Circumcision

[rayograph]

Circumcision in the Ancient world

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from Egypt. Tomb artwork from the Sixth Dynasty (2345 - 2181 BC) shows men with circumcised penises, and one relief from this period shows the rite being performed on a standing adult male. The Egyptian hieroglyph for "*****" depicts either a circumcised or an erect organ. The examination of Egyptian mummies has found both circumcised and uncircumcised men.
Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples. The Book of Jeremiah, written in the sixth century BC, lists the Egyptians, Jews, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites as circumcising people. Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BC, would add the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Syrians to that list.
Except in the portrayal of satyrs, lechers, and barbarians, ancient Greece artwork portrayed penises covered by foreskins. In the aftermath of Alexander the Great's conquests, Greek dislike of the circumcised ***** led to a decline in the incidence of circumcision among many peoples that had previously practiced it. The writer of 1 Maccabees wrote that during the Seleucid Empire, many Jewish men attempted to hide or reverse their circumcision so they could exercise in Greek gymnasia.
Cultural pressures to circumcise operated throughout the Hellenistic world: when the Judean king John Hyrcanus conquered the Idumeans, he forced them to become circumcised and convert to Judaism, but their ancestors the Edomites had practiced circumcision in pre-Hellenistic times.


Male circumcision in the Greco-Roman world

According to Hodges, ancient Greek aesthetics of the human form considered circumcision a mutilation of a previously perfectly shaped organ. Greek artwork of the period portrayed penises as covered by the foreskin (sometimes in exquisite detail), except in the portrayal of satyrs, lechers, and barbarians.[1]
The 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus[2] defended Jewish circumcision on several grounds, including health, cleanliness, fertility and as a symbol of "the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure" [3]Maimonides argued that circumcision was instituted for moral reasons, 'for perfecting what is defective morally' [4] See also "Circumcision: A Jewish Inquiry," Midstream 38 (January 1992) pages 20-23 [5]. (history)
This dislike of the appearance of the circumcised ***** led to a decline in the incidence of circumcision among many peoples that had previously practiced it throughout Hellenistic times. In Egypt, only the priestly caste retained circumcision, and by the second century, the only circumcising groups in the Roman Empire were Jews and Proselytes and some Christians, Egyptian priests, and the Nabatean Arabs. Circumcision was sufficiently rare among non-Jews that being circumcised was considered conclusive evidence of Judaism (or Early Christianity and others derogatively called Judaizers) in Roman courts—Suetonius in Domitian 12.2 [6] described a court proceeding in which a ninety-year-old man was stripped naked before the court to determine whether he was evading the head tax placed on Jews and Judaizers. The first-century AlexandrianApion denounced circumcision as a barbaric custom in his diatribe against the Jews, notwithstanding that it was still practised among the Egyptian priestly caste.
Roman satirists including Horace and Juvenal equated the exposure of the glans that results from circumcision to its exposure during erection, and they caricatured Jewish men as being lustful or lecherous, sometimes in an incestuous or homosexual sense, often implying that Jewish men had unusually large penises and were of great sexual potency.
Techniques for restoring the appearance of an uncircumcised ***** were known by the 2nd century B.C. In one such technique, a copper weight (called the Judeum pondum) was hung from the remnants of the circumcised foreskin until, in time, they became sufficiently stretched to cover the glans. The first-century writer Celsus described two surgical techniques for foreskin restoration in his medical treatise De Medicina. [7] In one of these, the skin of the penile shaft was loosened by cutting in around the base of the glans. The skin was then stretched over the glans and allowed to heal, giving the appearance of an uncircumcised *****. Jewish religious writers denounced such practices as abrogating the covenant of Abraham in 1 Maccabees and the Talmud[8]. Because of these attempts, and for other reasons, the Pharisees, ca. 100, added two more steps to the Biblical rite of circumcision:
<DL><DD>

• Brit Peri'ah, which went beyond the relatively simple and Biblical trimming of excess foreskin, and stripped the mucosal lining of the foreskin back to the coronal sulcus.
• Brit Mezizah, by which the trained rabbi ("mohel") sucks the wound made by the circumcision.

