To be circumcised or not?

Tsungai Chekerwa-Machokoto, Opinion
CIRCUMCISION is an interesting topic and a very important one in this day of HIV and Aids.

Some people say they contracted HIV after they were circumcised because they were told that the risk of contracting it was lowered significantly by circumcision. Some argue against the benefits, saying they have lived their lives without being circumcised prompting the following questions: What is circumcision? When should it be done? How it is done? Is it necessary?

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, the tissue covering the head (glans) of the penis. It is an ancient practice that has its origin in religious rites. Today, many parents have their sons circumcised for religious or other reasons. Because of its health benefits, circumcision is strongly advised.

In Jewish practice, circumcision is performed on the eighth day according to Old Testament stipulations. The procedure becomes more complicated and riskier in older babies, children, and men. In some cultures, it is done to signify a boy becoming a man. This is common in some South African cultures.

This, however, has caused some serious health risks as there is no sterilisation that takes place and so the boys are exposed to diseases. But that’s a discussion for another day.

During a circumcision, the foreskin is freed from the head of the penis, and the excess foreskin is clipped off. If done in the newborn period, the procedure takes about five to 10 minutes. Adult circumcision takes about one hour. The circumcision generally heals in five to seven days.

Now the question of its necessity. The use of circumcision for medical or health reasons is an issue that continues to be debated. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The procedure may be recommended in older boys and men to treat phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) or to treat an infection of the penis.

Parents should talk with their doctor about the benefits and risks of the procedure before making a decision regarding circumcision of a male child. Other factors, such as your culture, religion, and personal preference, will also be involved in your decision.

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including a decreased risk of urinary tract infections, a reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men, protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.

Also, circumcision is key in the prevention of balanitis (inflamation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin) as well as the prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location). Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Like any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. However, this risk is low. Problems associated with circumcision include pain, risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision, irritation of the glans, increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis) and finally risk of injury to the penis.

I would conclude by suggesting that the benefits outweigh the risks in my opinion and it would be really wise to do it earlier rather than later because of the issues associated with pain and health risks.

Men who also have thought that circumcision translates to immunity against HIV have had a rude awakening. Being circumcised is not a passport to promiscuous behaviour because you can still get HIV without the foreskin. I just hope that people can act responsibly and take care of their health so they can live longer, happier lives.

Tsungai Chekerwa-Machokoto can be reached on tsungimachokoto@gmail.com

Pin It
  • 4skin4life

    Sadly not very well researched. The foreskin is an important part of the penis providing many valuable functions including protective, immunologic and sexual functions. It aids in facilitating intercourse by reducing friction. Keeping the foreskin and wearing a condom is the best advice for protection. You maintain the sensitivity of the foreskin while gaining protection from sexually transmitted infections as well as preventing pregnancy. Religious or cultural beliefs are not valid reasons for forcing a child or adult to undergo circumcision- male or female. Thousands of boys and men are permanently damaged or killed by circumcision every year throughout the world and it is denied by those who practice it. Many European doctors denounce the practice and are moving towers making it illegal. It’s time for this to end and not be promoted by corrupt researchers, academic centers and NGO’s that make make millions from grants and funding.

  • Adam Cornish

    This article is as misguided as it gets, and only serves to reinforce the stance of American medical societies, whose “evidence” consists largely of “is thought to”, “is believed to”, and theory not backed up by actual science. Circumcision has never been studied in the US. The CDC doesn’t even keep track of deaths from circumcision.

    The US is the only country whose medical authority believes the benefits outweigh the risks. Why is that? Could b it be the estimated billions of dollars of revenue circumcision generates? Then, there is the corrective surgery to fix the bad ones, correct meatal stenosis and skin bridges, adhesions, etc.

    Why do Europeans have lower rates of HIV, penile and cervical cancer, and infections, and manage to keep their foreskins.

    How does it feel, to be cheerleaders for unnecessary painful genital surgery, on children too young to consent?

    • professormorris

      What twaddle. If only other medical bodies conducted a review of the strong scientific evidence that was as thorough and transparent as the AAP and CDC. No other major medical body in the world has developed as meticulous a policy that is evidence-based. The British, Dutch, Canadian and Australian RACP policies are not evidence-based. For an appraisal of all policies see recent review: http://www.wjgnet.com/2219-2808/abstract/v6/i1/89.htm

      • Adam Cornish

        I prefer not to read the studies and metastudies of a circumcision fetishist, thank you.
        200 to 1 is a joke, just as your 100 to 1 with the Mayo Clinic was.
        It’s a shame they soiled their reputation with a man such as yourself.

        • professormorris

          I have no idea what a circumcision fetishist is. I have heard of those who have a fetish for the foreskin. Name calling is a sure sign of someone who has no argument and whose “cause” has been drowned by the strong scientific evidence on this issue.

          • Rood Andersson

            Look in a mirror, Morris. Look in a mirror, and you’ll see one. Just tell us how old you were when you first developed your obsession with Male Genital Mutilation, and describe the circumstances.

          • professormorris

            Male genital mutilation is NOT circumcision. Rather it is surgery on the penis of UNCIRCUMCISED men after they get penile cancer. Then the circumcised men who fall victim to anti-circ lies and do a DIY “restoration” of a foreskin that results in clinical cases of genital mutilation, as reported in the medical literature. I have a wide interests in public health. This started in high school with healthy diet and lifestyle. It was only in my late 30s when I was working on development of better screening for cervical cancer by HPV testing that I became aware of the ability of male circumcision to reduce the female partners risk of this devastating cancer. I was subsequently asked to give a talk on the ability of circumcision to protect against STIs, so performed a literature search. This made me aware of the numerous benefits. So along with articles on dietary means of improvement in health and disease prevention I began to publish on circumcision.

          • Rood Andersson

            Then, with all your research, you must by now know that a vaccine is available to prevent cervical cancer, a vaccine recommended for both boys and girls, and which makes mutilating the genitals of infant and adolescent boys a cruel and outdated procedure, a procedure only of interest to circumsexuals.

            A vaccine called Gardasil is used in the national NHS cervical cancer vaccination programme. Gardasil protects against the two types of HPV, between them responsible for more than 70% of cervical cancers in the UK. A bonus of using Gardasil to prevent cervical cancer is that it prevents genital warts too.
            Human papilloma virus (HPV) cervical cancer vaccine – NHS Choices
            http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/hpv-human-papillomavirus-vaccine.aspx

          • Preppydad

            The vaccine for JPV does not work on all strain’s…. Screw the UK! The wealthy English still circumcise.

          • Adam Cornish

            You are about 30 years out of date. Princess Diana refused to let her sons be circumcised.
            The HPV vaccine works on the strains which cause cancer.

          • Preppydad

            Dude, it is well known Charles had them circumcised after the Queen had her wacked…

          • M Lyndon

            1) They’re almost certainly both still intact, and there are photos of William from a few years ago to prove it.

            2) Neither the Queen not anyone else had Diana “wacked”.

          • Preppydad

            The old bitch had her wacked…you idiots supporting them is a joke and William for sure was circumcised…

          • Adam Cornish

            It’s like all your other facts. Fake.

          • M Lyndon

            English people don’t circumcise unless they’re Jewish or Muslim. Pretty much everyone else, rich or poor, thinks it’s insane.

