The studies they make are on Kenyans. Like... seriously.
And I ask again, how does a flap of skin prevent or cause urinary infections?
Infections from above are often seen in newborns seen with generalized infection or sepsis. If there are many bacteria in the bloodstream, some are likely to get through the filters of the kidney to the urine. This is especially likely if the filters are immature, or if there are a lot of bacteria.
In older children and adults infection most often starts from below. In small children still using diapers, stool (which is largely bacteria) can sit for some time right at the meatus; the longer it sits there, the more likely it is that bacteria may enter the urethra. Baby boys are less likely to have this happen because the head of the penis isn't as likely to sit in stool. (Note, though, that bacteria can hang out in any moist, warm area, and that UTI's in boys under 1 year old seem to happens more often in uncircumcised boys than in circumcised boys since bacteria can accumulate beneath the foreskin.) Sexually active teenage boys and adult men are prone to UTI's because of friction at the meatus, which tends to push bacteria into the urethra (urinating after intercourse helps avoid UTI's)
How does the health argument even enter into it, for those living in first world nations?
Are people in this day and age incapable of cleaning under their foreskin? Or unwilling to, out of sheer laziness? The health argument is borderline absurd. The foreskin protects the glands from harm [and provides significant sexual stimulus at that], just as the nails protect the fingers and hair keeps the head warm. You don't see religious arguments being made for the removal of nails/hails on medical grounds.
Circumcision is mutilation and I detest the idea of a child having a part of their penis removed because of religious observances that have no part in the modern world. Remarkable to think that people still persist in defending male circumcicion, but fall awfully quiet when the topic of female circumcision is raised. It's totally unnecessary in this day and age, particularly when you live in a modern society and you've access to soap, showers and information pertaining to personal hygiene.
And I am not going to be quiet about what you are calling "female circumcision". There's no such thing. It's called Female Genital Mutilation, and that is absolutely and completely different. Women don't have foreskin. Cutting off external genitalia, makes intercourse hurt painfully, and is mainly done to stop women from having sex. Cutting off foreskin does not affect sexual performance or pleasure. Even moreso when done as a baby.I have a family member. He is not circumcised. He is one of the cleanest people you will ever meet. Germophobe, super clean and tidy. He has had more than one Urinary Tract Infection and they have been so, SO painful. If he can get one in his later years being as clean as he is, I think the benefit of not having to worry as much about a UTI is a great health benefit. It's not like you don't clean it just because you're circumcised.
I had a circumcision when I was 4, I had no say in it. It wasn't out of religion, more out of necessity (if they wouldn't have done it I might have lost my willy :S ) I'd rather have a bald(= also more hygiënic) one then none at all
0/2 = 0 , ∞/2 = ∞
2/0 = error , 2/∞ = error
0*2 = 0 , ∞*2 = ∞
From what I've seen, UTI's because you're uncircumcised are pretty non-existant, unless you're dirty. Honestly saying the health benefits of being circumcised make it be worth it, I really just don't believe it.
"Last laugh's on you guys, I had the snip when I was a kid. That means I don't need to wash my cock because I'm not going to get germs! Think of me when you spend 2 minutes washing your penis in the shower, I'll be out doing more productive thngs."
The germs argument is just absurd. Pure laziness on the part of the parent to not educate the child [you can teach them to brush their teeth, but not clean their foreskin, what?] or if the circumcised is an adult, pure laziness on their own part if advocating the germ "argument".
In many ways, I've got the best of both worlds. I've got a fully stimulated penis that is more receiptive to touch than those who have been mutilated, which improves my sex life considerably. It's protected by the glands from harm, and what's more is I don't have the issue of vegetable gardens or fungus growing under my skin. Why? Because I know how to wash the damn thing.
From a female perspective I wish every guy was circumcised. What guy in their right mind would willingly get it done as an adult?
As for uncircumcised... I admittedly only have one experience and it was a major turn off. Disgusting. ALL of my girlfriends agree with me. Sure you can teach a guy to be clean, and I'm sure some are. But I've seen the way a lot of guys live, and looking at their cleaning habits in public, I doubt it's any different downstairs. For some, not all.
I say keep doing it the way their doing it.
It says more about your choice in men, than anything about the link between cleanliness and circumcision. Congratulations, you go for dirty guys.
Imagine the furore if we were wishing every woman suffered female mutilation. Fuck it.
The argument here is whether it shouldn't be done on babies since it is a procedure that carries risk and one that recent studies have concluded doesn't really offer any actual credible health benefits. On the contrary, in addition to the risk to the baby there is loss of sensitive tissue in an area which should have it the most.
It is how nature (and God if you happen to believe in that stuff - I don't) intended it, just like nature intended you to have 2 arms and 2 legs. Now you may have to make sure you clean your arms and legs....but chopping them off or mutilating them is surely not a viable alternative you would agree, no?
If someone would like circumcision for whatever reason, cosmetic and/or religious....they can have it done when they are old enough to legally consent to it much like any other cosmetic surgical procedure. Don't do it to babies who can't consent. It is mutilation by definition if done without consent.
EDIT: I am glad you and your 'willy' made it however, that ordeal sounds scary.
I guess maybe its more important in hot countries, where sweat might be an issue, but its generally not done in the UK - I remember in the shower at school, some guys had it cut, some didnt - no one gave a fuck. Is it really the case in the USA where people would be shunned for not having abit of skin cut off? - it makes very little difference either way - some doctors are for it, some against it - all i know is my grandfather wasnt cut, my father wasnt, I am not, and my son wont be -
A few points
*This is NOTHING NOTHING like female genital mutilation. Thats a horrific practice that takes away a functional part of the anatomy designed to keep a woman down. There is no good intentions or benefit perceived or otherwise. It is truly horrific and saying circumcision is like it cheapens the problem woman face and exaggerates this so called issue.
*As someone in the first few posts said, 20 years ago 80% had it done. Its was normal. Most people here should be around that age so it is normal to us. As being the norm, keeping the foreskin was considered abnormal. Its the way we were brought up. I am very happy with my circumcision. It looks better by far if nothing else.
(I got no fkn idea how Id teach my son to clean it. -To the interweb!)
This is the same I have heard in any conversation. Woman like the circumcised penis. They get the creeps from a circumcised one. Then again I am of the age where most my partners and friends grew up with it. Its the norm. New wave of teens, new way to change the world, its nothing new.
How do you like my "male perspective" then ma'am? You obviously must agree with this considering what you just wrote down.
I am sure you agree with me too of course though right? Considering your words here.
I've seen it myself so it must be true of course.
So yeah lets give every unwilling female child breast implants and a lipo procedure. Approved by you and others like yourself of course.
If you haven't caught my blatantly obvious sarcasm yet, I pity the man who chose/will choose you. Congratulations on trying to justify the mutilation of babies so you can find their genitals more attractive when they grow up. You are despicable.
Last edited by Vokal; 2012-12-08 at 06:20 PM.
Most guys jump in the bathroom and clean up before sex anyway and its not like every women smells of summer berries down their either.
Circumcision wouldnt really keep it any more or less clean, it just mutilates a part of your body. I would hate to be circumsized, sex would be alot shittier.