</DD></DL>Circumcision was an important issue for first century Jews and Christians. Flavius Josephus in Jewish Antiquities book 20 [9], chapter 2 recorded the story of King Izates who decided to follow the Law of Moses at the advice of a Jewish merchant named Ananias. He was going to get circumcised, but his mother, Helen, who herself embraced the Jewish customs, advised against it on the grounds that the subjects wouldn't stand to be ruled by someone who followed such "strange and foreign rites". Ananias likewise advised against it, on the grounds that worship of God was superior to circumcision (Robert Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus claims that Ananias is Paul of Tarsus who held similar views) and that God would forgive him for fear of his subjects. So Izates decided against it. However, later, "a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar", who was well versed in the Law, convinced him that he should, on the grounds that it was one thing to read the Law and another thing to practice it, and so he did. Once Helen and Ananias found out, they were struck by great fear of the possible consequences, but as Josephus put it, God looked after Izates. As his reign was peaceful and blessed, Helen visited the Jerusalem Temple to thank God, and since there was a terrible famine at the time, she brought lots of food and aid to the people of Jerusalem.
There was also division in Pharisaic Judaism between Hillel the Elder and Shammai on the issue of circumcision of proselytes. See also Circumcision in the Bible#In rabbinic literature
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts of the Apostles 15 addressed the issue of whether circumcision was required of new converts to Christianity. Both Simon Peter and James the Just spoke against requiring circumcision in Gentile converts and the Council ruled that circumcision was not necessary. However, Acts 16 and many references in the Letters of Paul show that the practice was not immediately eliminated. Paul of Tarsus, who was said to be directly responsible for one man's circumcision in Acts 16:1-3 and who appeared to praise Jewish circumcision in Romans 3:2, said that circumcision didn't matter in 1 Corinthians 7:19 and then increasingly turned against the practice, accusing those who promoted circumcision of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh and boasting or glorying in the flesh in Galatians 6:11-13. In a later letter, Philippians 3:2, he is repored as warning Christians to beware the "mutilation" (Strong's G2699). Circumcision was so closely associated with Jewish men that Jewish Christians were referred to as "those of the circumcision" (e.g. Colossians 3:20) [10] or conversely Christians who were circumcised were referred to as Jewish Christians or Judaizers. These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominate, however it is an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who no longer circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who did. According to the Gospel of Thomas saying 53, Jesus says:
<DL><DD>"His disciples said to him, "is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."" SV [11]</DD></DL>Parallels to Thomas 53 are found in Paul's Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, 1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15, Colossians 2:11-12.
In John's Gospel 7:23 Jesus is reported as giving this response to those who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath:
<DL><DD>Now if a man can be circumcised on the sabbath so that the Law of Moses is not broken, why are you angry with me for making a man whole and complete on a sabbath? ( Jerusalem Bible) </DD></DL>This passage has been seen as a comment on the Rabbinic belief that circumcision heals the ***** (Jerusalem Bible, note to John 7:23) or as a criticism of circumcision

Male circumcision in the Renaissance

Europeans, with the exception of the Jews, did not practice male circumcision.
The Church issued a papal bull in 1442 that prohibited the practice of circumcision for all Christians

