CIRCUMCISION: Did you know?

The Daily Barometer ^ | Today | Daniel Cullen

[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.

[toldyou]

ROTFLMAO!

[Malsua]

Your experience reflects what I'm aware of from others.

I was mutilated at birth and deprived. I know...X number of freepers have a vested interest in claiming sex is good among us cut folks. My response is that we are good...just never as good as we could have been. \

I feel cheated to be honest.

[Ignatz]

Thank you, thank you, you're too kind!
I'll be here all week or until the produce hits the stage!
Try the veal...

[Texas_shutterbug]

Yes, it's cleaner!

One of my sons isn't circed since we adopted him past infancy and didn't want to subject him to the surgery by then. Ugh I hope he learns some better hygiene if he hopes to - cough cough - have a varied sex life with his future wife. (I can't believe I just said that about my own son!)

Never thought about it till we adopted him, but I am so glad my husband is circumcised, although I guess it's what you're used to.

[Ignatz]

I feel cheated to be honest.

The worst I ever had was GREAT, so.....?

[Doctor Don]

The newborn baby feels little pain with the procedure.

[durasell]

In fact, it is barbarism, and should be banned worldwide.


My sons were circ'ed by a doctor, not a barber




In truth, it causes Tiki Barberism!

[Ignatz]

have a varied sex life with his future wife

Varied? In what way? Please elucidate, lol!

[Texas_shutterbug]

:)

Well, Monica might be able to explain this better....

Sorry, I've seen little boys circed and uncirced. The ones who weren't just seem - ummmm - smelly.

How this translates into a grown male, I honestly don't know. Other women who have had experience with both might care to enlighten us....

Or does that fall under the category or "too much information?" LOL

[Kozak]

"In fact, it is barbarism, and should be banned worldwide."

How about you worry about your d#ck and your son's, and then get a life.

[musicman]

Rodney Dangerfield joke:

"I'm half Jewish and half Japanese. I was circumcised at Benihana's !!"

[William Terrell]

Ah, then we should care about those welfare brood mares by financing them; if we don't, we don't care and we're not human. We should care about the unfortunate lungs of smokers and emit egregious prohibitions, or we're not human. We should care about the lives of those who want to ingest drugs, and tear down the structure of liberties and constitutional protections to protect them from themselves, or we're not human.

Because we care, and we're human, we'll make sure that everyone is protected from themselves, by law.

Make no mistake about it, such articles are the precursors of legislation, as we have seen countless times before, so this is about denying a further choice to the population some time in the near future.

It is the way these things are orchestrated: first dark informational articles, then exposure of a small "crisis" which hurt people, then a loud cry of the "grassroots", then legislators posturing and introducing legislation, the laws.

For a large extent, caring about those whose obituary we won't even bother to read, is not human; it is liberal.

[Giant Conservative]

Massive over-extrapolation does not a capable argument make.

[Ignatz]

Perhaps it's time for a trip to literotica.com for the full story....

[Ignatz]

Lol! That's funny!

Hey, check out my home page. I'm a music man, too!

[Oberon]

I'm glad I was "mutilated" and I would choose the same for my son.

I was sliced as an infant. I didn't have this done to my sons. If they want it, they can get it done when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves.

[William Terrell]

Neither do short statements of wide and philosophical generalization.

[Giant Conservative]

Actually, short statements of such a nature are exactly what survive the ages and wind up being quoted by future generations!

[Giant Conservative]

If they want it, they can get it done when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Good call.

[William Terrell]

Right. Sound bytes and slogans. Politicians use them also to fool focus challenged individuals and win elections.

Here's one that has survived the ages: "Love means never having to say you're sorry."