Improve your health, lifestyle, diet nutrition with Circumcision news, facts, tips, other information. Educate yourself about Circumcision help yourself and others live a mor... http://www.livestrong.com/circumcision/rss/ en-US http://www.livestrong.com/article/516506-how-to-clean-a-newborns-circumcision/ Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:50:29 -0700 http://www.livestrong.com/article/516506-how-to-clean-a-newborns-circumcision/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/508287-circumcision-recovery-for-babies/ Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:56:02 -0700 http://www.livestrong.com/article/508287-circumcision-recovery-for-babies/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/507219-circumcision-of-an-infant/ Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:50:44 -0700 http://www.livestrong.com/article/507219-circumcision-of-an-infant/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/502205-baby-circumcisions-healing/ Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:18:15 -0700 http://www.livestrong.com/article/502205-baby-circumcisions-healing/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/275562-how-to-cover-up-a-circumcision-scar/ Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:55:10 -0700 http://www.livestrong.com/article/275562-how-to-cover-up-a-circumcision-scar/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/79454-pros-cons-circumcision/ Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:20:53 -0800 http://www.livestrong.com/article/79454-pros-cons-circumcision/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/50414-side-effects-circumcision/ Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:29:15 -0800 http://www.livestrong.com/article/50414-side-effects-circumcision/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/4999-need-circumcision/ Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.livestrong.com/article/4999-need-circumcision/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/13890-circumcision/ Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 -0800 http://www.livestrong.com/article/13890-circumcision/
Circumcision is a procedure in which the foreskin--the sheath of tissue covering the head of the penis--is removed. Circumcision is usually done within days after birth. Parental consent must be obtained before the procedure is performed.

The practice has been performed since ancient times, when it was done as a religious rite or as an initiation of boys into adulthood. Most Jewish and Muslim parents throughout the world today continue to have their sons circumcised for religious and cultural reasons. In the United States overall, the practice is somewhat less common today than it was 50 years ago, but is still done almost routinely--with parental consent, of course. In the 1800s, it was believed that circumcision helped prevent masturbation. Any circumcised man, however, will tell you that this is not true.

What are the Health Issues?

Researchers have attempted to learn more about whether circumcision prevents infection and certain types of cancer, but more studies need to be done to answer these questions. It is known that circumcision prevents infection and inflammation of the foreskin. It seems to decrease the risk of cancer of the penis. This disease occurs in fewer than one of every 100,000 men in the United States. But there has been a lot of argument in the medical community about circumcision and the risk of cancer. For more on that controversy and the 1999 decision by the American Academy of Pediatrics, see "Cancer Risk" below.

Some studies have shown a greater risk of cervical cancer in female sexual partners of uncircumcised men who are infected with human papillomavirus. Circumcision might also have a role in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. But using a condom is a far more important factor in preventing these diseases than whether or not a man is circumcised.



What are Some Other Reasons For Circumcision?

Cleanliness:
Some physicians say circumcision makes it easy to keep the end of the penis clean, and easier for the parents of infant boys to keep them clean also. This may be one reason why so many parents were told to circumcise their sons. (This is just speculation.) For more on why it is NOT necessary to circumcise your child, see the link to Mothers Against Circumcision at the end of this article.

Other Reasons for Circumcision:
Circumcision is often chosen by parents so that their son will not "look different" from his father or peers. The belief is that an intact (uncircumcised) boy will feel uncomfortable if he does not "match" or look like his others. Many parents say they don't want their son to feel "strange" or "weird" in the locker room at school.

And Yet Another Reason:
It was once believed that circumcision would prevent masturbation; as stated earlier, that was in the 1800s, when masturbation was not looked upon as a healthy thing to be doing. Circumcision does not prevent masturbation or increase fertility. The belief that circumcision enhances the sexual experience for men or for their sexual partners may not necessarily be true, either. I can't confirm or deny this, as I wasn't born with a penis. But many men have written in to say that they believe they are more "sensitive" because of having a foreskin.


Is There a Cancer Risk?

It is widely and falsely believed that uncircumcised men stand a greater risk of penile cancer. That would be a big surprise to many in the medical community.

In March of 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics revised its circumcision policy statement and concluded that there is not sufficient data to support the supposed potential health benefits of circumcision. The organization no longer advocates routine neonatal circumcision.

Here is part of that press release from March 1, 1999, 5 p.m. (ET) Below is a highlight of the policy published in the March issue of Pediatrics, the peer-reviewed, scientific journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), if you care to see what they determined.

CHICAGO - After analysis of almost 40 years of available medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued new recommendations today stating that the benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure.

The new policy statement was published in this month's issue of Pediatrics, the journal of the AAP. “Circumcision is not essential to a child's well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Instead, we encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician, and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child,” says Carole Lannon, M.D., MPH, FAAP, chair of the AAP's Task Force on Circumcision. The policy concluded, however, that it is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this decision. It states that to make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision with their pediatrician.”

That was their conclusion at that time. We will check with them from time to time to see if this information has been updated, revised or changed. This article was written in response to several questions and requests by readers. Thanks for those requests on this interesting and still-controversial subject.