          • Adam Cornish

            What part of this did you think inapplicable to circumcision, Professor Morris?
            Definition of mutilate
            mutilated; mutilating
            transitive verb
            1
            : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
            2
            : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

            Does circumcision not cut up the penis?
            Does it not cut off or permanently destroy a part, namely the foreskin?

          • professormorris

            Your definitions prove you are wrong.
            Circumcision improves and protects.

          • Adam Cornish

            Sure it does. That’s why when Australia stopped doing it routinely, the number of infections skyrocketed, right? Actually, the numbers went down. Isn’t that true, Professor?
            How about Europe? Why do the European countries enjoy lower infection rates of HIV, penile cancer, and venereal diseases, when they rarely circumcise, as opposed to the US, where it was common?

          • professormorris

            It is exasperating to reply to such dim witted comments by someone like you who has absolutely no idea or understanding of epidemiology. Properly deigned studies testing specific hypotheses using correct data contradict your claims. But then, you would refuse to believe it, because your world is based on faith not facts!

          • Adam Cornish

            You have no clue what my world is based on.
            What other healthy body part is removed, to prevent disease which has not presented itself. None. Therefore, you have no case.

          • Preppydad

            The font have filthy uncut Mexican trash…

          • Adam Cornish

            Name a famous circumcised lover, you know, like Don Juan, Cassanova, etc.

          • Adam Cornish

            I got the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
            You provide your dictionary definition yourself.
            I will show you how it fits circumcision.
            Unless you think that somehow circumcision does not cut up, or radically alter a penis…or destroy a part, namely the foreskin, which is typically half of the skin system of a penis.

          • professormorris

            You misconstrue the facts to suit your agenda.

            The following quote is from http://www.circumstitions.com/completeman/ the website of New Zealand intactivist, and retired broadcaster, Hugh Young:

            “The average adult foreskin consists of 1½ inches of outer skin, 1½ inches of inner mucosal lining — totaling a length of 3 inches — and is 5 inches in circumference when erect. This amounts to a surface area of 15 square inches, or a surface area equivalent to that of a 3″ by 5″ inch index card!”

            And, like so much of the content of his site, it is nonsense. But he is not alone in peddling this myth, it is everywhere in intactivist materials. It is even the name of an intactivist website: http://www.15square.org.uk

            As Google and PubMed searches will show, whilst it permeates the internet, it is absent from the scientific literature. As with the “20,000 nerves” myth it is just another intactivist invention. And one that is easy to refute by reading the published research on the topic of foreskin surface area. Doing so will not take long as there are only two papers that measured foreskin surface area.

            Werker et al. (1998) took foreskins from 8 cadavers (age of subjects not stated), folded them out and measured the combined inner and outer surface area. They ranged from 18.1 to 67.5 square centimetres (2.8 to 10.5 square inches), average 46.7 cm2 (7.2 square inches).

            Kigozi et al. (2009) used a bigger number of subjects, 965 Ugandan men aged 15 to 49 who volunteered to be circumcised as part of the African anti-HIV program. Although not expressly stated in the study, the surface area they measured was for the folded out foreskin (i.e. inner and outer surface combined), as confirmed by an email reply to me from the lead author (Dr Kigozi).

            The variation in size observed by Dr Kigozi’s team was startling. Measured foreskin surface areas ranged from a mere 7 cm2 (1.1 square inches) to a whopping 99.8 cm2 (15.5 square inches). This is a full order of magnitude. The average was around 38.5 cm2 (6.0 square inches). A few youngsters may account for the smallest foreskins, but the averages across age groups were not much different (35.0 cm2 or 5.4 inch2 for 15–24 year olds; 38.5 cm2 for 25–29 year olds; 38.4 cm2 for 30–49 year olds). A precise breakdown of foreskin size distribution is not given, but 25 % of men had foreskins > 45.6 cm2 (7.1 inch2) 26.1% 61.8 cm2 (9.6 inch2), so 60 men could top 9.6 inch2 out of 965, i.e. 6.2 %. In short, out of about a thousand men, probably only a handful, maybe even just one or two, could boast a monster prepuce of 15 square inches (96.8 inch2). Since 15 square inches is the value in the quote from intactivist Hugh Young, intactivists have been taking the most extreme value and pretending it is typical.

            Related to this exaggerated claim is the assertion that circumcision removes:
            “roughly 50% (and sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis.”

            As before, a quick Google and PubMed search, respectively, shows that this is just another of those Internet myths absent from the scientific literature. When it does appear in print, it is in intactivist polemics, not credible, peer-reviewed science journals. One also wonders how such a number can possibly be arrived at, given the tremendous variation in foreskin size (just discussed), not to mention the more modest variations in penis size and proportions, and whether it refers to the flaccid or erect state. Besides, as many a circumcised teenage boy will know, there typically remains ample mobility in the shaft skin for all the fun he could want. It is just another of those random numbers that intactivists pull out of thin air and pass off as fact.

            Finally, two further observations can be made on the Kigozi study. Firstly, the key finding was that men with larger foreskins were more vulnerable to HIV infection from heterosexual intercourse. So having a big foreskin is not necessarily a good thing. And secondly, as remarked above, foreskins are extremely variable. Much more so than the variation in, say, penis size (about 97% of men muster 9 to 17 cm erect (Veale et al. 2015)). This is not consistent with the prepuce being an important structure. As Darwin (1859) noted:

            “An organ, when rendered useless, may well be variable, for its variations cannot be checked by natural selection.”

            References:

            Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London. See chapter 13.

            Kigozi, G., Maria Wawer, M., Ssettuba, A., Kagaayi, J., Nalugoda, F., Watya, S., Mangen, F.W., Kiwanuka, N., Bacon, M.C., Lutalo, T., Serwadda, D., Ronald H. Gray, R.H. (2009) Foreskin surface area and HIV acquisition in Rakai, Uganda (size matters). AIDS, 23(16), 2209-13.

            Veale, D., Miles, S., Bramley, S., Muir, G., Hodsoll, J. (2015) Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men. BJU Int., 115(6), 978-86.

            Werker PMN, Terng ASC, Kon M. (1998) The prepuce free flap: dissection feasibility study and clinical application of a super-thin new flap. Plast Reconstr Surg., 102(4):1075-82.

          • Preppydad

            Baby foreskins make great anti wrinkle cream…..

          • Adam Cornish

            They’re even better, when they are attached, and sending signals to the brain. That way, it’s easier to tell when they are inserted, and what they are inserted into.

          • Preppydad

            No thank you! Oprah and Barbara Walters swear by it. My wife and I just started using it, pre need so we look good as we age….its $137 oz. At Nordstroms if you want to try it….

          • Adam Cornish

            Sure. And that is why your web site has a hidden back door, password protected, so people can view stories of circumcisions, right? Good one handed reading for the circlist crowd, eh?
            http://circwatch.org/why-does-brian-morris-links-his-site-to-a-circumfetish-page/
            Strong scientific evidence? Surely you are referring to your own “circumcision benefits exceed risks 100 to 1″. Or is it 200 to 1? Which time were you lying?

          • professormorris

            Absolute rubbish! There is no password protected back door. Where do you get this tripe from? Seems the anti-circs will make up any lie to suit their misguided and very dangerous “cause”! In 2014 benefits exceeded risks by **OVER** 100 to 1. With time and more evinced in the scientific literature than has now firmed up at 200 to 1. Satisfied?!

