Circumcision ?

You're probably referring to the American Academy of Pediatrics new statement that says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This new statement is flawed in a number of ways though:

One of the major arguments being made for circumcision now is that it makes transmission of HIV less likely by 60% and that studies done in Africa show this to be the case. However, those studies had a number of problems with them and it would take far to long for me to talk about about all of them. In the U.S. we have the highest rate of HIV and all other STDs than any other industrialized nation combined and here most men are already circumcised, if circumcision was really effective at preventing HIV and other STDs, shouldn't we have less of them? Even if circumcision did make catching HIV less likely, what's the logic of doing it to newborn infants assuming that when they become sexually active they will not use condoms and other safe sex methods? By the time they become sexually active there might even be a cure for AIDS.

The bottom line is, the AAP did the wrong thing by promoting the supposed benefits of circumcision.

 

Is it for any reason other than being barbaric assholes?

 

Here in the UK, apart from Muslims and Jews circumcision is virtually unheard of, yet we seem to manage just fine as nature made us.

I should add, much seems to be made about "cleanliness" and the issue of smegma. I've never seen smegma in my life - maybe I'm unusual or perhaps it's because I wash everyday. It is certainly not an issue for children where the foreskin will not often retract in any case until they are into their teens.

Too me it looks as though the prevalence of circumcision in the US is due to the fact that doctors can add it to the bill, and people rarely question doctors.

 

I'm American and I'm not circumcised and I've never had an issue with cleanliness either, that's simply a myth.

 

The American fad for circumcision was brought about by Dr Kellogg, of cornflake fame. The reason he gave was that it stopped male inpatients in his lunatic asylums from masturbating, believing that masturbation & insanity were inseperable, and the general public blindly followed his ravings due to his status.

The thing is, considering he also believed that feeding them cornflakes (invented for the patients' benefit) would control their masturbatory habits it makes you wonder if he should have been one of the inmates rather than the doctor.

 

The wind is blowing against the foreskin...

 

They can put skin back on. I only know this because a saw a video in sex class in college about a man who got too much skin cut off and it was painful for him to get an erection so he had to get surgery.

 

But it's not about just reattaching skin, it's about reattaching nerve cells for sensation. Not to mention this probably costs a lot of extra $ that need not be spent in the first place if your parents make the right decision at birth.

 

Aren't you stoned alot of the time?

 

Even if it were possible to do a skin transplant, in order to make it fully successful it would have to be the right type of skin, as the inner part of the foreskin contains glands which exude a waxy, anti-biotic substance, which keeps the glans moist & sensitive, as well as providing a degree of lubrication - in other words, smegma (which is medically beneficial, rather than being erroneously considered as unhygienic).