Male circumcision in East Africa

Male circumcision in East Africa is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, but is only practiced in some nations (tribes). Some peoples in East Africa do not practice male circumscision (for example the Luo of western Kenya). There is no incidence of child circumcision in indigenous tribes of this part of the world.
Amongst the Gikuyu (Kikuyu) people of Kenya and the Maasai people of Kenya and Tanzania, male circumcision has historically been the graduation element of an educational program which tought tribal beliefs, practices, culture, religion and history to youth who were on the verge of becoming full fledged members of society. The circumcision ceremony was very public, and required a display of courage under the knife in order to maintain the honor and prestige of the young man and his family. The only form of anesthetia was a bath in the cold morning waters of a river, which tended to numb the senses to a minor degree. The youths being circumcised were required to maintain a stoic expression and not to flinch from the pain.
After circumcision, young men became members of the warrior class, and were free to date and marry. The graduants became a fraternity which served together, and continued to have mutual obligation to each other for life.
In the modern context in East Africa, the physical element of male circumcision remains (in the societies that have historically practiced it) but without most of the other accompanying rites, context and programs. For many, the operation is now performed in private on one individual, in a hospital or doctor's office. Anesthesia is often used in such settings. There are tribes however, that do not accept this modernized practice. They insist on circumcision in a group ceremony, and a test of courage at the banks of a river. This more traditional approach is common amongst the Meru and the Kisii tribes of Kenya.
Despite the loss of the rites and ceremonies that accompanied male circumcision in the past, the physical operation remains crucial to personal identity and pride, and acceptance in society. Uncircumcised men in these communities risk being "outed", and subjected to ridicule as "boys". There have been many cases of forced circumcision of men from such communities who are discovered to have escaped the ritual.

[rayograph]

Male circumcision in the 18th century

Circumcision was not practiced amongst Christians in Europe in the 18th Century. It was regarded with repulsion.
<DL><DD>Edward Gibbon had referred to it as a "singular mutilation" practised only by Jews and Turks and as "a painful and often dangerous rite" ... (R. Darby) </DD></DL>In 1753 in London there was a proposal for Jewish emancipation. It was furiously opposed by the pamphleteers of the time, who spread the fear that Jewish emancipation meant universal circumcision. Men were urged to protect:
<DL><DD>"the best of Your property" and guard their threatened foreskins. It was an extraordinary outpouring of popular beliefs about sex, fears about masculinity and misconceptions about Jews, but also a striking indication of how central to their sexual identity men considered their foreskins at that time. (R.Darby) </DD></DL>Male circumcision in the 19th century and beyond

Until well into the Nineteenth Century, the same sentiments prevailed.
Richard Burton observed that "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror". This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The author of the entry rejected sanitary explanations of the procedure in favour of a religious one: "like other body mutilations ... [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice". (R. Darby)
Then, a change of attitude began, something that was reflected in successive editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
By 1910 the entry had been turned on its head: "This surgical operation, which is commonly prescribed for purely medical reasons, is also an initiation or religious ceremony among Jews and Muslims": now it was primarily a medical procedure and only after that a religious ritual. The entry explained that "in recent years the medical profession has been responsible for its considerable extension among other than Jewish children ... for reasons of health" (11th edition, Vol. 6). By 1929 the entry is much reduced in size and consists merely of a brief description of the operation, which is "done as a preventive measure in the infant" and "performed chiefly for purposes of cleanliness". Ironically, readers are then referred to the entries for "Mutilation" and "Deformation" for a discussion of circumcision in its religious context (14th edition, 1929, Vol. 5). (R. Darby)

Historically, routine neonatal circumcision was promoted during late Victorian times in the English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom and was widely practiced during the first part of the 20th century in these countries. However, the practice declined sharply in the United Kingdom after the Second World War, and somewhat later in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has been argued (e.g., Goldman 1997) that the practice did not spread to other European countries because others considered the arguments for it fallacious. In South Korea, circumcision was largely unknown before the establishment of the United States trusteeship in 1945. More than 90% of South Korean high school boys are now circumcised, but the average age of circumcision is 12 years, which makes South Korea a unique case.

Routine infant circumcision has been abandoned in New Zealand and Britain, and is now much less common in Australia and in Canada (see table 1). The decline in circumcision in the United Kingdom followed the decision by the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 not to cover the procedure following an influential article by Douglas Gardiner which claimed that circumcision resulted in the deaths of about 16 children under 5 each year in the United Kingdom. In most of the rest of the world, circumcision is done either as a religious or cultural practice.

Routine infant circumcision in the United States grew out of a widespread fear that masturbation caused various diseases, a view now universally rejected by the medical community. Circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation and other sexual behavior considered undesirable. Circumcision, depending on how it is practiced, can have a significant impact on masturbation.