          • Adam Cornish

            I’m satisfied that you tried to break into servers, to stop information about yourself from becoming public.
            If this was untrue, you would have sued, and had the server shut down.
            I’m also convinced from the images that you were promoting the Gilgal Society, a circumcision fetish group, on your website.
            http://intactwiki.org/wiki/Brian_Morris
            Nice picture, by the way. Much better than the one of you posing with circumcised African boys.

          • professormorris

            All rubbish. I wouldn’t know how to break in to a server. I’m not an IT guru. But others are, so who knows?!
            USyd lawyer has been effective in countering anti-circ troll sites.
            I don’t promote any publisher.
            Does Gilgal even exist these days?
            And I was told that it is not a “society” but two old chaps who are in the publishing industry. One of them offered to assemble text into brochures for my worldwide colleagues and I man years ago. So what!?
            Thanks for compliment on picture.

          • Adam Cornish

            Gilgal Society existed when you were writing pamphlets for them. Jake Waskett told me so.

          • professormorris

            You didn’t read my reply. I told you that many years ago Gilgal offered to typeset brochures based on text prepared by an international consortium of medical and academic experts (whose names were listed on the last page), so we accepted that generous offer. It seemed to me at the time that Gilgal was a ‘cottage industry’ of one person not a so-called ‘society’. Maybe he had ambitions to expand … who knows? Anyway, try contacting them and it seems they no longer exist. Elsevier is a publisher, but a major one. You might like to see what people are saying about them too. Academics use all kinds of publishers. Some publish for free. Others charge. So what?! I fail to see what you are trying to imply.

          • Adam Cornish

            Just like your membership in circlist, and you actually promoting them on your website,

          • professormorris

            I had no idea I am listed as a member on circling. But I do have circlets as a link to other sites on circinfo.net
            So what?! Your ridiculous comments never cease.

          • Adam Cornish

            It’s preposterous, that you suggest humans need surgery to be well. They survived the first 4.7 million years without it. Their mammal ancestors had foreskins for 115 million years before that. Did foreskins sudddenly become amazingly defective? Or did the nutty professor bend some figures?
            If you are so right, why haven’t the European, South American, and Asian medical societies picked up on it? You’ve been shouting it loudly enough for years.

          • professormorris

            Humans realised the benefit of removing the foreskin back as far as the Paleolithic in Europe, It then become part of human culture. Juts one of many interventions our inventive ancestors developed to improve our lives, health and well-being.

          • Adam Cornish

            You have evidence of Paleolithic circumcision in Europe?
            Do tell.
            If the foreskin was one one-hundredth as problematic as you paint it to be, people would never have evolved.

          • professormorris

            Removing the foreskin by circumcision may have helped our species by improving health and, by reducing erectile problems, aiding procreation.

          • Rodney Davidson

            You have got to be kidding, professor. What an ignorant statement to make.

          • Adam Cornish

            It is circlist. It is a circumcision fetish organization, promoting circumcision, swapping videos and stories of people being circumcised.

          • Adam Cornish

            Why do you speak like a cartoon villain?
            Perhaps we should ask Mark Hamill to read your posts, in the voice of The Joker, as he did with Donald Trump’s tweets.

          • professormorris

            ???????????

          • Adam Cornish

            Please answer the question, about where the 100 to 1 figure came from.
            Then, please answer the question about where the 200 to 1 figure came from.
            I can answer. Pick me. Pick me. Professor Morris made them both up.

          • professormorris

            I don’t need to — if you read my articles you will see the data and then how those figures arose. But then you may not be familiar with simple arithmetic.

          • Adam Cornish

            As you may not be familiar with simple ethics.
            Like, for instance, “first do no harm”.
            Removing a healthy body part without consent is harm.

          • professormorris

            The Hippocratic oath actually states: “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.”
            If Hippocrates were alive today he would encourage infant male circumcision.

          • Adam Cornish

            I’m glad you know what Hippocrates thought.
            Actually, the Greeks were horrified by circumcision. They mentioned it all the time.

          • Preppydad

            Who cares about the old ancient Greeks
            …they are still FU!

    • Preppydad

      There is no pain, they use Lidocaine now….you anti’s and all your BS! I have 3 son’s, 3 brother’s and 9 nephew’s and not one has ever had any problems…the parents need to take an active role in the healing, in my case our nanny….

  • http://www.ronaldgoldmanphd.com Ronald Goldman, Ph.D.

    Studies show that circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, and unknown negative effects that have not been studied. Thirteen national and international organizations recommend against circumcision.

    Some circumcised men resent that they are circumcised. Sexual anxieties, reduced emotional expression, low self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and depression are also reported. Some doctors refuse to perform circumcisions because of ethical reasons. Relying on presumed authorities (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics or doctors who echo AAP views) is not sufficient because of their personal, religious, financial, and political conflicts of interest. Instead, watch a circumcision video and trust your instincts. Would you allow someone to do that to YOU?

  • M Lyndon

    Male circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS.

    From a USAID report:
    “There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher.”
    (this will include men who were circumcised tribally rather than medically, but they and their partners may also believe themselves to be protected, and the whole rationale for the RCTs into female-to-male transmission was a purported correlation between high rates of male circumcision and low rates of HIV)

    It seems highly unrealistic to expect that there will be no risk compensation. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups “believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms”. This figure seems to have been unchanged in 2012.

    A study in Zambia found that “30% of women at R1, and significantly more (41%) at R2, incorrectly believed MC is fully protective for men against HIV.”

    It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised

    ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.

    • professormorris

      Cheery picked, weak, misinterpretation of data is not substitute for the strong scientific evidence that absolutely shows that male circumcision affords more than 60% protection against HIV infection of men during heterosexual intercourse. This is now accepted by all credible health bodies and is one reason the CDC and AAP now recommend circumcision.
      See:
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, STIs, and Other Health Outcomes. Docket No. CDC-2014-0012. http://www.regulations.gov/ – !documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-0002

      • John Hammond

        Why didn’t you address ABC? Hmm?

        • professormorris

          To old ‘ABC’ (abstinence, be faithful, condoms).

          Now new ‘ABC’: antivirals, barriers, circumcision.

          • John Hammond

            It’s not going that way, but whatever. You didn’t really have anything useful to say. It’s all just “Circumcision is the wave of the future, kids!” and “Read the high quality research that’s out there because I have nothing else to say outside of what other people have found”.

  • M Lyndon

    Cervical cancer? A 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal discusses male circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following:

    “Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing [23,24], there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role.”

    In Europe, almost no-one is circumcised unless their parents are Jewish or Muslim, but the UK, Greece, Denmark, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Italy, Luxembourg, Finland, Iceland, and Malta have lower rates of cervical cancer than Israel. Sweden, France, Norway, Austria, Germany and Spain have lower rates than the USA.

    Comoros is 99% Muslim but is 4th highest on the list. Mali is 95% Muslim and 9th on the list. The country with the lowest rate is Malta, where almost no-one is circumcised. Five of the ten countries with the lowest rates of cervical cancer are in Europe (Malta, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Luxembourg)

  • M Lyndon

    Penile cancer?

    1) rarer than vulval cancer
    2) much much rarer than breast cancer in females
    3) rarer than breast cancer in males(!)
    4) rarer in several countries which don’t circumcise than in the USA or Israel
    5) usually only seen in men with phimosis or terrible personal hygiene
    6) also seen in circumcised men (pubmed 9466082, 9374971, 9270540)
    7) possibly sometimes caused by circumcision (pubmed 16406995, 12862118)

    Circumcision is very rare in New Zealand, Malta, Australia, Italy and Switzerland, but they all have lower rates than Israel. Lots of other countries which don’t circumcise, including the UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Canada, have lower rates than the USA.

