01/19/2016
10 Circumcision Myths - Let's Get the Facts Straight
In an effort to sell you medical services that are not needed, hospitals have continued a practice that was adopted as a preventative measure against ma********on. Instead of abandoning the practice once Americans became more s*xually liberated, doctors and nurses have begun spreading a number of falsehoods and half-truths in order to justify the amputation a fully functioning organ immediately upon birth. Yes the fo****in is an organ, it has known immunological, s*xual and protective functions.
Easier to Clean
Contrary to popular myth, an intact p***s is no harder to clean than a circumcised one. All it requires is simply rinsing off whenever you bathe; no soap is necessary. For care of infants, simply clean what is seen and wipe from base to tip. Never retract the fo****in on an infant because it can cause serious damage in the form of adhesions. Forcefully retracting would be like ripping your fingernail off as the fo****in is adhered to the g***s and forcing it back will hurt the boy. Taking these steps to clean an intact p***s is far easier than caring for a circumcised infant. A circumcision leaves an open wound vulnerable to infection, a wound that is trapped in a diaper that will likely be exposed to f***s. There’s nothing cleaner about caring for a surgically altered p***s; in fact, it is more difficult than cleaning an intact one.
Prevents HIV
One of the most common myths you hear with circumcision is that it prevents HIV and AIDS. This is simply not true and is based on a handful of highly flawed studies out of Africa. Some of these studies did not take into account important factors that could affect the HIV status of the men in the study. For example, condom use was not tracked in some studies nor was the HIV status of their female partners. All three of the major studies were halted early, which can cause the effects of treatment to be greatly over exaggerated. These studies also experienced high attrition rates of participants. The potential HIV status of these lost participants could potentially skew the statistics.
Many other studies have shown that circumcision did not decrease the rates of HIV among circumcised males and in some cases, being circumcised actually increased a man’s risk of acquiring HIV. One study out of Uganda showed that the female partners of recently circumcised males were at an increased risk of contracting HIV. Another study found that circumcision increased the risk of HIV by as much as 300%, since the instruments used were not sanitized and circumcision directly aided in spreading the virus from person to person.
Prevents Cancer
Another myth of circumcision is that it helps prevent pe**le cancer in men and cervical cancer in their female partners. This is simply not true. Abraham Wolbarst, a doctor in the early 20th century, was one of the first to hypothesize that sm**ma, a secretion more prevalent in uncircumcised males than circumcised males, was carcinogenic and caused cancers. This was debunked later by studies in the 1950s. Further studies found that there was no statistical difference in rates of pe**le cancer between circumcised and uncircumcised males. Even the American Cancer Society has categorically stated that promoting circumcision as a method of preventing cancer is not effective. In a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics, they wrote:
As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for pe**le or cervical cancer.
The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.
Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades. Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and pe**le cancer is inconclusive.
Pe**le cancer is an extremely rare condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Pe**le cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from pe**le cancer.
Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to pe**le and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected s*xual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate.
Even though evidence has shown that circumcision does not reduce the risks of pe**le or cervical cancer, many people continue to perpetuate this myth.
Babies Don’t Feel the Pain
Probably one of the most dangerous myths of circumcision is that babies do not feel pain. Most of the time, baby boys are circumcised with either no anesthetic at all or just a local anesthetic that does little to numb the pain of the fo****in being ripped back from the g***s and then cut off. Many studies over the years have shown that babies do feel pain but a recent study using MRIs on infants is the most telling. This study by Oxford University found that out of the 20 areas of the brain that light up on MRIs of adults in pain, 18 will light up on MRIs of infants in pain. The study also found that babies have a lower pain threshold than adults. It is easy to see from this that yes, baby boys do feel the circumcision and are in extreme pain throughout the whole procedure.
Women Find it More Attractive
Many American women will state that they find circumcised p***ses more attractive than intact p***ses. This is simply because circumcision has been a cultural norm. This statement is not true for most women worldwide where circumcision is not the norm. As more women are educated on the benefits to their own s*xual pleasure when a man is intact, this cultural norm will change.
It Prevents Urinary Tract Infections
Females are far more likely than males to get urinary tract infections. Most men will never have a urinary tract infection regardless of their circumcision status, and even if they do occur, UTIs are easily treatable.
It Doesn’t Affect Your S*x Life
Being circumcised does affect a man’s s*x life. Being intact increases the s*xual pleasure for both men and women. For a man, being circumcised can make it harder to reach or**sm and contribute to s*xual dysfunction. Having a fo****in increases the sensitivity for both the intact male and his partner. It provides a natural lubrication for women.
It’s a Useless Piece of Skin
The fo****in is anything but a useless piece of skin, as many proponents of circumcision will try to tell you. The fo****in has more than sixteen functions and is an important part of the human body. Functions of the fo****in include:
Protection of the g***s from injury
Provides moisture and pH balance
Helps prevent contaminants from entering the urethra
Contains glands that produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme
Provides natural gliding action during s*x
Contains between 10,000-20,000 nerve endings, and seven different types of nerve endings
Even though this is just a short list of the many functions of the fo****in, it is easy to see that the fo****in is not “just a useless piece of skin”.
FGM is Different and/or Worse
The differences between female circumcision and male circumcision are debated, even among intactivists. The basic concept is the same for both: the removal of erogenous tissue. Where people disagree is in how much damage it causes in victims of either gender. Both female circumcision and male circumcision result in lasting harm. Only male circumcision is legal in Western countries. While intactivists may disagree on whether female circumcision results in worse injury than male circumcision, all intactivists can agree that no circumcision should be done on infants and children who are incapable of consent.
Phimosis is a Common Affliction that Must be Corrected with Circumcision
Phimosis is a common misdiagnosis given to parents to convince them to circumcise their sons. This condition is defined as the inability of the fo****in to retract from over the g***s, or head, of the p***s. Diagnosis of this condition is divided into two categories: physiologic phimosis and pathologic phimosis. What many do not realize that it is perfectly normal for an intact infant boy or young child’s fo****in to not be able to retract. In fact, on average, the fo****in is not fully retractable until later in childhood, around the being of puberty or so. As a result, many doctors will diagnose a young infant boy or toddler as having phimosis when in fact his body has not reached the biological state of development where the fo****in retracts naturally. Physiologic phimosis generally resolves itself as boys reach puberty and their fo****in begins to retract naturally. Even if it does not, phimosis does not need to be ‘fixed’ with circumcision. Pathologic circumcision is due to scarring, infection, and inflammation. Treatment may be required if it begins to interfere with urination, but a true necessity for circumcision rarely exists.
Conclusion
When it comes to deciding whether to circumcise your son or not, look at the research. All of the reasons doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals give for circumcision simply are not supported by the facts. These myths need to be debunked every time you hear them. Please help us build an intact generation by educating others on the myths of circumcision and the benefits of leaving baby boys intact.
