice for an infant who cannot speak for himself?

      • Khaleesisdoormat

        They should be considering how much a lifetime of enduring pain and trauma would affect an adult who had to have the procedure. Infants will remember nothing.

        • steinnn

          Actually, children remember neurological, it’s scientifically proven.

          • Khaleesisdoormat

            Source. Show your “proof”.

        • cosmopolite

          You wrongly imply that the pain and trauma of adult circumcision is of indefinite duration. That is simply not true.

    • cosmopolite

      I am a qualified man and happen to agree with the female author of the OP.

      • Khaleesisdoormat

        Good for you.

    • cosmopolite

      Believe me, there are men, like myself, who are strongly critical of routine circumcision.
      Keep in mind that circumcision usually happens because a doctor or nurse asks the mother whether she wants her infant son circumcised. Is it surprising that many women of child bearing age have given circumcision a lot of thought?
      Women have no penises but str8 women are END USERS of the penis, an aspect of the female experience that gives women insights denied to str8 men.

  • Annie

    Every single source in this article is 20 or more years old, and if people are basing their decision to not circumcise their son based on “facts” they read on a website entitled “Wake Up World” then… I don’t even know. Yikes.

    • steinnn

      Which means? :-/

  • Hana

    As an European woman reading this, I can say, it is so ridiculous !! This issue doesn’t exist in Europe. Of course we have circumcised men in the society, Jewish and Muslims. As long as you are not part of this cultural tradition, even though I dont want to judge or to approve their practices, there is no reason for any circumcision. Please, educate yourself, mabye this article is the beginning, start to expand your awareness. The internet has more informations about it. To believe, the body has no memory is a lack of awareness. And for women: No, it is no better sex with circumcised men, etc. For joung mothers to do a decision, imagine, it would be a girl, and they would cut off the labia, would you agree this? You would not agree for a Female Genital Mutilation. But why for a boy? There is a lot of misinformation coming from the Medical lobby. As far as I can see, especially in the US. So, it is time to question!! Since I lieve in the US, I suggest far moer questioning what is really going on in this country!! Please inform and educate yourself, it is for your and your families highest good ! (Sorry my English… 😉

  • marty

    It is barbaric to do this to a person unless it is consented. Only the ignorant would do this to a baby.

  • Dee

    Heres another you can add. Circumcision does not hurt more when you are older. My son had phimosis (where the foreskin doesn’t retract) it caused a few infections when he was younger and at 10 *he chose* to have a circumcision. He was in pain for one day, completely managed with paracetamol. After that he was running, jumping, playing (against mine and the drs orders) by the end of the week he just had a scab that has now fallen off.

    It will not hurt your child any more if you wait, just give them the choice.

    *edit* just re-read your bit about phimosis which is false according to the three urologists i consulted for my son. The foreskin should start retracting around 7 years of age.
    The foreskin not pulling back can cause infection, if your little guy gets erections the skin tugs and gets inflamed. If this is not fixed by sexual maturity it can cause painful intercourse. The cream doesn’t always work. I should know, we tried it.

    I get you’re against forced circumcision, as am I. But this is false information. Sometimes it is medically neccesary.

    • steinnn

      He didn’t have phimosis at 10, it’s virtually impossible. The foreskin can start to retract at birth, at five, seven 10, 12 or 14. The average age is in fact 10 something. You did mutilate your son unnecessarily, and he will pay the price as an adult with a dimished sexual sensation. Calling at 10 year for consenting even if you ” “, is stupid. He has no idea of what he looses . You have fallen for the phony phimosis diagnosis. Even if it had been a phimosis, a genital mutilation wouldn’t have been necessary, tugging, or in the worst case a dorsal slit would have done it. American docs are mostly ignorant regarding foreskins. Boys have erections all the time even when they are not retractable, the foreskin is very flexible and will easily stretch along with the erection. The infection statement is a myth.

      • Dee

        Whatever mate. I was the one going to all the appointments and helping him rub the cream on. Sounds like you’re just regurgitating hearsay without experiencing it yourself. Anyway it was HIS CHOICE he was the one who couldn’t stand it anymore. Not me. Keep your misinformed opinions to yourself.

    • cosmopolite

      American urologists lack training and experience in treating phimosis. In Europe, there is a surgical procedure that resolves a lot of phimosis without amputating the foreskin. A very recent Danish study found that only one boy in 200 was circumcised before his 18th birthday.

  • Patostio

    Sure let’s change the original intent of the male body, a feminazi idea.