Male circumcision to prevent masturbation

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision, Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' - the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"
"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the ***** with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration." Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:

"In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the 'vestigial' prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause 'nocturnal incontinence,' hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might 'give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.' Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that 'circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity...it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.' No wonder it became a popular remedy."

At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s.
One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg, who is well known for his pseudoscientific views on human sexuality. He advocated the consumption of Kellogg's corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.

"Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice."
Robert Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some 19th Century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.

[rayograph]

Medical circumcision from 1870 to 1950 in English-speaking countries

Until 1870, medical circumcisions were performed to treat conditions local to the *****: phimosis, balanitis, and penile cancer. In that year, Lewis Sayre, a prominent New Yorkorthopedic surgeon and vice president of the newly-formed American Medical Association, examined a five-year-old boy who was unable to straighten his legs, and whose condition had so far defied treatment. Upon noting that the boy's genitals were inflamed, Sayre hypothesized that chronic irritation of the boy's foreskin had paralyzed his knees via reflex neurosis. Sayre circumcised the boy, and within a few weeks, he recovered from his paralysis. After several additional incidents in which circumcision also appeared effective in treating paralyzed joints, Sayre began to promote circumcision as a powerful orthopedic remedy.
Sayre's prominence within the medical profession allowed him to reach a wide audience. He lectured widely in the United States and the United Kingdom, and his ideas influenced physicians throughout the English-speaking world. As more practitioners tried circumcision as a treatment for otherwise intractable medical conditions, sometimes achieving positive results, the list of ailments reputed to be treatable through circumcision grew. By the 1890s, hernia, bladder infections, kidney stones, insomnia, chronic indigestion, rheumatism, epilepsy, asthma, bedwetting, Bright's disease, erectile dysfunction, syphilis, insanity, and skin cancer had all been linked to the foreskin, and many physicians advocated universal circumcision as a preventive health measure.
Specific medical arguments aside, several hypotheses have been raised in explaining the public's acceptance of infant circumcision as preventive medicine. The success of the germ theory of disease had not only enabled physicians to combat many of the postoperative complications of surgery, but had made the wider public deeply suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. Accordingly, the smegma that collects under the foreskin was viewed as unhealthy, and circumcision readily accepted as good penile hygiene. Secondly, moral sentiment of the day regarded masturbation as not only sinful, but also physically and mentally unhealthy, stimulating the foreskin to produce the host of maladies of which it was suspected. In this climate, circumcision could be employed as a means of discouraging masturbation. All About the Baby, a popular parenting book of the 1890s, recommended infant circumcision for precisely this purpose. Thirdly, with the proliferation of hospitals in urban areas, childbirth, at least among the upper and middle classes, was increasingly undertaken in the care of a physician in a hospital rather than that of a midwife in the home. It has been suggested that once a critical mass of infants were being circumcised in the hospital, circumcision became a class marker of those wealthy enough to afford a hospital birth.

During the same time period, circumcision was becoming easier to perform. William Halstead's 1885 discovery of hypodermic cocaine as a local anaesthetic made it easier for doctors without expertise in the use of chloroform and other general anaesthetics to perform minor surgeries. Also, several mechanically-aided circumcision techniques, forerunners of modern clamp-based circumcision methods, were first published in the medical literature of the 1890s, allowing surgeons to perform circumcisions more safely and successfully.
By the 1920s, advances in the understanding of disease had undermined much of the original medical basis for preventive circumcision. Doctors continued to promote it, however, as good penile hygiene and as a preventive for a handful of conditions local to the *****: balanitis, phimosis, and penile cancer.

Routine infant circumcision was successfully promoted in the English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom. Although it is difficult to determine historical circumcision rates, one estimate of infant circumcision rates in the United States holds that 30% of newborn American boys were being circumcised in 1900, 55% in 1925, and 72% in 1950.

