How can circumcision be harmful?

That is 100% a myth that men who are uncircumcised have to wash themselves with soap down there. It causes infections, just like it does a woman as it changes the PH. The foreskin doesn't cause cancer either. Circumcising a male is very painful and it actually can and has killed infants. Would you like someone mutilating your genitals? Also uncircumcised men are not prone to infections. It actually protects against STI's

edit

Myths and facts of circumcision. Notice how it doesn't say you wash your penis, you just rinse it once the male is older.

http://mamanatural.com/circumcision-myths-and-fact...

http://www.intactamerica.org/sites/default/files/M...

Here is a photo of circumcision

http://www.topnews.in/files/Infant-Circumcision-Pe...

Lack of education doesn't make mutilation right.

You do realize that most people around the world are not circumcised, right? Having the penis and vagina not altered is the normal thing.

About 90% of males were circumcised in America during the 1950's, this is why a lot of Americans don't know a lot about the natural human penis. As others have stated you technically don't even need to wash the penis, just like you don't need to wash a vagina.

If an uncircumcised, natural penis gets infected, you treat it the same way that a vagina is treated. If a guy gets a yeast infection, then they put the same medicine that women get. No woman in America gets circumcised for health reasons, so why do you think men need to get circumcised for health reasons?

Also, circumcision of the male or female does not prevent any STD's. A circumcised penis can get any STD as most STD's are transmitted through skin-to-skin contact or bodily fluids.

The worst part about circumcision is that not only is it usually unnecessary, but it actually takes away the sexual pleasure that a penis can experience. A circumcised can NOT experience a true orgasm or feel the pleasures that come from the movement of the penis skin (since, they don't have that much). The circumcised penis becomes an unmovable, stiff, dildo-like body part that not only lacks the pleasures of the foreskin, but also dries out the penis head and makes that desensitized as well. The dry, stiff circumcised penis also creates more friction, which means that the soft female vagina is basically getting a stiff penis rubbed against the vagina. Since, a circumcised man can't feel as much, they tend to go fast when they have sex, like a jackhammer. It's completely unnatural.

The natural penis is actually very much like a natural vagina and a natural penis, is sensitive, is moist, and is floppy and gets "wet," just like the vagina.

Circumcision should only be done by someone who wants to sacrifice their genital for a religious cause, as long as it's their choice, or some medical reason.

The health advantages of male circumcision incorporate a drop in the hazard of urinary tract contamination in the first yr of life by way of up to 90 percentage. ... It drops the danger of heterosexual HIV acquisition with the aid of about 60 percentage. It drops the risk of HPV, herpes virus and different infectious genital ulcers. This is one cause why circumcision is a health improvement. Believe me it's not hazardous in any respect. It is less complicated to clean and to take care of. Actually i have numerous guy acquaintances who got circumcised when they had been 18, they do not remorse the decision in any respect they are saying that intercourse feels better when a man is circumcised considering the fact that the penis head is more touchy now that it is out. The circumcision that you are pondering of that's detrimental is female genital mutilation which is practiced in some African international locations to ensure a woman does not have sex until marriage which is type of fine in view that it means no snoozing round with any man however whilst it can be horrible due to the fact they take out your labias and clitoris so intercourse will under no circumstances believe great once more after which they stich up your vagina with a small gap left for period blood and urine. However infections can construct up beneath and when the girl will get married her husband is to tear it open and a lady can die from this barbaric ritual at the same time giving delivery. Additionally with FGM they don't use anesthesia, making it extremely painful, whereas with male circumcision, it is more commonly carried out when the boy is just a few days historical in a medical institution or if he's Jewish or Muslim, in a synagogue or mosque with primarily educated authorities. Also they're going to not don't forget whatever, for instance when my little brother was once having his circumcision executed he definitely slept through the whole procedure. If it is carried out in maturity, which you could have anesthesia and the circumcision approach most effective takes 30 minutes, maybe even less.

Probably a religious thing, some people oddly enough make a big deal out of it. Neither is better or worse then the other as long as it's kept clean and functions properly. The foreskin can bring up certain complications so early removal can prevent these however to some people they consider it an act of cruelty and something inhumane. Circumcision later in life can actually cause problems psychologically for some men. So no circumcision does not technically harm unless you consider the actual procedure "harming".

Lillith, perhaps you should get a female circumcision done to yourself, because uncircumcised women are always getting infections down there..................and almost 100% of the women in the USA who get cancer in the reproductive organs are not circumcised.

I don't believe your tale about removing penises because of males not being circumcised.

The only case I heard of with penile cancer was one in which the unfortunate individual was circumcised, when I worked for a hospital.

How can circumcision not be harmful----mutilating the genitals damages sexual feeling and function.

It's the same for male and female circumcision.

Google "David Reimer" to see an extreme case of how circumcision can go terribly, terribly wrong.

There are no standards to male genital mutilation, called circumcision, so the damage varies wildly from individual to individual.

If you had had a female circumcision forced on you as a child, perhaps you would have a different attitude about forcing it on male children.

Circunmcision is a fraud and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

ERIC

Ignore John. He is anti uncircumcision and creates lies just to try to make him credible. Here are myths he has used.