    • professormorris

      Penile cancer occurs in 1 in 1,000 uncircumcised men. This devastating cancer is psychologically damaging, has a high mortality rate and means amputation of all or part of the penis. Best to avoid by circumcision.
      Circumcision is not rare in Australia or NZ …. in the biggest state (NSW) rate is 20% in male infants and over 50% in males of all ages.
      For rate in every country in the world see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26933388

      Heterosexually acquired HIV is much higher in European countries (France and the Netherlands) than Israel. All other risk factors were equivalent, thus confirming that circumcision is protective:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26244087

      • bsr

        In 2014, there were 11,433 deaths from Breast Cancer and 55,222 new cases of breast cancer in the UK.
        By contrast, there were 129 deaths from Penile cancer and 632 new cases.
        By your (“best to avoid”) logic we should really be saving far more lives by doing prophylactic breast bud removals of all girls at birth.
        There simply is NOT a huge medical problem in the UK with its mens’ foreskins. There may be some end-of-life quality of care issues in poorly managed institutions, but that’s rare. My 89 year old intact father was hospitalised and catheterised several times over the last 5 years of his life and never once had an issue, other than a UTI following catheterisation which was cleared easily by antibiotics.
        I know that I would rather have a lifetime’s protection and usage from my foreskin and face a small risk of needing some surgery at the end of my life, than being without it for my entire life. For anyone with healthy, intact penis, it’s a no-brainer. Your hyper-inflation of the risks of retaining a foreskin is just not borne out in the real world. Try talking to some European doctors for a change? Either your maths is wrong, or you’re a fraud.

        • professormorris

          Silly comment. Breast/mammary gland very important physiologically and aesthetically. Foreskin not so. In fact detrimental to health. The stats in our paper are accurate, and if anything are conservative. They are, moreover, tailored to disease frequencies seen in Australia. I agree that deaths from penile cancer are “only” [!!!] a few hundred a year, although complete and partial amputations to treat penile cancer would be much higher. It is a “no-brainer” to remove this health hazard known as the foreskin. It’s not about talking to ignorant doctors either, but examining the strong scientific evidence. That is what we did. Evidence trumps anecdotes and ignorance every time.

          • Rodney Davidson

            It is a totally ignorant statement for Morris to say that foreskin is not phisiologically and aesthetically important. This is a new low for him. The owner of a body should be the one to decide if a part of his body is aesthetically pleasing and whether or not he gets to keep what he was born with. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and most men and women outside of the USA are just fine with an aesthetically pleasing foreskin. Come on…give me a break professor Morris.

          • bsr

            “Silly comment”? There you go again. Your second sentence betrays your blatant and unforgivable bias.
            “Breast/mammary gland very important physiologically and aesthetically…”
            The foreskin is incredibly important physiologically and aesthetically – your refusal to even acknowledge any of the many important physiological functions confirms your blatant bias and explains why much of your ‘work’ on this subject is totally skewed and therefore ignored by scientists and the global medical community.
            As far as aesthetics are concerned, you might feel that having a two-tone penis with a prominent scar and permanent externalisation of a body part that nature has designed to be covered for good reason, is aesthetically pleasing, but for most of the world’s men and their partners, the natural, intact look is far preferable. And there is nothing aesthetically pleasing about the bloody stump of a freshly circumcised boy’s penis.
            “Detrimental to health”? “Health Hazard”? You’re not fooling me or the many millions of men who live life untroubled by foreskin-related issues. If I ever DO have an issue with mine at some stage of my life (which, like ANY body part could be a possibility), I’ll expect my doctor to treat me conservatively with appropriate therapy designed to target my condition. Suggesting blanket prophylactic surgical removal of an important functional body part goes completely against the tenets of modern medicine, i.e. treating what is indicated, and ‘first do no harm’. Performing cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting boy to achieve a ‘look’ that you or a misguided doctor considers ‘aesthetically pleasing’ is ethically wrong on so many levels.
            The irony is that most of the foreskin-related issues in the USA are iatrogenic in nature. Well-meaning but dangerously ignorant US medical professionals who have zero knowledge of the value, functions and the care required of intact boys, wrongly instruct parents to ‘always clean under the foreskin’, and often forcibly retract the fused prepuce during routine exams, misdiagnosing physiological phimosis, and through their actions actually CAUSE infections and scarring – which often leads to pathological phimosis, and, (surprise, surprise) a justification for circumcision.
            This fundamental educational failing is widely reported by parents of intact boys in the US who are on constant watch for these ignorant doctors or nurses who believe ‘they know best’ but are ruining the lives of many young boys and providing people like you with a excuse to justify circumcision.
            These issues are virtually unheard of in the UK and Europe where doctors are trained using textbooks that show anatomically intact newborn babies and where intact care is fully understood in the medical community and parents have awareness of how to care for your baby without causing harm.
            Cancer of the penis is incredibly rare and you know as well as I do that both circumcised and intact men can suffer from it. Circumcision only reduces penile cancer rates if it is used to treat phimosis. When phimosis is not an issue, circumcision increases a man’s chance to develop penile cancer and the cancer site is normally found at the circumcision scar line. A healthy, non-phimotic penis is less likely to develop cancer than one that is circumcised. One study (which I am sure you will have conveniently ignored) states that, even without excluding phimosis cases from the data set, “more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event.”
            It’s funny that you talk about “examining the strong scientific evidence”. That is what the rest of the western world’s scientists and medical experts have also done. The same data, the same studies, and other studies (conveniently ignored by you) – and they have concluded that the risks and harm caused by routine neonatal circumcision is in no way justified by those marginal ‘benefits’ trumpeted by you and your delusional cronies.

          • professormorris

            Your comments demonstrate abject ignorance. What you say is simply not true. You seem full of the fallacies of anti-circ/intactivist propaganda. Penile cancer affects 1 in 1,000 men OVER THEIR LIFETIME. Phimosis is common in uncircumcised men. No surprise then that penile cancer is ONLY RARE IN CIRCUMCISED MEN. I do not have time to further educate you. In fact it seems no matter what the facts are you will resist those owing to your mindset.

          • Adam Cornish

            Penile cancer is not so rare in circumcised men, either.
            The Christopher Maden study, done in the US state of Washington, showed that 37% of men with penile cancer, got it on the site of their infant circumcision.

          • professormorris

            You distort the results of not only this cheery-picked study but of the extensive field of the research literature on penile cancer.

          • Adam Cornish

            Yes. I “cheery-picked” the study.
            Once again, why does the American Cancer Society not recommend circumcision to prevent penile cancer?

          • professormorris

            And how out of date was the ACS comment?

          • Adam Cornish

            I looked it up before I posted. Absolutely curent.

          • professormorris

            glad to hear you have a cure for rent.

          • Adam Cornish

            Pardon me?

          • professormorris

            You don’t even understand my joke based on your misspelling! Oh, why do I bother?!

          • Rodney Davidson

            Circumcision is not a joking matter, professor Morris. It is a serious assault.

          • professormorris

            Yes, circumcision is serious, so why do you and your kind play games with the facts? Perhaps it is you that is the joke?