Circumcision since 1950

In 1949, a lack of consensus in the medical community as to whether circumcision carried with it any notable health benefit motivated the United Kingdom's newly-formed National Health Service to remove routine infant circumcision from its list of covered services. Since then, circumcision has been an out-of-pocket cost to parents, and the fraction of newborns circumcised in the hospital has fallen to less than one percent.
Similar trends have operated in Canada. Individual provincial heath services began delisting non-therapeutic circumcision in the 1980s; at present, only Manitoba still pays for the procedure. The infant circumcision rate in Canada has fallen from roughly half in the 1970s to its present value of 11%, albeit with strong regional variations.
In South Korea, circumcision was largely unknown before the establishment of the United States trusteeship in 1945 and the spread of American influence. More than 90% of South Korean high school boys are now circumcised, but the average age of circumcision is 12 years, which makes South Korea a unique case.
In the United States, statistics collected by the National Center for Health Statistics show that the overall rate of neonatal circumcision has remained near 65% since data collection began in 1979 . However, strong regional differences in the circumcision rates have developed during this time. While more than 80% of newborn boys are circumcised in the Midwest and South, circumcision rates have declined to about 37% in the West in 1999. This has been attributed in part to increasing births among Latin Americans, who usually do not circumcise.

Circumcision in the 21st century

The major medical societies in America, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not recommend routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Major medical organizations in the United States and Canada now say that parents should decide what is in their child's best interests, declining to make a recommendation one way or another.

In recent years, some have voiced ethical concerns about the procedure.
As of August 2005, sixteen US states no longer pay for the procedure under Medicaid; the other 34 still do. All thirteen Canadian provincial and territorial health insurance plans no longer pay for non-therapeutic circumcision.

Neonatal circumcision nonetheless still remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today.

The largest hospital in Winnipeg has stopped non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
A Finnish court has ruled that male non-therapeutic circumcision is unlawful in Finland. South Africa has outlawed the circumcision of boys under 16 except for medical or religious reasons.


(source : Wikipedia)

[kappa273]

Circumcision cuts down the risks of penile cancer, urethritis as well as HIV of getting infected with HIV...

Penile cancer and urethritis can be easily avoided by normal hygiene, this is why it was recommeded in the past..

as for HIV infection, it is a breakthrough especially in sub-saharan Africa where the prevalence of HIV is very very very high....

kappa

[rayograph]

i second that kappa and i believe that any "unnatural" act such as circumcision can't be a totally positive one...

[CPL]

Originally Posted by rayograph

i second that kappa and i believe that any "unnatural" act such as circumcision can't be a totally positive one...

This is a very philosophical way of explaining science.

Anyone who has a minimum knowledge in evolution, would know that there are many parts in any living body that are useless and obsolete, and that they just remained there for no other reason than not affecting the evolution process (meaning they were not a "major" threat to a specie, therefore natural and sexual selection were not concerned with that part)

These structures are called vestigial.

Vestigial structures are anatomical structures of organisms in a species, which have lost much or all of their original function through evolution. They are typically in a degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary condition. They are often called vestigial organs, although not all of them are actually organs.

The human vermiform appendix (el zeydeh) is a vestigial structure; it no longer retains its original function.

In fact, the vermiform appendix, could be a harm under some conditions, that's why I'm sure some of you had this operation to remove it.


Some examples:

_ Birds that don't fly but still have wings and who don't use them for even equilibrium.
_ Human small tail.
_ Small muscle in the human ear.
_ Small hind legs in whales, that are completely separated from the skeleton, and are completely under the skin.

If you remove any of these, nothing should happen.

So the only reason these didn't disappear (yet) is that they don't interfere in a big way to a specie's adaptation.

The foreskin can be regarded as such, since removing it, or keeping, doesn't interfere with natural selection at least, and sexual selection at most. However, studies showed that keeping the foreskin is more vulnerable to HIV (which is very new and can threaten the whole human species).

Langerhans cells

Langerhans cells are immature dendritic cells that are found in all areas of the penile epitelium,[16] but are most superficial in the inner surface of the foreskin.[17] The recent Szabo and Short (2000) study targets Langerhans cells as receptors of HIV, and states that these cells "must be regarded as the most probable sites for viral entry in primary HIV infection in men."[18] Langerhans cells are also known to express the c-type lectin langerin, which may play a role in transmission of HIV to nearby lymph nodes.[19] However, de Witte et al. (2007) reported that langerin, produced by Langerhans cells, blocks the transmission of HIV.[20]

In other words, I think it is a good thing if we as humans, make such preventions ourselves, because the human body in itself is not perfect, and it's our brain that should make up to the lost body functions.