    • MissLyssa

      Oh please ?

      • cosmopolite

        Misandrist sex-negative mothers are NOT a reason why the American penis became a bald penis.

        • MissLyssa

          Is that a question or are you stating an idea?

          • cosmopolite

            I am summarising 35 years of reading about the possible motives for routine infant circumcision in the USA and Canada, and a dozen odd conversations I had with young mothers last century.

  • Jamie Poston-Benford

    Circumcision is a very personal decision. As in the only person that should be making the decision is the person the genitalia belongs. Intact care of a child is easier than caring for a circumcised child.
    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1063981936997429&substory_index=0&id=232410210154610

  • cosmopolite

    I will comment on each myth.

    1. The foreskin is a sleeve, not a flap. That sleeve is very sexual and hence very rich in nerves. The foreskin is a major part of what is engaged when a man masturbates, receives foreplay, or engages in penetrative sex. This fact is not easy for men circumcised in infancy, and women who’ve been only with circumcised men, to appreciate.

    2. It is a recognised fact that RIC performed without injecting lidocaine hurts like hell.

    3. Most USA doctors trained last century still do not use anesthesia.

    4. The inability to remember the pain of RIC does not mean that that pain does not matter.

    5. A soothing lie maternity ward nurses say when they return freshly cut boys to their mothers.

    6. The AAP admitted in 2012 that there are no studies on the long term consequences of routine infant circumcision.

    7. The real problem here is parents who are too embarrassed to talk about foreskin hygiene to their sons. I suspect that a major reason why circumcision became the middle class fashion starting around 1900 in the USA and UK, was because it was believed to eliminate the need to teach boys about foreskin hygiene, which was seen as putting boys at risk of discovering masturbation.

    8. This claim is not based on comparing data from Europe and Japan, with data from the USA. There is no need to clean under the foreskin before it becomes retractable.

    9. Men who shower several times a week, and slide the foreskin back when they are in the shower, simply do not accumulate smegma or penis odours.

    10. This claim is not based on comparing data from Europe and Japan, with data from the USA. A very recent Danish study found that only 1 boy in about 200 had to be circumcised for a therapeutic reason before the 18th birthday.

    11. Phimosis cannot be diagnosed before age 18. Most cases of true phimosis can be resolved without surgery.

    12. This claim is not based on comparing data from Europe and Japan, with data from the USA. And it remains the case that UTIs are much more common in infant girls than in intact baby boys.

    13. If this is true, what does the USA have the highest rate of HIV+ in the first world??

    14. No one has shown that Europe and Japan have materially higher rates of penile and cervical cancer than does the circumcised USA. HPV is now known to be the causal agent responsible for most of these cancers, and HPV is mostly spread by casual sex without a condom. Intact men who do not smoke and who do not have phimosis very rarely have penile cancer.

  • cosmopolite

    In the 1980s, I thought as you did. Then I began to read testimonials by women who’ve been in relationships with both kinds of men. These women report that the foreskin enhances their sexual experience. They also report that intact men seem to have more intense sexual experiences.

  • cosmopolite

    The bad consequences of routine infant circumcision vary a lot by individual, by partner, and by age. Many circumcised men under age 40 do fine. For one thing, most circumcised men seem to have no trouble fathering children. Problems can begin at any age, but often not before the 40s and 50s.

  • Rich

    As a former infant boy, I approve of this message.

  • Rich

    Sanitation had nothing to do with circumcision until recent Western (chiefly American) medical quackery..

    You say, “We have some scientific understanding of human sexuality.”

    OK. Maybe a little. But who is ‘we’? Certainly not American medicos (with notable exceptions) who are not taught about the structure and functions of the foreskin.

    So, as a public service, here is a scientific presentation of the foreskin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_dzeDvx2QA

    • cosmopolite

      “We” includes some doctors and many social scientists. that understanding is incomplete.

  • Chives

    Rich, I tried to validate your facts on ED and Viagra use. I dont find any statistics to support you claims. The very interesting part on this discussion of “Myths” is that this information is very dated and carefully sidesteps later scientific evidence that disputes much of this information. There is no references to any foreskin issues of any kind. Any and all supporting references to this article are only found on intactivist websites who believe that the more they reference and publish, the more “valid” the information. Nothing like believing your own press.

    So, should I believe science when I research this or should I believe intactivists?