          • Rodney Davidson

            Professor, you are the one who is cracking jokes about circumcision, a serious genital surgery with lifetime consequences. Shame on you. Those who advocate for routine circumcision for all male newborns in the USA are outliers. The fact is that no medical association in the entire world recommends it. In their extensive literature search of research that supports their views, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force reported in their 2012 Policy Statement that “health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns.” The professor’s claims that the benefits outweigh the risks 200 to 1 is not supported by any medical association in the entire world. Furthermore, these highly exaggerated claims of benefits do not give any value whatsoever to the value that an individual may place on his own healthy and functioning body parts, body/genital integrity, and sense of wholeness. Many men find their foreskin to be a very valuable part of their anatomy and would not sacrifice it without medical necessity for any of the purported benefits of having it amputated. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and nobody has the right to force their own sense of aesthetics on another person by surgery. A four-inch circumcision scar is not pretty. All of the so-called “benefits” can by and large be achieved with less invasive methods than surgical removal of healthy human tissue. It is unethical for anyone else to decide for another person that a healthy part of their body has no value and then amputate it without the consent of that individual. It is not an informed decision if parents are not educated about the physiology and function of the foreskin. It is not just “a flap of useless skin.” Far from it!

          • professormorris

            What a load of drivel and misinformation. I am tired of wasting my time replying to your rubbish. You are intent on ignoring strong science and instead are about causing serious harm to males of all ages, diminishing quality of life and causing deaths. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!

          • Rodney Davidson

            Professor Morris is the pot calling the kettle black, with his load of drivel and misinformation. The fact is that no medical association in the world subscribes to his radical views on male infant circumcision. No medical association in the world subscribes to his outlandish claims of benefits of circumcision outweighing risks 200 to 1. What utter nonsense! In fact, in his own country of Australia, the medical association there rejected Morris’ recent call for routine infant circumcision. What a rebuke! The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) downplays medical benefits and admits that most circumcisions are performed for religious or cultural reasons, NOT medical reasons. Neither the AAP nor any medical association in the world recommends male infant circumcision, unlike professor Morris who is a rabid fanatic in recommending it wholeheartedly. Or, rather, heartlessly, for EVERY newborn male. Why this big disconnect? There is something wrong with this picture. Parents, do your own research and do not listen to his outlier opinions that are not supported by any medical association in the entire world. Informed parental consent without disclosing the physiology and function of the foreskin is NOT full disclosure.

          • professormorris

            More lies by Roger Davidson who spouts anti-circ/intactivist propaganda. The AAP’s and CDC’s literature review came to the same conclusions as mine have. The CDC cited my risk-benefit analysis in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (see page 23 of their technical report). The “physiology and function of the foreskin” means it poses a risk of infection, inflammation, physical problems and genital cancers. That is what the AAP and CDC warned about in their documents. And that is what they want parents to know so that they can choose and consent to circumcision for a newborn boy. That is full disclosure and that is the responsible course for these major health and medical organisations. I don’t know where you got the idea that I advocate routine circumcision? Routine means mandatory. But I and the RACP, as well as other medical bodies worldwide, require parental consent. Same as applies to vaccination.

          • Rodney Davidson

            The professor speaks with forked tongue. Every medical association in the world rejects his radical opinions about circumcision. He is not being truthful when he says the AAP’s and CDC’s literature review came to the same conclusions he did. It is a fact that no medical association in the world has come to the same conclusions as professor Morris. Not even close to the same rabid views as the professor. His views are very much those of an outlier.

          • professormorris

            It is you who spout the lies of the anti-circ/intactivist brigade. Your rejection of science is appalling. Maybe you should work for the Donald? My conclusions mirror those of the AAP and CDC who studied the same literature as I did, although my recent review was able to include research findings published since their reports in 2012 and 2014.

          • Rodney Davidson

            The professor’s conclusions do NOT mirror those of the AAP and CDC. Far from it. How he can say that with a straight face is appalling. Perhaps his mentor is The Donald.

          • professormorris

            Spoken like a true science denialist. You will tell any lies to confuse people. People like you are a blight on society and a threat to public health. Scientific evidence will always win. It will trump the Trumpists like you too.

          • Rodney Davidson

            You are quite The Joker, professor. Your very own medical association there in Australia just rejected your opinion on circumcision again a few days ago. You must still be reeling from that rejection, but I suppose you are used to it by now. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) said:
            “The RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision for healthy male infants in Australia and New Zealand,” according to the RACP’s position statement on the issue. Elective infant male circumcision has been criticised on ethical and human rights grounds because the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the child is unable to consent, the RACP says.

          • professormorris

            The RACP is in disarray. You’d know if you were close to the action. All of the text you quote is straight from their flawed, completely discredited 2010 policy statement. They have nothing original or up-to-date to say. Meanwhile the RACP has lost credibility. An investigation of the governance of that body is underway. The RACP is currently the butt of jokes by the medical profession in Australia, and has lost the support of most of its members, who are even talking of forming a rival organization. So much for your “belief” in medical bodies worldwide rather than the strong scientific evidence that shows many of them to be totally wrong and out of step with the evidence. Only the AAP and CDC are major bodies that have done their homework and produced policies based on evidence.

          • Rodney Davidson

            Wow, professor! Speaking of the butt of jokes, your rant brings to mind this entry in Wikipedia:
            “Egomania is also known as an obsessive preoccupation with one’s self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation. Someone suffering from this extreme egocentric focus is an egomaniac. The condition is psychologically abnormal.”
            I’ve got a news flash for you. NONE of the world’s medical associations agrees with your EXTREME position on circumcision, including the AAP and CDC.

          • professormorris

            Indulge your fantasies all you like, but you will not sway the AAP and CDC whose policies are based on evidence, just as are my conclusions that male circumcision is important for public health, being akin to vaccination. The AAP and CDC DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR EXTREME VIEWS. Opponents of male circumcision have tried in vain to discredit the AAP and CDC policies. Time you and your kind gave up and did something useful for the world instead of trying to ruin peoples lives and health.

          • Rodney Davidson

            Medicine has to take into account the value of a human being and ALL body parts and the value that each individual places on their OWN bodily integrity. If this were not true then making medical decisions would be very easy – just give zero value to the human body and all of it’s parts. As a civilized society of course we don’t do this, EXCEPT for that one part of a penis called the foreskin. As long as you totally deny that a body part may have value to the individual to whom it belongs, you will never be able to solve the equation of BENEFITS of circumcision vs RISK and HARMS. It doesn’t matter one bit whether or not you place any value on your own body parts. Another man is not you. You deceive parents when you fail to recognize and fail to disclose the physiology and function of the human foreskin. Calling it a “useless flap of skin” shows that you are either ignorant or a fraud. Men who have a foreskin and their partners know better. If sexual function means that the penis works as it was intended to work by nature then there is no doubt that removing the foreskin changes a man’s sexual function. A man who is of the age of consent can decide for himself if a body part is “useless” but forcing that on an unconsenting newborn is unethical. Ignoring the physiology and function of the penis foreskin in your equation of benefits vs risks and harms makes your case fraudulent, professor.

