Aren't ALL Men Supposed to Get Circumcised?

Question

SO, I THOUGHT EVERY MEN GOT CIRCUMCISED AT BIRTH...UNTIL RECENTLY WHEN I GOT WITH MY PRESENT BOYFRIEND.. SO, WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVES OR POSITIVES OF NOT BEING CIRCUMCISED AND WHO GETS CIRCUMCISED

Answer 1

No, outside of some religions/cultures there aren't many valid reasons to get circumcised. Because circumcision has become part of the US culture, it's hard to root out; many myths about the foreskin has popped up, like the one that most men are circumcised.

The foreskin is not dirty if kept clean, certainly no dirtier than any other part of the body. It's really easy to keep clean. The foreskin also has thousands of nerves and it protects the glans, so the inside of the foreskin and the glans are very sensitive. The foreskin isn't significantly more prone to diseases/infections and condoms >>> circumcision anyway. There are studies that say it reduces cancer of the penis and HIV rates, but these can be easily preventable without circumcision (and penis cancer is very low as is).

Circumcisions are sometimes medically necessary when there is a serious problem with the foreskin. Only like 5% of all uncircumcised men will have a problem with his foreskin and only a fraction of that warrants circumcision. Infant circumcisions carry their own risks which many people don't realize. If the complication rate is between 0.2 to 5%, that means that between 2 in 1000 and 50 in 1000 will have some complication, as minor as excessive bleeding to as severe as death. Cancer of the penis is stated at like 1 in 100,000 men, so if even 1 circumcision in 100,000 results in disfigurement or death, the purpose is essentially defeated. So benefits and risks don't always balance out the way people say.

About 80% of the world's male population is uncircumcised, and the rate of circumcision in the US has dropped to between 50% and 60%, and keeps dropping. People are realizing that circumcision is not medically necessary the vast majority of the time, and other factors such as personal hygiene and safe sex easily replace/outweigh most of the benefits of circumcision. Consider yourself and your boyfriend lucky if you've no problems.

Answer 2

No they aren't all suppose to be. It is a personal choice that the parent makes when the baby is Born. Some religions don't believe in it and for some it is a personal preference. I know way back it was considered dangerous bc if done wrong the doctor could hit a vein and the baby could bleed to death. So many parents feared having there baby circumcised. Now days doctors are more knowledgeable and it is not as common to hear of a baby dying of circumcisions. Some people think it is 2 painful for the baby (which it is) but it is more painful for a man to get it done. At least a baby won't remember the pain.

That should be more than enough links to help answer any of your questions.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/medical_care/circumcision.html

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_circumci_hhg.htm

http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.05.07_pros-cons/

http://www.pedsurology.com/circumci.htm

Answer 3

In terms of religion, Christians, Jews, and Muslims circumcise baby boys. The U.S. and Australia are where most of the men are circumcised. By the way, only 20% of the men in the world are circumcised. The rest, 80%, are uncircumcised. In the U.S., from late 1950s - 1980s, 90% (in the 1950s, 1960s) got circumcised, 80% - 85% (1970s) got circumcised, 77% (1980s) got circumcised. Then inthe 1990s it dropped to around 65% - 75%, depending on where you lived in the U.S. Nowadays, the circumcision rate is 35% in western states, 80% in midwest and northeast states, and about 60 - 70% in southern states. Overall, in the U.S., 55% - 65% are circumcised. So it's dropped 10% - 20% in the last ten + years.

Answer 4

If you want to know about the drawbacks, boy have I got some links for you:
http://www.nocirc.org/
http://www.circinfo.org/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.norm.org/

Those are the best sites I've found so far against the practice. At the very least, I think it should not be done at birth or in childhood. I wish I had the option to keep my foreskin, for all the benefits it is alleged to give and for the simple reason that no one has the right to do that to a child's body. Let them grow up and decide for themselves (hopefully an informed decision). Good night!

Edit: I thought this was interesting: "The AAP and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) do not endorse the procedure as a way to prevent any of the medical conditions mentioned previously. The AAP also does not find sufficient evidence to medically recommend circumcision or argue against it." (quoted from http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/medical_care/circumcision.html
)
Thanks to mystique_dragon4 for that one.

Answer 5

My boyfriend of 6yrs has not been circumcised, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with him. In fact, he has a perfect "unit". As long as a man keeps it clean there is no difference to some one who has been circumcised. After all, that is how God made them, and I can't help but think that is the way they are supposed to be.

Answer 6

NO. It is not a written act of law that men are to be mutilated at birth. Some sicko concept that the medical profession has perpetuated. Over 80% of the world's population of men are NOT circumcised. Either way, in goes in and out the same.

Answer 7

When I was in nursing school we did a presentation on circumcision. It is something that I would never ever have done to my child!!

Uncircumcision Does NOT cause cervical cancer in women!!

There are many advantages to being uncircumcised. 70% of the nerve endings are in the foreskin, so sex is actually better.

There is nothing unclean about not being circumcised. It is perfectly natural. It's like saying that a woman is unclean.

Studies show that men who are circumcised have a higher rate of violence and drug abuse. Even though they can't remember it, it is still traumatic and still affects them.

Babies have perforated lungs from crying out of pain and actually gone into shock from it.

Here's a website that talks about the affects of circumcision and increased violence and drug abuse.
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/05/41974.php

Here's a website that talks about how babies can go into shock and their different ways of coping. You can also watch a video of a circumcision. (scroll down to 4th paragraph, very disturbing)
http://www.birthpsychology.com/birthscene/circ.html

Here's a website that talks about all the nerve endings in the foreskin and how circumcision can desensitize the penis:
http://mensightmagazine.com/Library/foreskinis2.htm

Answer 8

Actually it's a choice the parents make. Whether their child is to be circumcised or not. And the only real thing that is different is the foreskin is still there. Just make sure your boyfriend cleans well between the foreskin and the head of penis or else he'll gather bacteria beneath there and if you have intercourse you both can get urinary tract infections. Even oral sex. You can get bacteria in your mouth. Which is the major difference in not being circumcised. Is the extra skin is all.

Answer 9

Well that is an issue that an adult male can decide for himself, either he is going to commit to all the trappings of what ever religion or he had best find another or profess none. If not why is he joining? As far as the claims about HIV, there is a new report out from the cdc: The findings, reported in the journal AIDS, come as the CDC is developing new recommendations on circumcision for reducing HIV transmission. The agency says it is considering whether to recommend circumcision for heterosexual men at elevated risk of HIV, and whether there is enough evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men. With regards to infant circumcision, the CDC says on its Web site, "many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision." The researchers also note, however, that other CDC scientists have concluded, based on their own studies, that circumcision would likely have only a "limited" impact on HIV transmission in the U.S. Did you catch that? "circumcision would likely have only a "limited" impact on HIV transmission in the U.S" and "The agency says it is considering whether to recommend circumcision for heterosexual men at elevated risk of HIV" madison, you think boys should be mutilated by the millions to affect a "limited impact on HIV transmission"? And if they haven't even decided to recommend "circumcision" for heterosexual MEN that are at elevated risk. Why is anybody so ready to inflict it on babies that most likely will not be at high risk.

Answer 10

No, not at all. The US, South Korea and the Philippines are the only countries that circumcise most male children for medical reasons, this was a medical fad in the late 19th century.

It actually doesn't have any proven medical basis other than an alleged but now discredited reduction in cancer of the penis.
It improves hygiene somewhat.