    • cosmopolite

      Last century, the bald penis became the American without there being any investigation of whether or not routine infant circumcision was safe or low risk. This was an unconscionable development.
      The American peer reviewed literature is silent about the possible adverse effects of routine circumcision on sexual function and enjoyment. The claims that peer reviewed literature makes about the prophylactic “benefits” of routine circumcision have yet to convince a single nonAmerican medical association. The American medical literature is also not honest about the complications of circumcision, starting with meatal stenosis. Most deplorable of all, there is no honest counting of botched or lethal outcomes.

    • Stein Andersen

      Which later scientific evidence? Links please.

  • Chives

    If sex as nature intended it was so great with a foreskin, why are there men with foreskins that tear during sex or masturbation, have balantis (tightening of the foreskin), penile cancer and other issues? Just asking!!

    • cosmopolite

      Why do so many circumcised men experience painful erections, a lack of sensation, ED, PE, delayed ejaculation? Why do many women who’ve been with both report dryness or painful intercourse or vaginismus?
      No penis is perfect. The question is which kind of penis is more problematic? If an intact adult penis has problems, circumcision is always an option. If a circumcised enis has problems, its owner is SOOL.

  • Chives

    Loren, I find it hard pressed to read all the negative comments on circumcision. Mostly from men that have not being circumcised themselves and have NO true first hand experience, but profess to be the experts OR its from men that have been circumcised that have issues that they find the first blame to be circumcision. Ironically, they believe that only circumcised men have issues with ED or erections. One poster stated that in Israel that 47% of men (because of circumcision) had ED related issues. Cant see beyond the lack of a foreskin!!! Men get old. With age comes slowdown in all our systems and capacities. The use it or use it mentality really does play into it, but the blame is always the lack of foreskin. As for your statement to intellectual abilities, there is actually facts that support it. How many circumcised men over the years have won Nobel Peace prizes than their foreskin counterparts. Lets see how the intactivists defend that fact since they believed that every circumcised man has been mutilated. Yet they do not believe what the definition of mutilation in the dictionary describes.

    • Jhon Murdock

      Alfred Nobel, whose enormous fortune funds the prizes which bear his name, was intact.

    • cosmopolite

      Chives, I find it hard to read all the negative comment about the foreskin. Mostly from circumcised men lacking lived experience of what it’s like to go through life with a natural penis.
      There are no studies of the possible correlation between circ status and sexual dysfunction. Hence the medical profession does not know whether RIC is safe or not.
      I also know of no studies on how circ status affects the aging of the penis. I would like to see data on annual Viagra sales per 1000 men over 40 years of age, in Israel and in western Europe, controlling for reimbursement policies under socialised medicine. Until I see such data, I decline to comment on circumcision and Viagra use.

      If circumcision enhances the intellect, why are Muslims and Filipinos intellectually undistinguished peoples? Why don’t South Koreans outstrip the Japanese? Why is it that foreskins don’t hold back the Chinese?

      How many circumcised men have won the Nobel Peace Prize?
      I do not talk of mutilation, because that is an emotive term. The dictionary cannot determine whether routine infant circ is or is not a kind of mutilation.

  • Jhon Murdock

    But you were not informed and you did not give permission. It was your body and your choice. Who told you a prepucectomy was needed? Ask to see your doctor’s written medical diagnosis.

  • cosmopolite

    Male circumcision is far more common than FGM. Cultures where men but not women are cut include Judaism, USA, Canada, Philippines, South Korea, and a majority of Muslims.

  • cosmopolite

    Hundreds of American and Canadian women have revealed in closed Facebook groups that they’ve been with both kinds, and prefer intact. A number of out there sex positive American women have used blogs and vlogs to tell the world that they prefer intact: Nina Hartley, Rachel Rabbit White, Betty Dodson, Hollie Redinger, Sheri Winston all come to mind.

  • cosmopolite

    Wallerstein (1980) debunked all pro-circumcision that was in print when he published his book. The “evidence” purporting to support routine circumcision begins with Wiswell (1986). I have examined this literature, and found it wanting. Most of all, it makes claims not borne out by the medical and sexual experiences of the many first world nations that do not circumcised routinely, including New Zealand where I happen to reside.
    The Bible is not an authoritative source re medicine, public health or human sexuality.
    Str8 women have much to contribute to this conversation, because they are END USERS of penises. Many women who’ve been with both kinds of men, have used social media to explain why they prefer intact.
    Many circumcised men have used social media to express their unhappiness with their circ status.
    Most educated people do not have a strong opinion either way about circumcision. So much for “everybody else is wrong”.
    Circumcised men most definitely have sex lives and can reproduce. The question is whether their sex lives are always all that a sex life is meant to be. A definitive answer to that question awaits a quantum leap in biomedical technology. In the interim, please understand that the adverse effects of circumcision most likely vary a lot by individual and partner, and gradually grow worse as a man ages. This is not well documented scientifically, because of American prudishness. Most first world countries are not good places to study the adverse effects of circumcision, because circumcision is either too rare or too common. The best country I can think of is Canada, where both circ statuses are fairly well represented in most demographics.