Take for example Thalassemia which is hereditary to mediterraneans, and everyone knows the consequences of two Thalassemia partial hosts marrying and having children. But we do this prevention (which you can label as unnatural), by avoiding such marriages to happen.

So eventually, if circumcision is for our benefit, then let if be so.

Note: Please not that I am talking about male circumcision.

[LebanesePride]

Originally Posted by CPL

This is a very philosophical way of explaining science.

Anyone who has a minimum knowledge in evolution, would know that there are many parts in any living body that are useless and obsolete, and that they just remained there for no other reason than not affecting the evolution process (meaning they were not a "major" threat to a specie, therefore natural and sexual selection were not concerned with that part)

These structures are called vestigial.





In fact, the vermiform appendix, could be a harm under some conditions, that's why I'm sure some of you had this operation to remove it.


Some examples:

_ Birds that don't fly but still have wings and who don't use them for even equilibrium.
_ Human small tail.
_ Small muscle in the human ear.
_ Small hind legs in whales, that are completely separated from the skeleton, and are completely under the skin.

If you remove any of these, nothing should happen.

So the only reason these didn't disappear (yet) is that they don't interfere in a big way to a specie's adaptation.

The foreskin can be regarded as such, since removing it, or keeping, doesn't interfere with natural selection at least, and sexual selection at most. However, studies showed that keeping the foreskin is more vulnerable to HIV (which is very new and can threaten the whole human species).



In other words, I think it is a good thing if we as humans, make such preventions ourselves, because the human body in itself is not perfect, and it's our brain that should make up to the lost body functions.

Take for example Thalassemia which is hereditary to mediterraneans, and everyone knows the consequences of two Thalassemia partial hosts marrying and having children. But we do this prevention (which you can label as unnatural), by avoiding such marriages to happen.

So eventually, if circumcision is for our benefit, then let if be so.

Note: Please not that I am talking about male circumcision.

True but it does not apply here. The foreskin is not without function nor is it inactive. It protects, lubricates and keeps the ***** sensitive, among many other things. It also facilitates penetration.

Its function may not be ESSENTIAL, but its complementary, to sexual functions and health.

Nowadays, a womans breasts are not "essential" to humanitys survival either.

ANd breast cancer is quite common. Were not gonna start chopping off girls breasts as prevention, are we?

[Mey]

Originally Posted by LebanesePride

Nowadays, a womans breasts are not "essential" to humanitys survival either.

ANd breast cancer is quite common. Were not gonna start chopping off girls breasts as prevention, are we?

Ok now I am convinced, please NO

[Inanna]

Originally Posted by Stella

Female circumcision is a horrible crime, by it they simply humiliate women and reduce if not completely cease their capability to enjoy a sexual intercourse.

As for men, it seems there is no clear agreement on its hygienic effects.

If its more healthier, then circumcision shall be promoted.

agree with stell!
i think that circumcision for men is purely hygienic and doesnt seem to affect the men's sexual life!
when it comes to women, it is a real crime, women will become a "tool" with no feelings what so ever! they do it in some african region and once cnn showed a live operation taking place in egypt, i couldnt believe this, in some societies, they dont even give women the right to have some intimate feelings!

Originally Posted by LebanesePride

Nowadays, a womans breasts are not "essential" to humanitys survival either.

ANd breast cancer is quite common. Were not gonna start chopping off girls breasts as prevention, are we?

i dont think this example is valid in any way! maybe you just can't remember, but they were essential when you were a little kid!

[Stella]

Originally Posted by Inanna

agree with stell!
i think that circumcision for men is purely hygienic and doesnt seem to affect the men's sexual life!

Well LP was very convincing here, so who knows actually. Maybe those could give us a comparision who experienced both, even if its not scientific just a personal opinion.