          • professormorris

            A piece of skin that causes so many medical problems, infections, diseases and death in men and their female sexual partners should be removed as early in life as possible. Just as childhood vaccination the preventive measure should be administered as early as possible in life to maximise benefits and reduce risks. It would be highly irresponsible to delay vaccination. Should surgery for harelip be delayed until a child grows up? (even though it is mostly cosmetic). Should orthodontia (which is usually cosmetic) be delayed? Should growth hormone injections be for dwarfism be delayed? (when later injection after the long bones have fused will be ineffective). These and a host of other surgical or medical interventions are in the best interests of the child. It would be unethical not to recommend them. You should read the expert legal and ethical article in Int J Children’s Rights: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718182-02402004

          • Rodney Davidson

            Professor, you are a lone fanatic in your condemnation of the human foreskin. The American Academy of Pediatrics says the medical benefits of surgically removing the foreskin are “not great” and that circumcision is not usually done for medical reasons, which is something ENTIRELY different from your outrageously overstated claims of medical benefits. To try to bolster your case you make straw man arguments comparing non-therapeutic infant circumcision when there is no actual medical defect to other valid medical interventions when there is an actual medical defect to be treated. Shame on you! Anyone with half a brain can see through your shallow and unethical fallacies.

          • professormorris

            Utter rubbish! It amazes me how you come up with such nonsense. Have you actually read the AAP policy recommendations? They clearly state that after their extensive review of the medical literature they found that **BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS**. But concede that for some families there might be cultural factors more important to them than the medical beneficial benefits. They then go on to state that parents must receive unbiased education about benefits and low risks early in a pregnancy, providers must receive training, anaesthesia must be used, access must be facilitated (read Medicaid must be restored in the 18 states in the US that withdrew it a decade and more ago, as is now happening), and that 3rd party coverage (insurance) should be provided. All of this points to a strong affirmative policy. If it was not so strong it would not have been attacked so mercilessly (with gobbledegook such as yours) by anti-circs/intactivists. Of course all of the claims by opponent attempting to undermine the AAP policy have been debunked and exposed as fatally flawed.

          • Rodney Davidson

            You are quite the The Joker, professor, “professing” more utter nonsense, fabrications, and misinformation. One day your portrait will hang in the Hall of Fame next to Harvey Kellogg, another pro-circumcision fanaticisist from the Victorian era, who invented Kellogg’s Corn Flakes when he wasn’t advocating for whacking off parts of the genitals of both boys AND girls without anesthesia in order to cure masturbation. Is curing masturbation also one of your goals for circumcision, professor? Every medical association in the world undermines your radical opinions on circumcision, professor. Until you factor in the value an individual may place on his own healthy functioning body parts, YOUR equation of benefits vs risks and harms will NEVER add up. Is that so hard to understand? It is not molecular biology!

          • professormorris

            You are entirely wrong on all fronts once again. The Dr Kellogg you refer to was not the Kellogg of cornflakes fame.

          • M Lyndon

            You are entirely wrong. Dr John Harvey Kellogg of cornflakes flame was the same Dr John Harvey Kellogg who promoted male circumcision to prevent masturbation.

            http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19924

          • professormorris

            Who cares! Kellogg was wrong and cornflakes are junk food that should never have been invented. There are all sorts of ancient fallacies from way back when. Fortunately ongoing science has sorted the wheat from the chaff. So we know have a very much more accurate understanding of what is truth. Interestingly, the Victorian era was when circumcision to protect against syphilis (a scourge then and a growing scourge in recent years) was recognised. Same for phimosis, poor hygiene, balanitis and penile cancer. But circucmsiion is not the panacea against a host of other conditions a minority at the time believed it was. Please read an accurate history of circumcision in the following book chapter: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278660669_Why_Circumcision_From_Prehistory_to_the_Twenty-First_Century

          • M Lyndon

            Well you were the one calling Rodney “entirely wrong on all fronts again”, and citing that as an example.

            Circumcision was popularised in the Victorian era primarily to prevent masturbation. It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
            a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
            b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

            I think everyone now agrees that those notions are crazy, but the finest medical minds of the day mostly agreed that they were true. If it hadn’t been for that, then you probably wouldn’t have been circumcised many decades later, and you wouldn’t be spending so much time trying to promote the circumcision of others.

            If I’d been circumcised at birth, and you hadn’t, I can easily see how we might be on opposite sides of this argument. Worth thinking about…

          • professormorris

            Read the chapter to discover the truth about Victorian beliefs, many of which were not widely accepted at all, including the masturbation story. Of course inflammation, bacteria under the foreskin, etc caused itching, so causing the adolescent or older male to scratch his genitals, which could lead to arousal, etc. Hence the myth. But serious medical problems were recognised in the Victorian era. You might also like to read this article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283789116_Male_circumcision_to_prevent_syphilis_in_1855_and_HIV_in_1986_is_supported_by_the_accumulated_scientific_evidence_to_2015_Response_to_Darby

          • Adam Cornish

            Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, eh, professor?

          • Adam Cornish

            Actually, the John Harvey Kellogg of circumcision fame is the same man who invented corn flakes. He also recommended dousing clitorises with carbolic acid.

          • professormorris

            Any doctor who gets it wrong is eventually exposed. A good example is Dr Andrew Wakefield who linked childhood vaccination to autism. The a few doctors who distort the evidence favouring circumcision. Their rubbish has been exposed by experts over the years. All considerations of the scientific evidence these days strongly point to major benefits of infant male circumcision and negligible risks. …. just as is the case for childhood vaccination. You must be mathematically incapable if you are unable to understand a simple Table that conservatively lists all benefits and risks and can’t do the addition and ratio calculation. Benefits exceed risks by over a 100 to 1, and actually is 200 to 1. Over their lifetime more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will suffer an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin.

          • Rodney Davidson

            And almost 100% of all people will suffer “an adverse medical condition” caused by their nose, their feet, their fingernails, you name the body part, professor. Nobody is keen on cutting off those body parts. Your so-called benefit/risk calculations are fatally flawed, written by an evil scientist who professes circumcision as a cure for masturbation. The professor knows good and well that no medical association in the world agrees with his exaggerated 100 to 1 or 200 to 1 calculations, because they are absurd.

          • professormorris

            What an utterly stupid and ridiculous comment. Are you really serious? And you are too lazy or incompetent do do the math!
            No one has produced an alternative set of figures to my over 100 to 1 and over 1 in 2 uncircumcised males over the lifetime figures. My risk-benefit analysis has progressed over the past decade in several articles to accommodate new research findings that continue to appear. No medical association has disputed my calculations. Only people like you who are ignorant and refuse to accept the strong scientific evidence.

          • Rodney Davidson

            Professor, here is what Wikipedia says about you:
            “Morris wrote the 1999 book In Favour of Circumcision; Basil Donovan, Director of the Sydney Sexual Health Centre and a Clinical Professor in the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the same university at which Morris was employed, the University of Sydney, criticised the book as ‘dangerous’ and ‘a serious disservice to parents.’ Other experts are also forthright in their criticism of Morris over circumcision.” You are in the same league as Victorian era Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., who was a proponent of circumcision as a cure for masturbation. No medical association in the entire world supports your extreme outlier opinions on circumcision. You only consider risks of the surgical procedure itself and do not consider the ethics and harm of the loss of healthy functional human tissue that the individual to whom it belongs may place great value on since it no doubt plays an important role in sexual function in adulthood. Even if you don’t think a foreskin would have any value to you personally, it is not ethical to cut off a healthy functioning part of another person’s body who has not consented. That person can decide for themselves when they reach the age of consent.

          • Adam Cornish

            Keep saying it. Someday, you may actually believe it.
            You really have nothing better to do with your time, professor?