1.It is not harmful.(A total lie. It is high risk and people have died because of it)

2.There are benefit (Nope there isn't)

3. There is a small number of whackos who want to stop circumcision (Sorry but majority of the world is uncircumcised and it's illegal to circumcise infants in some countries)

4.They lie about the harm and pretend there are no benefits(What lies. There are cold hard facts out there that you ignore)

5. Now that the American Academy of Pediatrics has joined the World Health Organisation (Actually the World Health Organization is against it and AAP has received much backlash).

6. Circumcision is better because it protects babies from sickness and from needing penectomy later on. It also protects adults from STDs and it looks better and makes sex feel better.(Actually it doesn't. People who are for mutilation argue this but cold hard facts prove otherwise)

Here are some articles

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/

Yes they have to be kept clean DAILY. Europeans don't do circumcisions. I never heard of this type of cancer over there.

Certain cultures live in desert locations where daily washing is a problem because of scarcity of water.

Believe me they get rancid without daily cleansing. That's why the religious leaders of the day started circumcisions. Today availability of water is hardly a problem and circumcisions are no longer necessary for hygienic reasons. The question begs - why remove something that God himself constructed ? It is just an old habit now - a father who is circumcised will want to circumcise his son

I am not aware of any religion that prohibits circumcision. .

Well I wasn't because it doesn't really help that much in my opinion I don't have infections and no its not religious because most religious people get circumcised Jews, Muslims, and Christians usually believe in circumcision but there is some who don't like my parents.

so much wrong with this:

* penis infections happen to all penises, cut or not. sadly, if an intact guy gets an infection, they amputate the structure infected (foreskin). If a cut guy gets an infection, they treat it.

* In days gone past, they used to advise forcible retraction for intact boys, and made the claim that you need to pull it back and wash underneath there. that lead to life-long problems for a lot of intact men as well as problems with phimosis and adhesions.

* Circumcised penises harbor more invasive and infectious bacteria on their glans's, while intact men have more of the bacteria which help us keep healthy and ward off infections. Just as in our guts, genitals do require a balance of good and healthy bacteria and pH levels.

* "clean enough and scrubbed on at least 10 penectomies." bs you've ever done this or had to amputate over 10 penises.

* In case you haven't noticed, the US is the only developed western country where circumcision is common. And the US has the highest rates of HIV, infections, UTI's, yeast infections and STI's etc.

* Circumcision reduces UTI's in the first year of life, but is nowhere near as effective as breastfeeding. Later in life, during boyhood, teenagehood and adulthood recurring UTI's are far more common in circumcised men due to the fact that the foreskin helps protect against UTI's. In countries outside the US where no-one would ever consider pulling back the foreskin on a baby (it's fused and shouldn't ever be separated ahead of it happening naturally) there's no increased risk of a baby boy having UTI's.

* In terms of sensitivity, removing the 8 most sensitive structures of the penis is major harm. As a woman I am very attached to my clitoris and would be horrified if someone told me to cut it off, along with the labia minora and clitoral prepuce so I'd be "cleaner" and have no more smegma building up around my clitoris and in the labia. If I was a guy I'd be very attached to my ridged band, no doubt. If I was told to remove the clitoris and labia and clitoral prepuce (hood) and it wouldn't change a thing because I'd still be able to have sex and orgasm and still be functioning, but I'd give up sensitivity but gain a lot more cleanliness I'd slap that person silly. That's the way a lot of guys feel about their ridged band, frenulum, outer mucosa, foreskin lips, inner mucosa, the structure responsible for movement and gliding, and which helps with lubrication and prevents the corona from flaring (ie mushroom head - devastating for sex) and the glans from drying.

* Statistically there's no difference between the rates of penile cancer in intact men or circumcised men. However, even when they thought there was a benefit, they did say it was slight. How slight? Going by the OFFICIAL circumcision death rate (and it's not required to report circumcision as being a cause of death in babies) 90 babies would have to die to save one elderly man from penile cancer. That's how rare penile cancer is. But then they found out that there's actually no difference, and that cut men are just as susceptible. Cut or intact, hygiene is necessary. Talking to a lot of people you'd think a cut man never had to wash.

* Cut men suffer twice the rates of urethritis, which is known to be a risk factor in the development of other infections, such as STI's and HPV infections. That's just one reason circumcised men suffer more STI infections in their lifetime and why in Australia it was found that after we'd stopped circumcising the rates of cervical cancer in women was halved, even before the introduction of screening and women having regular pap-smears.

* Cut men are very likely to suffer meteal stenosis, which is essentially an ulcer of the urethra. 30% of all men have their peehole a different and enlargened shape to what it should be. This is caused by urine reabsorption.

* Foreskin contains antibacterials, antivirals and antifungals. As far as disease transmission goes, when the infection load is not too high the foreskin can fight it off and prevent infection. That's only slight protection, but during the asymptomatic incubation period of infection it can be significant. But condoms are still much safer.

Well if those men were so thick that they didn't realise that they had (obviously) smelly penises and made no attempt to clean them, they probably deserved what they got !