For more information, contact the:

Circumcision Resource Center
Tel/Fax (617 )523-0088
circumcision.org

Web Resources:
Mothers Against Circumcision
mothersagainstcirc.org/]]> http://www.livestrong.com/article/13988-circumcision-problems-and-opinions/ Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 -0800 http://www.livestrong.com/article/13988-circumcision-problems-and-opinions/ By George C. Denniston, MD, MPH

In recent years, the debate on circumcision has been conducted on a relatively low plane, with proponents arguing that circumcision may prevent some rare conditions. Opponents of circumcision argue that it simply has no medical benefits, and is a violation of a man's right to grow up with an intact body. Perhaps the subject can be simplified and raised to a higher plane by focusing on the positive value of the foreskin. Before birth, the glans penis is covered with skin. This skin is not loosely attached. Indeed it is as tightly attached to the glans as is the skin on the hand.

At approximately 17 weeks of intrauterine life, cells in the area of separation between the future foreskin and the glans initiate the process of creating the preputial space (the space between the glans penis and the intact foreskin). This process is completed by the age of 3 years in 90 percent of boys, but it may take as long as 17 years for some boys to have a fully retractable foreskin.

At birth, the separation of the foreskin from the glans has just begun. The newborn's penis is, of course, not yet fully developed. Not only does circumcision interfere with its development, but it requires that the surgeon tear the skin from the sensitive glans to permit removal. As a result, scarring occurs, the surface of the glans thickens and the urinary opening often gets smaller.

If physicians would simply leave the newborn's penis alone, as Dr. Benjamin Spock recommends in the latest edition of "Baby and Child Care," the foreskin would be left to fulfill its several functions. In infancy, the foreskin protects the glans from irritation and from fecal material. In adulthood, the function of the foreskin may at first seem obscure. The shaft and the glans of an intact (uncircumcised) man's penis are covered by skin. Retracting the foreskin reveals the glans and makes the skin on the shaft somewhat loose.

Of what use is this redundant skin? During erection, the penile shaft elongates, becoming about 50 percent longer. The foreskin covers this lengthened shaft. It is designed to accommodate an organ that is capable of a marked increase in diameter, as well as length.

In addition, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and can enhance the quality of sexual intercourse. Anatomical studies demonstrate that the foreskin has a greater concentration of complex nerve endings than the glans. If there were any possibility that the foreskin could contribute significantly to sexual enjoyment, is that not a cogent reason for rethinking our motives for this ritual procedure?
History shows that the arguments in favor of circumcision are questionable. At the beginning of this century, one of the reasons given for circumcision was to decrease masturbation, which was thought to lead to insanity and other "morbid" conditions. We now know that circumcision does not prevent masturbation, nor does masturbation lead to insanity.

More recently, circumcision was promoted as a means of preventing cervical cancer in the man's sexual partners; this notion has been proved incorrect.

The current excuses are that failure to remove the foreskin may contribute to urinary tract infections and penile cancer, but neither of these contentions has been proved. Even if either were correct, the risk of urinary tract infection in an uncircumcised infant is only 1 in 100. Performing 100 mutilative surgeries to possibly prevent one treatable urinary tract infection is not valid preventive medicine--it is just another excuse.

Penile cancer occurs in older men at the rate of approximately 1 in 100,000. The idea of performing 100,000 mutilating (by definition) procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd. Applying this type of reasoning to women would lead to the conclusion that removing all breasts at puberty should be done to prevent breast cancer.

One thousand years ago, the Jewish sage Maimonides said that the effect of circumcision was "to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate...for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when...deprived of its covering from the beginning."

Who has the right to order or perform such surgery on a newborn infant? I contend that no one does--certainly not the physician who should know better--since there is no proven medical reason to do so, and the procedure is known by many to be harmful. Circumcision can always be performed in adulthood for men who desire it, with fully informed consent.

Physicians who continue to perform routine circumcision are not only harming infants but are also harming the integrity of the medical profession. It is hard to accept that these physicians, many of whom have been circumcised themselves, are using their medical licenses to continue this contraindicated practice. This is tragedy perpetuating itself.]]> http://www.livestrong.com/article/14203-circumcision-opinions/ Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 -0800 http://www.livestrong.com/article/14203-circumcision-opinions/
The following was sent to me; it does not necessarily reflect the opinions of this site.

I would like to make some comments about your circumcision article, as it seems quite biased in favor of circumcision. Your entire web page is so well balanced that I really would like to see more balance in this article.

I would particularly like to see the inclusion of some reasons AGAINST circumcision to balance all the "other reasons" for. Some reasons I would like to see AGAINST circumcision follow.

1) Give the boy a choice! If a boy or man decides he wants to be circumcised, then I'm not against it one little bit.This is part of the privilege of living in a free society. But these poor boys never get a choice in the matter. They have to wear it. They never get to experience anything but having their foreskin removed. I would hate to lose my foreskin, and I thank God and my parents for not doing it to me. Thank you Mum and Dad.

What if boys were offered the choice at an age when they were cognizant enough to decide for themselves, and without undue pressures brought to bear on them? Would that be so bad, to give them the choice?

