Thursday, December 16, 2010

❏This vs That ❐: (Male) Circumcision vs. Natural

Welcome to Thursday's

Circumcision being performed in central Asia,
(most likely Turkmenistan,) c. 1865-1872.
 Restored albumen print.
pic by Wiki user Durova

History and Statistics

It has been variously proposed that circumcision began as a religious sacrifice, an offering to ensure fertility, a tribal mark, a rite of passage, an attempt to emphasize masculinity, a means of humiliating enemies and slaves or as a hygienic measure.

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt. Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples. In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circumcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.  Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood

Male circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.   Religious male circumcision is considered a commandment from God in Judaism. In Islam, though not discussed in the Qur'an, male circumcision is widely practised and most often considered to be a sunnah. It is also customary in some Christian churches in Africa, including some Oriental Orthodox Churches.  
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim. The prevalence of circumcision varies mostly with religious affiliation, and sometimes culture. Most circumcisions are performed during adolescence for cultural or religious reasons; in some countries they are more commonly performed during infancy.

Non-religious circumcision in the English-speaking world
Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900.
The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practised universally.
In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.

Source: Wikipedia

Ok, now that we know a little bit of history, lets' get on with the pros and cons of circumcision...
  1. Circumcision removes the foreskin and therefore prevents phimosis which is the inability to retract the foreskin when it should be retractable, it prevents the painful inability of the foreskin not being able to be returned to the natural position a condition known as paraphimosis and infections and inflammation of the glans penis.
  2. Circumcision is thought to reduce the incidence of urinary tract infections.
  3. Circumcision is believed to lower the risk for cancer of the cervix of sexual partners.
  4. Circumcision may lower the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
  5. Social awkwardness as boys age when not circumcised.
  6. Hygienic issues when boys begin to care for their own personal care after potty training – Not being circumcised can lead to infections if good personal care is not performed after each voiding.
  1. Inability to retract the foreskin at birth is not considered a medical reason in favor of circumcision.
  2. Circumcision is a personal choice made by parents for their newborn infants, there is no medical reason to perform a routine circumcision.
  3. Circumcision can increase the risk of meatis which is inflammation of the penile opening.
  4. Surgical risks involved with any surgery.
  5. Pain caused by circumcision as it heals.
The bitter debate 'to circumcize or not to circumcize' has been going on forever and will probably go on forever more.  I've read as much information on the subject as one possibly can and it seems circumcision is based on 3 factors:
  • Religious - where it is written as the covenant in the bible (Genesis 17:10-14), thereby making this procedure automatic  - pre-determined before the male child is even born. 
  • Medical/Health - where the decision is made if health risks are involved or purely for hygiene reasons. 
  • Social - where men might find their intact foreskin unattractive which in turn decreases their sexual confidence, or their partner may be pressuring them to undergo the procedure because of their own personal preference or sexual needs.
Religious reasons aside, one thing is for sure, circumcision greatly reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS and other infections.  Having said that, I would think wearing a condom and proper hygiene would be less drastic ways to solve these problems. 
As for circumcising a child at birth, I'm sorry, I can't seem to agree with that - there is just no medical reason for it.  That should be a choice that child makes later on in life when he's capable of doing so. 
As for the 'other' reason, you know, esthethics or pleasure, if the woman doesn't like what she sees or feels, then obviously she's not the one........... next!



  1. Kath,

    See my comment here:-


  2. Alex this link doesn't work but I've been to your site and read what you wrote there!

  3. I just don't believe in it and this is something my sister and I always have a disagreement on! So, I'm sure others will disagree with me too, but I don't care!

    I also do not like the fact people use religious excuses as a reason for it. Back in that time when it was needed and people were uneducated about hygiene, maybe, sure.. but now, with the knowledge we have today, it's just torture - for nothing!

    If I didn't know any better, I would say it's more for esthetics reason than anything else.

  4. O.K. Kath ! I 'read' you !

    Please allow me to show you what I meant when I said the word "WOODOO".

    Back, at the late 50's, a new 'Trend' came to town straight from the great and smart USA of America !
    "Your Tonsils are bad for you! They must be taken out !"
    The time were rough, no employment, food rationing, loads of immigrants from north Africa and Europe! "Health care" just started and a lot of sick kids !
    Solution :- "Tonsils out - Ice Cream in !" was the slogan in order to bribe the kids and drag them to the Hospital for the operation ! Like sheep to the slaughter ! ( The Gestapo invented this system a few years earlier... !). For kids who survived on two eggs a week, licking a cone of ice cream was a dream they didn't even in movies (there were no cinemas !...).

    Half of the Israelis of my age, who lived in Israel in those years are "Tonsils - Less" ! (NOT ME !)

    Why ? Because of the STCHIA ! BRAIN WASHING ! IGNORANCE ! TOTALITARISM ! And so on !

    Dig it?

    If ever a "Bitch" will ask me to "Do some cosmetics" on ANY part of my body, I'll turn her face into a "Picasso picture" which no plastic surgeon will be able to fix !


  5. hahaha, I got it!
    Good for you Alex!! And thanks for the quick history lesson! I didn't know this!


Hey! Thanks for leaving your comment!