Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
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.
[2 points]3 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 3 years ago by dauguy
Like any other part of the body, the uncircumcised penis is as clean as you care to keep it.
But circumcision sure keeps little boys from having to do things to clean it that might actually feel pleasurable. I suspect the real non-Judaic fondness for circumcision grew out of attempts to prevent masturbation. Certainly routine circumcision in America dates from the Victorian era.
Religion is indeed the first reason. It is not the primary reason in the U.S. today, nor even the root cause (pun not intended! ;)) for the perception that circumcision is necessary
I actually found sites that cite masturbation prevention as one Victorian reason for circumcision, which I had only speculated might be so. None of them gave an actual citation on this, so continue to present that idea as a hypothetical.
It still wouldn't surprise me to see medical information from that ere stating that circumcision prevents self-abuse, or whatever euphemism the putative author used.
Which actually performs functions. As scientists found, once they started looking.
Just because you can live without it doesn't mean it isn't functional. People survive hemispherectomies, but no sane person would argue that half the brain is not functional.
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 9.2%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.
News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.
[1 point]3 years ago by ml66ukReplyEdited 3 years ago by ml66uk
Did you know that is healthy??? :)
Nope. And neither does anyone else. That is, like masturbation resulting in blindness, a complete myth.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyNo; unlike you, I can read.
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.
Not quite.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Granted, it should not be used instead of standard methods of std prevention (condoms), but it should not be dismissed.
So what? It's still stupid. That's like cutting off your breasts to prevent breast cancer to shaving your head out of a fear of dandruff.
come on guys!! for hygienic reasons i sais it was healthy, and the guys are not going to cut off their penis! so dont be so silly erant :)
tis supposed to be very hygienic.
That's always been the hype.
Like any other part of the body, the uncircumcised penis is as clean as you care to keep it.
But circumcision sure keeps little boys from having to do things to clean it that might actually feel pleasurable. I suspect the real non-Judaic fondness for circumcision grew out of attempts to prevent masturbation. Certainly routine circumcision in America dates from the Victorian era.
One of the first reasons that circumcisions were performed was for religious reasons.--http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/82971/circumcised_vs_uncircumcised.html?cat=5
My answer is --No.
Religion is indeed the first reason. It is not the primary reason in the U.S. today, nor even the root cause (pun not intended! ;)) for the perception that circumcision is necessary
I actually found sites that cite masturbation prevention as one Victorian reason for circumcision, which I had only speculated might be so. None of them gave an actual citation on this, so continue to present that idea as a hypothetical.
It still wouldn't surprise me to see medical information from that ere stating that circumcision prevents self-abuse, or whatever euphemism the putative author used.
It wouldn't come with a foreskin if there wasn't a reason for it.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyWhich actually performs functions. As scientists found, once they started looking.
Just because you can live without it doesn't mean it isn't functional. People survive hemispherectomies, but no sane person would argue that half the brain is not functional.
And tonsils?
Absolutely definitely 100% not.
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 9.2%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link: http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.
News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.