  • Chives

    All intactivist website propaganda. NOTHING backed by facts.

    • Stein Andersen

      Bull. If you read you’ll see that all cites medical and university studies.

      • Chives

        It only cites parts of studies that support the anti-circumcision agenda.

  • MissLyssa

    Wow Rich you are way more versed about circumcision than I ever thought one could be. Btw I said No to cutting my boy.

  • cosmopolite

    A recent careful review of the Danish experience last decade found that most cases of phimosis can be resolved without amputating the entire foreskin. Only 0.5% of Danish boys were circumcised before their 15th birthday.

    • Chives

      The Danish culture is one that is the most anti-circumcision in the world. Did you expect anything more from that very one sided “experience”?

      • cosmopolite

        Morten Frisch and his coauthors freely admit in print that their studies need to be replicated in nations where circumcision is more common than in Denmark.
        What you wrote above applies even more to studies coming out of the USA and Canada, where the typical middle aged PhD or MD is a circumcised man or is married to one.
        Don’t be so quick to disparage the Danes, who perhaps deserve their reputation for being one of the most civilised countries on earth.

  • cosmopolite

    Do not assume that your situation is a common one. Moreover, the circumcision you underwent was a therapeutic one, which is much less controversial than a routine infant circumcision.
    Was any attempt made to widen the opening of the foreskin? In continental Europe, there is a surgical technique that does just that.

    • Chives

      I know of one other kid in high school and two in the military with me that ended up getting circumcised due to foreskin issues. I was ultimately given a dorsal slit which created more issues with scar tissue and really (I believe) made sex very painful due to the rubbing and scar tissue buildup from it. I had my worst bout of phimosis after that surgery. I would not call it therapeutic at all. Prior to that the doctor used a forceps and forcibly stretched the foreskin as much as he could. Retraction and adhesions became a problem as was smegma buildup. Within one or two days, it became unretractable again. Urination was very painful due to back pressure as the urethra was being crushed by the foreskin over the glans and not letting the bladder or kidneys do their job.

      • cosmopolite

        Your comment is the first I have read by someone who has undergone a dorsal slit. Therapeutic is a matter of intent and prior diagnosis, not of outcome. Hence your dorsal slit was fully therapeutic.
        Did your doctor ever prescribe steroid ointment?
        In Europe, there is a nontrivial surgery that can alleviate phomosis without removing any foreskin. It is my impression that American urologists are never trained to perform this surgery.

        Your condition was ample reason for you to undergo a therapeutic circumcision. It is NOT a reason to perform routine infant circumcision on anyone.

  • cosmopolite

    “why do so many uncircumcised men have issues with erections, tearing of
    the foreskin, balantis and other known issues where circumcision is the
    recommended option?”
    There is no evidence that these problems are common in first world nations that do not circumcise routinely. Circumcision is not the treatment of choice for balanitis.

    “As for the dryness/painful intercourse or vaginismus
    that you bring up, much of that has to do with lack of foreplay in many
    instances.”
    There are American women who report that these problems are the norm with circumcised partners, and never occur with intact ones.

    “When googling “penis problems” almost all issues were
    related to foreskins.”
    In Denmark, 98% of boys have no penis problems, 0.5% required circumcision, and 1.5% had a variety of problems that were easily treated in other ways.

    “I saw very few circumcised guys stating they had
    problems.”
    What you call rare is something I have often read about on the internet.

    “Many men when asked their satisfaction on being circumcised or
    not, more circumcised men were satisfied without foreskins than those
    with.”
    You will get very different results if you conduct a survey of that nature outside the USA.

    • Chives

      Cosmopolite, Have you ever had foreskin problems? If not, then you are fortunate. When you are the one having issues, your outlook will be changed. I did not grow up in a first world nation, nor was circumcision the norm. Circumcision was and still is an option for balantis problems regardless of where you are in the world.

      I stand by my statement on lack of foreplay. Are you stating that only women of circumcised partners ALWAYS have dryness/painful intercourse and partners of intact men, NEVER have these issues? Please state your source of this?

