it's better to get it done when you won't remember it... two of my friends had it done when they were older, one was 18 the other was 21. MorningWood and stitch's in the penis were not made to go together.
Posted on 04/05/2006 5:19:29 PM PDT by Giant Conservative
The debate about neonatal circumcision is over. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), neonatal circumcision is the result of ignorance, bad medical practice and American social and cultural pressure. Regarding the three most commonly cited justifications for neonatal circumcision (penile cancer, venereal disease and penile hygiene), the AAP now states that the benefits are negligible, which means that the majority of American men are walking around without foreskins for no good reason. Yet, the barbaric practice shows no sign of abating, and for this reason I plan to shed some light on the cultural dark spot of circumcision.
The U.S. stands alone as the only country in the world (including developed, developing and undeveloped countries) where neonatal nonreligious circumcision is routine for physicians and their unwitting patients.
In contrast, 80 percent of the planet does not practice circumcision, and since 1870 no other country has adopted it. China, Japan, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Scandinavia, Holland and Russia have never condoned the practice (except for religious purposes), and of the other countries that do practice neonatal nonreligious circumcision (Canada, Australia and Great Britain), there has been a regimented decline in circumcisions by about 10 percent per decade in accordance with the advice of each country’s own respective medical institutions.
If we take a look at the latter group of English-speaking countries, the statistics show just how wildly disproportionate the U.S. endemic is when compared with its English speaking cousins. In the second-highest-instance countries, Australia and Canada, the amount of neonatal nonreligious circumcisions is estimated to be about 30 percent, compared to Great Britain where only 1 percent of males can expect to have their foreskins cut off before they have even acquired one-word language acquisition to be able to say “No!”. In the U.S., however, the number of circumcised males is estimated to be approximately 80 percent. Only in America has medical science taken a back seat in the fight for the foreskin.
As Edward Wallerstein aptly points out in Circumcision: The Uniquely American Medical Enigma, “[i]n 1971 and 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision declared: ‘…there are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.’” Subsequently, this decision has been endorsed by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 1978 and by the AAP in 1999.
And yet, Wallerstein highlights that “[t]he ‘firm’ declarations should have caused a marked drop in the United States circumcision rate. They did not.” The truth is that neonatal circumcision is deeply rooted in American culture: so much so, in fact, that many American parents actually believe they are doing their sons a service, when, in only one foul slice, the dangers of penile cancer, venereal disease and bad hygiene are purportedly quashed (along with premature ejaculation, masturbation, and general ugliness). But American parents have been grossly misguided.
The AAP affirms that the majority of reported benefits by which parents justify circumcision are groundless hearsay. Notably, penile cancer might be preventable through circumcision of the foreskin, just as the potential for most diseases is eliminable by the complete removal of the vulnerable body part — I bet I could guarantee you would never contract Hotchkiss brain disease if you let me cut your head off too — but the fact is that the foreskin is an important, healthy and irreplaceable part of a child’s body, and in the absence of overwhelming medical evidence proving the link between retention of the foreskin and penile cancer, the AAP has had no choice but to disregard this cultural claim.
Furthermore, as far as the argument that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting venereal diseases goes, Wallerstein crucially highlights that “health” circumcision originated in 19th century England, where the theory emerged that masturbation was responsible for such things as asthma, hernia, gout, kidney disease, rheumatism and even alcoholism.
The Victorian aversion to all acts sexual was fertile ground for genital mutilation to take root and, since the English cultural practice stormed the U.S., beliefs about the purported benefits of the practice have barely changed, while Great Britain has become a born-again circumcision virgin. Consequently, the link proposed between any disease and the foreskin is outdated fallacy — including venereal diseases.
As if that was not enough, the AAP also states that “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.” Consequently, parental supervision of the foreskin is a far more appropriate measure for reducing the chances of infection in a boy’s penis than a radical surgical procedure, especially when the short-term effects of circumcision can include anything from changed sleeping patterns to psychological disruptions in feeding and bonding between mother and infant, profuse bleeding, subsequent infection from surgery, and even death.
Moreover, the AAP recognizes that circumcision causes extreme pain and trauma for infants, since circumcised infants exhibit deterioration in pain threshold as much as six months later when receiving mandatory vaccinations, while the long-term physical and psychological damage is undocumented.
In short, the idea that neonatal circumcision is the answer to all of men’s ills is erroneous. Like the Jewish religious practice of circumcision, American nonreligious circumcision is dependent on the acceptance of cultural beliefs, and the sad truth is that Americans hold to the norm as tenaciously as they hold to the scalpel, although they do not entirely know why because they are not being told.
Religious circumcision is one thing, but circumcision for no good reason ... well, what is the sense of that? There is none! Removal of the foreskin is a cultural mistake, and I hope that on reading these facts you will break the ghastly cycle if the choice ever becomes your own. It’s about time the foreskin became sacred too.
Virtually all studies support my anectodal experience, however.
A quick image search of that word on Google will make the most hardcore of the "leave it a Cavalier, versus Roundhead" crowd convert...
Everytime I see my dog get "excited," it makes me even more happy that Mom and Dad made the right decision.
Red rocket...pretty sick stuff
Prostate cancer cure: Mandatory castration. That'll clear it right up.
Well, I ain't undoing mine!
I think men would complain more about that idea than women would. ;-)
Trying to draw a comparison between male and female circumcision is ridiculous.
Women parts don't retract into a sheath. It's basically all an inside job.
And there has been no evidence that male circumcision decreases a man's sexual pleasure.
if thats the case then why purchase a dildo??????
One really can find anything - anything - on the internet...
"No offense to those who aren't circumsized, but frankly, I think it's nasty looking.
We circumsized our kid, and I'm glad we did."
I think this is the crux of the matter (though, as a Jew, the question is outside the area of choice for me.)
It seems to me that our idea of what a penis is supposed to look like is a circumcised penis---because that's what most of us are (in the US). The uncircumcised penis seems strange to us, but logically, how could it be really?
By the way, what I was a child, my tonsils were surgically removed---as were the tonsils of all children my age. The rationale was similar---to prevent infection. However, I understand this practice has been discontinued.
A few years ago doctors were puzzled as to why Jewish women has a low(er) incidence of uterine cancer(and other problems).. It seems that a critter(microbe) that lives under a foreskin "can" cause that cancer.. seems reasonable too..
I gather you must now be 20 years old?
And there has been no evidence that male circumcision decreases a man's sexual pleasure
OK, no. :)
But I was going to say an uncircumcised penis looks like a small water-logged bagette. [and you can use that as your tagline]
And women never fake orgasms either, right?
I'm sure most women will compliment their man on their penis, regardless of whether or not it really deserves the compliment. Whether it be size, shape, or skill... Most men have such fragile egos when it comes to their penis, and women know this, that women will compliment you no matter how you really rate.
What woman is going to say: "Actually, you're much smaller than average, that foreskin is disgusting, and you have no skills in the sack."
So compliments should always be taken with a large grain of salt and modesty. It may be a bald-faced lie to protect the precious male ego.
What about the pleasure lost by women?
it's better to get it done when you won't remember it... two of my friends had it done when they were older, one was 18 the other was 21. MorningWood and stitch's in the penis were not made to go together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.