          • Adam Cornish

            and yet the AAP does not recommend circumcision.
            Go figure.

          • Adam Cornish

            Why do you think that the foreskin is the only healthy body part routinely removed in the US? Is it because of the depth and quality of your research? Or because people are actually listening to what you have to say? Or is it because of some other reason? If they were listening to the AAP, AMA, and CDC, the circumcision rate in the US would be climbing. It’s not, it is dropping rapidly.
            Why do you think that the US stands alone, in coming close to recommending circumcision, though its medical societies claim they don’t promote it?
            Are the Europeans, Australians, South Americans, and most Asians so scientifically unsophisticated that they can’t comprehend circumcision’s true benefits? Or are they utterly unconvinced by the evidence? If they are so unsophisticated and simple, why do they all have good cellular phones, and internet access?

          • Preppydad

            Fry them like calamari and dip them in a nice sauce….a not chewy, but I am sure an old queer like you would enjoy them…

          • Adam Cornish

            You called Rodney a science denialist. Then, when he pointed out that the RACP rejected your alleged science, you say the RACP is in disarray, they have nothing original or up to date to say, have lost credibility.
            It is you who has failed to demonstrate any science.
            It is you who has nothing original or up to date to say.
            It is you who is wasting the time, the butt of jokes, etc.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdGbXdEo93U
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15nXQoQdJOY
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK6ib01w_BI

          • Adam Cornish

            Thank you!

          • Jhon Murdock

            Edit: “My conclusions fun house mirror those of the AAP and CDC who studied the same literature as I did,…”
            And BTW where is the scientific, in the laboratory, under the microscope proof that HIV enters the male body via the foreskin? Where is it? Stop stalling.

          • Rodney Davidson

            It is an outright lie when the professor says, “My conclusions mirror those of the AAP and CDC.” The professor is an outlier. He has his own personal agenda. No medical association in the world follows his radical extreme ideas about circumcision. His ugly conclusions do NOT mirror anything but his own ugly reflection. The professor lies when he says the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends circumcision. No medical association in the entire world recommends circumcision. Circumcision rates are declining almost everywhere except where done as a religious ritual.

          • professormorris

            But you would say that! And you are wrong. You fail to understand the AAP and CDC policies, nor the scientific evidence they, I, and all others who have also evaluated the evidence scientifically.

          • Rodney Davidson

            No medical association in the world follows your radical extreme ideas about infant circumcision. That is just a fact. You are an outlier.

          • Adam Cornish

            Show us the deaths due to foreskin.
            I will show you all the deaths due to circumcision, that have wrongful death lawsuits filed.

          • Adam Cornish

            You have all the time in the world to further educate us. What you don’t have is the truth.
            Why does the American Cancer Society not recommend circumcision to prevent penile cancer?

          • professormorris

            You have no perspective. The massive reviews by the AAP and CDC vs. a one-liner by ACS who did not conduct a literature review and was simply spouting from their navel.

          • Adam Cornish

            Really? For the past 50 years, the ACS has been spouting from its navel?
            What have you been spouting from, Professor?

          • professormorris

            STRONG SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, SUPPORTED BY THE AAP AND CDC. ….. and other respected medical and health bodies,

          • Adam Cornish

            Your capital shouting means nothing to anyone.
            How much can one respect the CDC, when they fail to keep figures on the real harm that circumcision does, such as death, skin bridges, hidden penis, adhesions, and meatal stenosis, and then turn around and declare with no evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks?
            What about the respected medical bodies of all the other countries? Show me one medical body from any one country, apart from the US, which states that the benefits outweigh the risks. There is not one. Not even Israel, nor Ethiopia, where the circumcision rate is 100%.

          • professormorris

            Circumcision policies based on scientific evidence trump policies based on navel-gazing every time. And the latter are old, very weak, and merely opinions based on prejudice in the countries or the paediatric bodies in those countries that produced them. As for Israel and Muslim countries, there is hardly any point in having a policy wen virtually all men are circumcised.

          • Adam Cornish

            Really?
            I’m glad the RACP didn’t take your bait, and decided to stick with real science.
            You know better than every medical organization in Europe, eh. Glad to hear it. Why is it again, that no one except the Mayo Clinic seems to accept what you put out?
            Oh, yes. They are all based on navel-gazing. That’s why Oxford had harsh words for the three African studies.

          • professormorris

            The RACP will I am sure align with the evidence at long last now that the AAP and CDC policies have appeared. The RACP policy is old (2010), was a website placement not peer reviewed, whereas the critique of the RACP policy by expert Fellows of the RACP and of other medical bodies was published after peer-review in an official RACP journal in 2012. The Mayo Clinic is a strong authority on all medical issues. Anyone would believe them rather than intactivist ignorance and propaganda that is actually the true navel gazing. The three trials are accepted by all except people like you who are intent on increasing suffering and deaths in order to persevere a useless piece of skin whose only purpose is to satisfy a tiny few men who engage in ‘docking’ and those gullible enough to swallow their propaganda.

          • Preppydad

            Short and to the point….it is healthier, cleaner and better looking to be circumcised with no side effects. Circumcision perfects the imperfect…..

          • bsr

            You, sir are an absolutely vile human being of the highest order. Looking at many of your recent posts (had a pro-circ trolling blitz across all media, did we?), it’s abundantly clear you’re a wretched, body-shaming, racist, sexist, boastful, entitled, foul-mouthed, utterly ignorant, illiterate, angry and bitter old man. I’m not surprised to learn that you voted for Trump – you’d be perfect as one of his advisors.
            You really shouldn’t have been allowed to have children as I’m sure you have indoctrinated them with your disgusting bile and racist, supremacist hate.
            Nobody will pay any attention to your pathetically ignorant posts – it’s clear that when they circumcised your 8-incher (yeah, right!) they messed with your small brain too.
            And, for the record, a circumcised penis does not acquire magical self-cleaning properties – ALL unwashed penises, cut or intact, need cleaning. As for aesthetics, you might feel that a prominent scar right round your penis, two-toned shaft skin, skin bridges and adhesions, and a rough, keratinized glans is very attractive, but 80% of the world’s men and women disagree with you.
            I hope that one day, your prejudices and vile behaviour will catch up with you – before you can get to your vast collection of guns. I think you should volunteer to help build that wall to keep out those ‘nasty’ Mexicans you so despise.
            And please, please – for God’s sake – before you post again, learn how and when to use a bloody apostrophe correctly.

          • Preppydad

            BTW- I careless if any anti responds to me…In circumcised males are lower than pond scum…

          • bsr

            You really must proof-read your rambling nonsense BEFORE you hit the ‘post’ button.
            I’m not surprised that you feel you have the right to lecture ‘pond-scum’ but you won’t entertain the idea of actually engaging in debate.
            I suspect it’s an intellectual inferiority complex which probably corresponds more accurately with the true size of your ’8 incher’. As well as having lots of guns to demonstrate your manliness, I bet you drive a big car too. Enough said.

          • Preppydad

            I don’t have lots of guns, one of my brothers has 50…Big car? No…..a 2013 Panamara, a 1992 Mondial (last year of them) 2015 G63 and my original Porsche I received for my 16th birthday. My wife has an S550. You seem fascinated with my penis, it came from my fathers DNA. German, but was circumcised prior to my mom marrying him, it was a stipulation. To this day he still says it is the best thing hr ever did. He and his second trophy wife just had a boy and had him circumcised as well…..I could careless about proof reading, its a stupid posting site…I am bored as I am awaiting neck surgery for a compression fracture from a fall and spend hours in bed until I have my surgery.