      You sure like your one and only completely one sided Danish study that has been refuted by more than one medical entity. No value placed in that study. They are incapable of being factual, all that is based on their own bias to push smegma and foreskins.

      So take one website: WebMD as an example. Its American focused. Look under Sexual problems and count the amount of uncircumcised/foreskin questions/concerns and advice requested and then do the same for circumcised guy’s questions/concerns, etc. Please provide me the two numbers. I will stand down should the circumcised men have more issues/questions than uncircumcised.

      As for your last statement, I will agree. Most men are biased to their cultural upbringing and what is embedded in their lives. No two are the same, no two people can view or live the same situation and provide exactly the same experience. So yes, 70% (estimated figure overall by a few websites on global circumcision status) of men have foreskins of which most are very content and have no problems.

      What are your thoughts on penile cancer numbers between first world countries?

      • cosmopolite

        “Have you ever had foreskin problems?”

        No.

        “If not, then you are fortunate.”

        In the first world, no foreskin problems lifelong is also common.

        “When you are the one having issues, your outlook will be changed.”

        What is my outlook?

        “Circumcision was and still is an option for balantis problems regardless
        of where you are in the world.”

        The intractability of balanitis is very much a function of heat and humidity. And of easy access to antibiotic and antifungal ointments. Most cases of balanitis in the first world can be resolved without circumcision.

        “I stand by my statement on lack offoreplay.”

        What is that statement?

        “Are you stating that only women of circumcised partners ALWAYS have dryness/painful intercourse and partners of intact men, NEVER have these issues?”

        Many American and Canadian women who have had both kinds of sexual partners report that their intact partners have been more satisfying. This fact is quite different from the straw man statement you attribute to me.

        “You sure like your one and only completely one sided Danish study that has been refuted by more than one medical entity.”

        The only Danish study I put a lot of stock in, was published in 2016. Not enough time has elapsed for it to be critiqued by anyone.

        “No value placed in that study.”

        Why this peremptory dismissal?

        “They are incapable of being factual, all that is based on their
        own bias to push smegma and foreskins.”

        This sentence is evidence of bias on your part.

        Circumcised men are often unaware of their sexual and urological difficulties. Rates of diagnoses of a variety of medical conditions vary a lot by nation, in ways that are unlikely to be real. What is and is not recognised as a medical problem is very much shaped by cultural factors.

        I live in a region with a population of 550K. This region is served by only one urological practice. This practice deals with cancer of the prostate, bladder and kidney. Female incontinence. Kidney stones. And foreskin problems. If foreskin problems were common, one practice could not serve 550,000 people.

        We badly need a study based on data collected from doctors dealing with male urology. Data collected from the USA would then be compared with data collected from continental Europe and Japan. Until such a study is carried out, we will have no clear idea of the urological problems resulting from the presence of the male foreskin.

        “What are your thoughts on penile cancer numbers between first world countries?”
        In nations where men shower daily, and use condoms during casual sex, penile cancer is sufficiently rare to note be a concern.

  • Chives

    Please state the source of your facts as its clearly comes across as opinion without backing of any facts. What book would you like me to read??

  • Chives

    Since you claim you are all factual. Let me ask you this: Do you have a penis? Until you do, you have no first hand experience with having a foreskin or being circumcised. So again, state your facts, not your opinions drawn from intactivist websites.

  • Chives

    I will agree with you there.

  • cosmopolite

    Frisch (2016) found that by the 15th birthday, only 0.5% of Danish boys had been circumcised for a therapeutic reason.

  • cosmopolite

    “Around age 8 or 9 the doctor (who was a huge intactivist)…”
    How do you know that?
    “…was determined not to circumcise me to “cure” this problem.”
    Why did you put cure in quotes?

    “Instead he suggested that my foreskin get stretched.”
    Did he prescribe steroid ointment?

    “He intervened with inserting aprobe and tearing loose all adhesions and forcibly retracting my foreskin at least 4 or 5 times over a year or two. My foreskin tore every time.”
    Your problems may have acquired a major iatrogenic character.

    “Fast forward many years, it had to be cut off because I was unable to have sex for weeks on end due to tears in my foreskin.”
    Why do you think that I object to this therapeutic circumcision performed when you were a consenting adult?

    “All but the kidney valve issues cleared after that.”
    What is a kidney valve?

