Circumcision is defined as the excision of the foreskin of the glans penis. It is both a religious ritual and a cultural practice which has many followers in Europe, Middle East, Africa and Muslim parts of Asia. It is practiced extensively by Muslims and Jews alike. Believers of the ritual state that there are many advantages of circumcision. Current research shows that circumcision does not have any advantage. The World Health Organization, a branch of the United Nations, has published information which recommends that the practice of routine circumcision be discontinued. This article too argues against circumcision, particularly infant circumcision.
Male infant circumcision has been made an acceptable practice by convincing the “ill informed” that there is a flap of skin, called the foreskin, at the end of the penis which is not needed or necessary. This is a myth and it is factually incorrect. The foreskin is a functional part of the penis. It is alive, has living tissue, has a blood supply, and has a rich supply of sensitive nerves. The foreskin has twelve essential functions. These vital functions are lost when a child or an adult is circumcised.
An infant's penis (male organ) is not well developed. Therefore cutting even a little extra removes growing tissues which will have consequences when the infant grow up. Excision of the frenulum will result in the infant never being able to experience a true sexual orgasm. When circumcision is done under a general anesthetic then it carries all the postoperative risks of surgery.
As a human being, I am opposed to circumcision because it is done on children. Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation whether we like it or not. When these children grow up they find that a vital part of them is missing. They never know what it would have felt like to have that part of them. At best, we as a society should consider letting children grow up and then let them choose. Also by then the penis has grown and the person can choose which parts he want to keep and which parts he wants to get rid off. There are many other articles on circumcision.
We as a society are unwittingly imposing our views onto our young ones. This is being done in the name of education, culture, religion and refinement. This may well be true for many of the things which we teach our young ones. This is definitely not true for circumcision. There are no benefits to circumcision. Circumcision is harmful, unhealthy and a myth which must be dispelled. Here are some more, not so nice, consequences of circumcision. Circumcision reduces sensitivity of the male penis in three different ways. These are discussed below.
Loss of Sensitive Nerve Endings
An infant's penis is not fully developed. Circumcising it is painful for the infant patient and results in loss of the prepuce, the frenulum, part of the glans, and associated nerve endings. Therefore a circumcised penis is less sensitive because it has lost nerve endings and penis tissue which were present in the foreskin. The foreskin and the frenulum are the most erogenous zones of the glans penis.
In an intact penis the frenulum is the dark part on the posterior aspect of glans. The dark coloration is due to nerve endings. Circumcision removes these nerves. Circumcision at birth or in early life is a bad idea because the infant penis is poorly differentiated into the different parts which I have described.
Damage to the Glans
I have stated that the most erogenous zones are the foreskin and the frenulum. During circumcision these are removed. Consequently the erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. In the intact penis the glans is protected by the by foreskin. Removal of the foreskin removes the protective foreskin. This leaves the glans penis permanently exposed to drying and rubbing with rough clothing etc. This makes the glans rough and less sensitive.
The glans of the penis does not possess a protective layer of skin. The exposed glans therefore becomes rough and less sensitive. The glans is like the eyeball. It is naturally lubricated and highly sensitive. The natural uncircumcised glans is protected by the foreskin, like the eye ball. When an infant becomes circumcised the glans is exposed to the elements and it becomes keratinized. A keratinized glans is therefore less sensitive just like an exposed eyeball or a keratinized clitoris, in young women.
In conclusion to this section it is fair and reasonable to conclude that circumcision leads to the removal of the erogenous zones (foreskin and frenulum). Additionally, circumcision results in the desensitization of the remaining glans by leaving it exposed.
Loss of Erogenous Pleasure and Sexual Satisfaction
The nerve endings in the glans are complex touch receptors. Technically they are called mechanoreceptors. They are different from the high touch receptors located in the dermis of the skin which detects surface friction. The mechanoreceptors of the intact glans penis are stimulated by massage action during sexual intercourse. The skin receptors are stimulated surface friction.
When there is an ample supply of prepuce (foreskin) it forms a highly mobile skin system which moves forwards and backwards over the glans penis with pressure from the opposing surfaces. An optimal amount of stimulation of the glans is achieved during intercourse and masturbation when the foreskin is present. When the foreskin has been removed then there is friction only. Direct friction activates the pain receptors as opposed to erogenous pleasure centers. Direct friction causes further keratinization of the glans.
In conclusion to this section it is fair to state that circumcision removes the skin system of the infant's glans penis. This obliterates the skin mobility which is essential for the stimulation of mechanoreceptors and the erogenous zone. The end result is loss of sexual pleasure. The sexual pleasure which circumcised men obtain is not the same as sexual pleasure which men with intact penis get. The lack of sexual pleasure, by circumcised men, leads them to masturbate more than men with intact penis. Only men with intact penis are able to enjoy true sex! The combined actions of the intact foreskin and the intact glans result in a higher level of erogenous stimulation. This sort of stimulation cannot be experienced by the circumcised male and is unknown to him.
I posted this on another of his articles but for those interested I'll repost:
For a medical practitioner Shergill you don't have a very good bedside manner, I dare to call you bigoted against the circumcised even though you know that in the long term scheme of things there are health benefits to circumcision such as cleanliness and less pestilences,
as for your research that you asked for so badly,here it is.
"Circumcision of males represents a surgical "vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain-free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals. BioEssays 29:1147-1158, 2007. (c) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc." I would say that contradicts the majority of your article,and shows, as I stated, that you Shergill are a quack,
I suppose, as is evident by your liberal campaign against circumcision, you must really like Urinary Tract Infection, but spreading your propaganda and passing it off as \"fact\" when research proves you wrong is utterly foolish and anyone who has actually researched the subject knows you are off base and ignorant.
Circumcision is cleaner and if you were anything more than a bigoted liberal activist you wouldn\'t be misleading people like you are.