Once considered a cure for maladies from diphtheria to insanity to paralysis. male circumcision is chiefly a phenomenon in the United States, practiced very rarely in Western Europe and most of the rest of the world. Even?nearly eliminated by removal of “unnecessary” breast tissue at birth. It has been suggested that female cervical cancers are increased in spouses of intact males, yet this assertion has not been proven.
One of the unspoken forces behind routine circumcision (especially by certain Gentile religions) is that it reduces masturbation. It is true that it is made more difficult. Since it is no longer believed that this normal practice leads to blindness, hysteria, or deviance, it appears to no longer be a concern. Beauty is another reason for male circumcisions. Of course, this is only an acquired taste, and it has a negative effect on the supposed reasons for the assumed advantage. The absence of protection for the otherwise sensitive glans at the end of the penis causes callusing and reduced sensitivity. This is likely the reason that one circumcision study reports “a more elaborated set of sexual practices” in circumcised males?apparently a need exists to find increased stimulation.
Since the complications of male circumcision appear to be approximately equal to any that are prevented, there may be no reason to prevent this practice for religious or traditional reasons, except that the infant is too young to consent, and the argument of tradition is sexually and racially biased. This practice on girls is referred to as “mutilation” by American and European nations (male circumcision is regarded as mutilation by some Europeans as well). On girls, circumcision is prohibited by law in North America and Europe, preventing immigrants from receiving sterile hospital procedures and forcing them to use more dangerous techniques. Millions of these procedures are performed every year, revealing the great level of customary, religious, and other significance attributed to female circumci?sion in large portions of the world. Still, those immigrants practicing this traditional procedure on their female infants in France and other nations are being imprisoned.” While a portion of female circumcisions are much more severe than typical male circumcisions, clearly I am only showing the weakness in the arguments of health benefits and tradition for American male circumcisions.
The newest argument for the often strongly defended practice of cir?cumcision is a reduced rate of acquiring HIV disease. One study suggested the risk was cut in half by this cut on infant boys. These studies are performed on highly active, low condom-wearing populations. Circumcision does not reduce many other sexually transmitted diseases nor pregnancy, so the point seems rather moot to me. Condom wearing presents an incredibly high reduction of HIV transmission as well as many other sexually ?transmitted diseases and pregnancy. One will need responsibility and protection regardless.
The Canadian Pediatric Society, the British Medical Association, and the?Australian College of Pediatrics all hold firm that routine male cir?cumcision should not be practiced. The American Academy of Pediatrics fluctuates?in its opinion from year to year, but the latest policy statement in?1999 does not recommend routine circumcision, especially since the?American Cancer Society stated it wished the AAP would stop promoting routine circumcision as a prevention of cancer, calling it a mistaken belief. Still,?circumcision is performed on 56% of males in the United States. In 2008,?there were moves by several British parliamentary parties to propose a ban of infant male circumcisions, as they have on females. Their opinion was?that males can make the decision for themselves when they come of age.
Text copyright ? THE BABY BOND by Dr. Linda Folden Palmer