circumsision(SP)

Circumcision originated with the Jews. We wanted 10% off.

The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that roughly 65 percent of newborn males in the United States are circumcised each year, making it a far more common practice than in Asia, South and Central America, and most of Europe. In the United States, circumcision is far more common among whites than blacks or Hispanics (81 percent versus 65 percent and 54 percent, respectively). The overall percentages of circumcised infants have remained relatively unchanged throughout the past two decades.

Research shows that approximately 80 percent of the world's population including Europe, the former U.S.S.R., China and Japan has never engaged in the practice of circumcision. Generally, circumcision has been practiced only within the context of tribal or religious traditions. This is true for Jews, Muslims, most black Africans, non-white Australians and others. The exception is the United States, where routine circumcision has gained widespread acceptance. The rate of circumcision in Great Britain has dropped to approximately one percent, whereas in the United States it is estimated to be 65 percent or higher.

Dr. Paul Fleiss of the University of Southern California Medical Center says the neonatal circumcision rate in the western United States has fallen in recent years to 34.2 per cent. This relatively diminished rate, he says, may surprise American men born during the Cold War era, when nearly 90 percent of baby boys were circumcised automatically, with or without their parents' consent.

During the last 25 years, a vast majority of medical institutions have come out against circumcision. Most important was the March 1999 declaration by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the highest authority on child health in the United States, that circumcision was not necessary for the well being of boy babies. Today there is no longer any national or international public health authority in the western world, which advocates routine circumcision.

None of the following medical societies or associations advocate infant circumcision:


American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Cancer Society
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Pediatric Urologists Association
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Canadian Pediatric Society
Canadian Medical Association
European Medical Societies (any)

-snip- [er...]

Dr. Paul Fleiss of the University of Southern California Medical Center says the natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eyeballs, it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain water during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.

The white emollient under a boy's foreskin, known as smegma, is one of the most misunderstood and unjustifiably maligned substances in nature, says Dr. Thomas J. Ritter. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma.

Dr. David Kaufman is an assistant professor of clinical urology at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. In a 1996 New York Times article, Kaufman said, "If proper hygiene is practiced, all of the potential medical problems can be avoided."

Studies suggest that it is best not to use soap on the glans or foreskin's inner fold. Forcibly retracting and washing a baby's foreskin, he says, destroys the beneficial bacterial flora that protect the penis from harmful germs and can lead to irritation and infection. The best way to care for a child's intact penis is to leave it alone. After puberty, young men can gently rinse their glans and foreskin with warm water, according to their own self-determined needs.

Miriam Pollack, author of "Circumcision: A Jewish Feminist Perspective," says the foreskin first qualified as a site of potential hygiene trouble during the first half of the 20th century, when many men were engaged in the dirty business of war.

"Soggy trenches and humid jungles where little possibility for a shower or change of clothing existed were not hospitable environments for maintaining minimal foreskin hygiene," she writes. Consequently, the military soon added its authority to the voices advocating foreskin removal as a health benefit.

Im sorry, but not being circumsized doesnt increase the risk of a woman getting cancer.
Not being CLEAN.. that can.
An 'un-cut' man can carry germs just as easily as one who has been 'cut'.

The penis is very sensative . ( DUH) and over time the sensativity is worn down when the foreskin has been removed. That is the down side. Aside from being unnecessary there is nothing else truly wrong with it. The foeskin is on all animals, and humans alike. It is a protectant. It also aids in lubrication during sex.
If a boy/man is not taught to clean himself ( as kristie said) then yes, he can carry disease alot easier then a non circumsized man. Cleaning isnt a big deal. Just pull the skin back. It isnt rocket science but if you listen to Doctors and our society today you would think it was totally impractical and just wrong to not be ' cut' if you are a man.
Strange place we live in.
( religious reasons aside! I am not ciritcizing anyones religious choice, I am taking the stand point of the non religious cosmetic reasons )