    “So your quote: “I find it hard to read all the negative comment about the foreskin. Mostly from circumcised men lacking lived experience of what it’s like to go through life with a natural penis” states that you have not encountered anyone that has been through the mill on firsthand foreskin issues.”
    The sentence of mine you quote was not addressed to men who have had legitimate urological issues, but to men circumcised at birth who declare that RIC never has sexual drawbacks.

    “Circumcision was and has proven to be a much better alternative.”
    Therapeutic, or routine?

    “As for your circumcision vs. Viagra comments, many like to use
    circumcision as the excuse when almost all men have a decline in the
    ability to get or keep an erection as they get up in years regardless of
    their circumcision status.”
    I know of no study bearing out what you say here. I would strongly welcome a study of this nature.

    “The medical community in America was well supported and compensated to push Viagra and many doctors still do.”
    I am in no position to evaluate the factuality of what you say here. I doubt you are in a position to know this either.

    “Many men choose to experiment with its use as well to see just how long they can go.”
    This is not valid medical grounds for a Viagra prescription. An ethical doctor should not enable such experimentation.

    “In the UK, the percentage for Viagra prescriptions is far higher for uncircumcised men than circumcised men.”
    Source, please. In the UK, most circumcised men are immigrants from the Third World, who may be too prudish to admit ED to a doctor.

    “So even being uncircumcised can result in being SOOL.”
    I do not say that only circumcised men experience ED. I do suspect that ED is somewhat more common in circumcised men. Studies bearing on my claim need to control for smoking, alcohol, drug use, and blood pressure. I do not claim that statistics on Viagra use are good evidence of anything. Reimbursement policies under socialised medicine are important. In the country I live in, socialised medicine does not reimburse Viagra well. Hence only the upper middle class can afford to use it freely.

  • cosmopolite

    “why do so many uncircumcised men have issues with erections, tearing of
    the foreskin, balantis and other known issues…”
    What evidence is there for your claim here?

    “…where circumcision is the
    recommended option?”
    In the USA, yes, but not in Europe. I know nothing about Japanese urology.

    “As for the dryness/painful intercourse or
    vaginismus that you bring up, much of that has to do with lack of
    foreplay in many instances.”
    The women whose reports I rely on add that lube and foreplay do not solve the problems they experience. There has been very little quality research on the mechanics of sex, since the pathbreaking work of Masters and Johnson 50 years ago.

    “When googling “penis problems” almost all
    issues were related to foreskins. I saw very few circumcised guys
    stating they had problems.”
    Many circumcised men report penis problems in intactivist forums and timelines. These men add that their problems have not been taken seriously by USA allopathic doctors.

    “Many men when asked their satisfaction on
    being circumcised or not, more circumcised men were satisfied without
    foreskins than those with.”
    Lifelong intact men, and men circumcised in infancy, have no basis for making an informed comparison between cut and uncut. All such studies uncover is whether men are happy being what they are. In the USA, the bald penis is the norm, and most circumcised men are glad that they conform to that norm. Intact men can have issues with being intact, because they raised eyebrows in locker rooms when they were boys, and they sarcasm and rejection by the women they dated. THe all too human desire to conform is in the driver’s seat here.

  • Stein Andersen

    Well, I had “phimosis” until I was 11 or 12 without any problems, then it loosened. It’s quite normal and it can happen anywhere between the age on 1 and somewhere in puberty.

  • Chives

    Cecil, Zoheb did not state that HIV protects you. He stated that circumcised men have a 60% lower rate of getting infected with HIV. Yes, I have watched an infant circumcision that was done correctly with anesthesia in a sterile environment. Should I believe your biased opinion over medical science? Does your biased opinion support vaccinations? That too is considered by many anti circumcision zealots to be barbaric and unnatural too.

  • Chives

    Been there. Done that. Decided!

  • Kiwi – Cool story, bro

    It’s science fact, guy. If you had any iota of understanding of the difference between foreskin and not having any, it wouldn’t be a question. No foreskin = the meatus of your penis being more exposed to abrasion and constant stimulation, i.e, it gets desensitized. It’s that simple. Sorry if that’s hard for you to comprehend.

  • Kiwi – Cool story, bro

    Why would a circumcised man have fewer issues with premature ejaculation if sensation isn’t relevant exactly?

  • Kiwi – Cool story, bro

    Also, your personal experience has no impact whatsoever behind the science I mention, so I still don’t see your point. If anything, you’ve proven mine. Premature ejac because the pleasure is more intense. Or can you not see the fallacy you yourself state?