It is harder for a female to empathize with this. The idea is much less personal and threatening to a female, who would not have to go through it herself; but imagine living in a culture in which a baby girl's outer vaginal lips were removed as a matter of course, because it "looked neater," had always been done this way, and was what everybody was used to. This would be the norm; a lot of people would argue for it and not see the harm in it. (BTW, I do know about the practice of female "circumcision" and find it abhorrent.) Does the mere thought of having something like that done to you not feel threatening and invasive?

I wonder how many men there are out there who were never given the choice, and who wish and perhaps agonize over the fact that they are not completely intact. Have there ever been deaths over circumcisions? Have any men ever committed suicide or suffered depression over it? Even if only 1 percent of the entire circumcised population feels this way (I do not have the stats), that is a lot of needless people suffering.

And how many men will simply never know what they're missing, because their parents decided what to do to their bodies for them?

Please, give the boys the choice.

2) Sexual pleasure. I consider myself lucky not to have been born in a culture in which circumcision is automatically, almost unthinkingly accepted as the normal thing to do. I would hate to lose my foreskin, and I can FEEL how good it feels to have one in sex and in masturbation. The feeling of the foreskin sliding up and down his penis is one of the best feelings a man can have in sex, and a completely natural part of it that circumcised men miss out on.

3) Boys are born with a foreskin. It is a natural part of the male body. One of your reasons FOR circumcision is that it "makes it easy to keep the end of the penis clean and easier for the parents of infant boys to keep them clean." I cannot emphasize enough that it is so easy to clean a penis in a shower or bath, just like any other part of the body. Reports of uncleanness of uncircumcised men come from a culture that circumcises and are so completely distorted and exaggerated.

I find this reason to be so tragic, as you truly do seem to be such a “Cool Nurse,” and yet you are buying into this argument that has been repeated so many times that it becomes an ingrained and unchallenged belief.

It is not so difficult to clean a penis with a foreskin. Peel it back and wash it in the shower. Use soap and water, like you would with any other part of the body. It's so very easy to do, yet so many men have lost a sexual part of themselves just because of this silly argument. It may have made sense in older, less sanitary times, but not in this day and age of clean piped water, showers, soap and baths.

How difficult is it to clean the vagina? Would it make sense to mutilate girls' vaginas just to make it easier to clean them? Or to remove the ear lobes to make it easier to clean behind the ears? It seems ridiculous, doesn't it?

IMHO, the unspoken and tribal reasons I see FOR circumcision are:
1) "We already do it, it's our custom and it's what we've always done. End of story."
2) "Our religion says so."

Then any reason that can be found to justify or rationalize it is used in place of these unspoken beliefs--and by not being born with a penis, you really cannot understand the tremendous emotional significance it has to a male human being, in the same way that I could never truly understand what it is like to give birth.

I do, however, suspect that your educational input would probably suggest that the sexual experience is better for the circumcised man, based on the overall pro-circumcision tone of your article. I truly believe that sometimes we just select the arguments that suit our own prejudice or bias, in the same way that a debating team or lawyer will only select arguments that support their case, and reject evidence to the contrary. I wonder if your educational input will indeed suggest that circumcised men have a better sexual experience.

Of course you may prove me wrong here. I am second guessing; well I'll see. I have to say again that by having a foreskin I know how it contributes to my sexual pleasure in the same way that you know how your clitoris contributes to yours. And a woman with no clitoris would only be able to guess.

It is so common to circumcise little boys in the U.S.A. that it is a "culturally normal" thing to do to boys, and uncircumcised boys/men are comparatively rare in the States.

What tends to happen in a society is that a custom becomes acceptable simply because it is a custom--everybody does it, and people tend to make arguments in favor of what they are used to. This process is similar to justification of our mistakes and rationalization of our wrongs. As an extreme example of this, slave holders used to claim that their black slaves "didn't feel pain the same way we do." This rationalized what they were doing (e.g., whipping them) and made it easier for them to push away any guilt feelings they may have had. An obviously fantastic and false claim, but it did the job!

I have observed by reading literature--fictional or fantasy, written by females from around the U.S.A.--that an uncircumcised man is not regarded as sexually desirable, and this is peculiar to a culture where circumcision is the norm. It is probably difficult to imagine a culture in which the reverse were true, but there are many countries where circumcision is not widely practiced and the girls are used to uncircumcised men. In fact, it seems really strange to me to refer to men as "uncircumcised"--it only makes sense in a culture in which the majority of men are circumcised. To me, calling somebody "uncircumcised" is like saying that a person is "undecapitated" because he still has his head on!

I am now asking myself, “Why have I spent hours composing this email until 2:30 in the morning?”, and the answer has just occurred to me. In my view, your article encourages people to circumcise their young boys, and you are more influential than you may realize, and I wish that you wouldn't encourage the circumcision of babies so that more boys could grow up with the choice to keep and treasure their foreskin. It is not a dirty organ.

Paul--Sydney, Australia

Thanks Paul. I reviewed the article and updated it to be more balanced. Thanks for your letter and your opinion; you make some very good points.]]>