why is it necessary to cut foreskin off?

Answer 1

It is much easier to keep clean and is more healthy.

Answer 2

It's really not. About 70-80% of the world's men are uncircumcised (they still have their foreskins), so it's clearly not necessary. Some religions require it, and sometimes (albeit rarely) it's medically necessary. There's nothing wrong with having a foreskin, and if it were so necessary for it to be removed or so useless, then guys wouldn't be born with it.

As long as one keeps the foreskin clean and the area underneath it (which is quick and easy), he practices safe sex (which he should anyway), and his foreskin's working normally (which is true for the vast majority of guys), then there's no real reason to have it removed. In fact, it could be a good think to keep it.

Answer 3

It's not. 80% of men in the world never have this procedure done and live perfectly normal sex lives. Circumcision is just a religious custom among Jews and muslims.

In America it's customary to circumcise boys at birth since most fathers in the US have been circumcised and want their sons to look like them. It's the gift that keeps on giving. It was thought at one point (like way back at the turn of the century) that cutting off the foreskin prevented boys from masturbating and since masturbation was seen as basically a disease, doctors began advocating circumcision as a "cure".

Since then and as one myth gets debunked after another, American surgeons have been coming up with all kinds of reasons to keep the tradition alive to ensure that paycheck keeps coming. With learned proper hygene and practicing of safe sex, circumcision is completely unnecessary for medical reasons. Even phimosis can be cured without it nowadays! American surgeons will continue to advocate circumcision as normal despite the fact that pediatricians (American and International) say that it's unnecessary and not recommended.

Circumcision is pretty much a personal choice (or it should be if it was left up to the individual). After years of the majority of American men being circumcised, American's are conditioned to think that a circumcised penis "looks better" than a normal one. With that in mind, the common belief is that is that it's better to get their newborn circumcised at birth so that he won't remember the pain should he decide to do it later in life. As illogical as that is, it completely explains the pro circumcision attitude among the majority (65%) of American's compared to the rare instance of it around the world. Circumcision has some advantages and several disadvantages, but since most American's never really had the choice of whether or not they were circumcised in the first place, most of them have never know, what they have missed one way or the other.

By the way, Jorge should actually get the best answer to this question.

Answer 4

it isn't necessary to cut the foreskin off. most people have this idea that it was a cure to masturbation or it is cleaner or healthier but in reality if you keep yourself clean there is no problem with not being circumcised

Answer 5

mm...i dont recall that it is necessary to cut the foreskin off (the procedure is called circumcision). People do it for a variety of reason e.g. the Muslim community, they do it as part of their religion; some do it for hygiene reasons as the foreskin has folds of skin, it tends to trap dirt and dust and grime, increasing chances of infection if the guy is lax in his personal hygiene...others do it for sexual performance, stating that it enhances pleasure. However, it is not a necessity except if the person is a Muslim, where its a culture and a part of the religious process.

Answer 6

this is a sad subject to dwell on, well my uncle was uncircumcised at birth, but after the army he decided to do it, he was about 40 when he did it, if you want to do it at least you have the choice although he seems to have no soul anymore lol

if they cut it at birth just think of how the glans is unprotected through the years of rubbing against foreign material, people who debate this are not comfortable in their own skin

I kinda think its inhumane, to cut a perfectly healthy baby up for cosmetic reasons, AAP(american association of pediatrics) still maintain the evidence that there are no medical benefits

I believe the son should look like their father, by all means to each his own

Answer 7

It's not necessary at all. 80% of the world's males are intact. Normal intact male genitals are even easier to wash than female ones and it is the same substance (smegma) that is washed away in both cases.
The very idea that you have to cut off so much normal genital skin (15 square inches in an adult) instead of just washing it is crazy. The foreskin makes sex and masturbation better for the male, acting like lube as it slides on itself and many women prefer sex with an intact partner.

Answer 8

it is not necessary but in some religion it ismandetory because in arab ciuntry due to very hot and dryness some times not usually due to foreskin some infection comes out and itching causes removal of foreskin then its become religious

Answer 9

There is absolutely no reason to circumcise males, if it were a "new discovery" today it would never ever be approved. It is still done today either for religious reasons, or (mainly in the USA) because that is what we are used to here. Fathers want their boys to look like they do, and not be "teased" in the locker room. It is becoming more and more common for new parents to decline this unnecessary surgery. (I've seen it done, and when I have children there is no way I will do it to them) If you ask a European they can usually tell you how extremely rare it is in Europe. Americans justify it, saying it is cleaner, but with proper hygiene and instruction on how to retract and replace the foreskin for washing hygiene is not an issue.

Answer 10

Actually it not necessary at all. It is nowdays more of a cultural or religious act rather than a medical one in probably 95% of the cases. It was once done for hygine reasons, (in dessert enviroments, its easier to maintain a circumcised penis) but with the modern lifestyle is no longer necessary.
Men who are uncircumcised have only a slightly increased risk of complications in that area, which is further reduced by normal hygine practices.

Answer 11

Studies and statistics show the opposite of Beacher's claims. It's not necessary to cut the foreskin off. There are many reasons why he would rather not be circumcised. There's a reason why circumcision is no longer popular (the USA is the last developed nation doing it to newborns; and rates have fallen to as low as 14% in some states). There's also risks and negative side effects according to studies. Most 'benefits' are unfounded or contradict either. Most end up getting proven false; from example, the ones that said that it stopped masturbation, penile cancer, wet dreams, etc.

If you're an expecting mother; I recommend that you read these two articles from Mothering.com.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html
http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

Otherwise, here are the risks, statistics, and studies that I mentioned above.Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim surgery, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world (North America and Europe, but especially the USA) as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys just find it more convenient to use a lube like KY or lotion as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin (like the eyelids) is not there to rub the head of the penis with (4).

Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation (they were quite religious back then!), and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)

However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, their sons have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible (you can't go back if you don't like it or if it goes wrong).

Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)

To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. If you're cut or uncut and happy, you'll say that side is better. If you got cut later in life, you'll say cut because you had problems with your foreskin before. If you're cut and had something go wrong or wish to have had a choice, then you'll say uncut. One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.