          • bsr

            I’m not obsessed by it – it was you who boasted about it in one of your previous posts.
            Good luck with your neck operation.

          • Preppydad

            I did not boast….the idiot I responded to insinuated that I had a small member and small hands…considering I am 6’2″ that doesn’t even make sense. The neck is a 45 minute procedure and I am discharged an hour or so later. The cost for my insurance is $150,000usd…crazy

          • Adam Cornish

            Compensating for something?
            I wonder what that could be.
            Oh, I get it.

          • Jhon Murdock

            Laid up? Can’t travel to Masada? Take the Hunter Thompson one gun solution. “Buy the ticket, take the trip.”

          • Preppydad

            Go douche with drainO! Shouldn’t you be making fried bananas for your husband?

          • Jhon Murdock

            May your upcoming surgery effect the transmigration of your culturally abominated soul. For those who won’t go to Masada, Masada will come for them.

      • Rodney Davidson

        Professor Morris speaks half-truths. Beware. He cherrypicks data. The American Cancer Society says, “Penile cancer is rare in North America and Europe….In the United States, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so in other ways, such as by avoiding human papilloma virus (HPV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and by not smoking. Men who aren’t circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good genital hygiene. Although infant circumcision can lower the risk of penile cancer, based on the low risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country.”

      • Preppydad

        I read in Mexico, Central and South America penile cancer makes up 1/3 of male cancers.

        • Adam Cornish

          Yeah. And you believe that the American military circumcises everybody, that Mexicans are animals, and that circumcision perfects.

    • Preppydad

      They don’t have all the Wetters…filthy animals.

      • Adam Cornish

        Some called the Jews animals, before World War II. They moved them in cattle cars, and exterminated them, like they were somehow less than human…just because the German government said so.
        Haven’t we gotten beyond calling other humans animals?
        Do you really want to go back in time to that era? It sounds like you do.

        • Preppydad

          Amazing that Jews have won more Nobel Prize than any other group…

          • Adam Cornish

            So what? You don’t get it, because you don’t want to.
            Calling people animals is absurd. You calling Mexicans wetters and animals, is the same as Hitler saying Jews are subhumans. Do you really want to call people animals, and think like Hitler? Or do you want to stop calling Mexicans wetters, and animals. Your choice.

  • M Lyndon

    Drops in male circumcision since 1950:
    USA: from 90% to around 60%
    Canada: from 48% to 32%
    UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
    Australia: 85% to 12.4% (“routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one)
    New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
    South America and Europe: never above 5%

    This is what some national medical organizations say:

    Canadian Paediatric Society
    “OTTAWA— In an updated statement released today, the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) continues to recommend against the routine circumcision of newborn males.”

    Royal Australasian College of Physicians
    “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
    (almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)

    British Medical Association
    “to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
    “The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.”

    Danish Medical Association
    “The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark.
    The association released its recommendation on Friday, saying that circumcision should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men should make for themselves.”

    The Royal Dutch Medical Association
    “The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”

    Mexican Secretariat of the Interior
    ” Evitar como práctica rutinaria la circuncisión, toda vez que no existe evidencia científica que compruebe un beneficio directo a la persona recién nacida.”
    Sec 5.7.13 “Avoid circumcision as a routine practice, since there is no scientific evidence to prove a direct benefit to the newborn person.”

    Swedish Paediatric Society
    “Circumcision of young boys for religious and non-medical reasons ought to be banned in Sweden, urged the Swedish Paediatric Society (Svenska barnläkarföreningen, BLF).”

    “[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”

    German Pediatric Association
    “Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”

  • 4skin4life

    Professor Morris is Brian Morris who has a fétish watching boys being circumcised. Google Brian Morris intact wiki or circ leaks for more about him.

  • Rodney Davidson

    There goes professor Morris again with his misinformation, cherry picking data and making gross extrapolations. He said, “AAP now recommend circumcision.” He knows that is not true! Yet he stated that falsehood anyway! Shame on you professor Morris for your deceit. Parents who rely on Morris’s advice will do a grave disservice to their sons. As a man who was harmed for a lifetime by the practice of routine infant circumcision I am speaking out against it. Parents should do their own research and not rely on anyone who reaps financial gain from the practice of circumcision.

  • FrederickRhodes

    Using science to prove genital cutting rituals on infants and children have health or prevention benefits is based on misinformation on proper care, development, and hygiene of infants and children, and shows a lack of empathy towards parents who are properly educated on keeping their children healthy and whole without ever causing a need or desire to cut their children’s genitals. It’s a psychosis to want to cut healthy functioning organs off of people’s bodies, called Apotemnophilia

    https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiv1bCF9ZzSAhUHvRQKHeyaD6sQFgghMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FApotemnophilia&usg=AFQjCNGMTBtD_sVJC_em2PrgD9-Pxp0MNg&sig2=-K-Na-K5QBcAnWwvD4fonQ

  • Rodney Davidson

    Professor Morris tells half-truths as his arguments. He distorts the truth. He does not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Parents, do not listen to him. Do your own research.

  • Rodney Davidson

    Your silly arguments are a moving target, professor. Can you stay on topic? When you are called out on one topic, you change to a straw man argument on a multitude of topics to cloud the issues. Have you considered going into politics?

  • Adam Cornish

    So, Professor Morris, should we remove the breast buds of girls whose mothers had breast cancer? No? Why should we remove boys foreskins?
    Which orifice did you pull the “fact” that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks by 200 to 1 out of?
    Why was it 100 to 1, when you were teamed up with the Mayo Clinic a year or two ago? Have the benefits increased that much in that amount of time? Or were you lying?

  • Rodney Davidson

    The professor repeatedly makes these silly arguments about “the bacteria” on a foreskin. But he knows full well that in the human body certain bacteria (natural flora and fauna) are, in fact, beneficial. And his radical viewpoint on this bacteria-infested foreskin is not supported by ANY medical association in the world. In the USA and most other developed countries, running water pretty much solves the issue for both boys and girls. Morris could make a similar argument about the inside of a person’s bacteria-infested mouth soon after brushing their teeth. Oh, my!

  • Gregory Malchuk

    So how does infant circumcision square with fundamental principles of medical ethics, especially physical integrity, non-harm, and proportionality of treatment, as well as informed consent and do-good? Conventional medical ethics doesn’t seem to allow for surgery, much less amputation, when there is no disease process in place.

    • professormorris

      The latest ethical and legal evaluation concludes that failure to recommend circumcision early in infancy is unethical as international conventions require parents to protect the health and well-being of their child, which of course circumcision achieves. Please read the free article by professors of law, ethics and medicine in International Journal of Children’s Rights: http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/Rivin_IntJChildrensRights_2016.pdf

      • Mglass

        Brian, the article you referred to is worth reading, even though it is quite partisan in tone. However, circumcision is still surgery and there are still risks, such as infection, haemorrhage and bad surgical outcomes.

        I believe that public safety can be enhanced by the following changes:

        1 Unqualified people should be banned from circumcising anyone!

        2 Qualified but incompetent circumcisers should be banned from circumcising anyone else!

        3 Strict and thorough record-keeping would help in finding out who the incompetent operators are, and weeding them out.

        4 Dangerous traditional practices such as metzitzah b’peh (oral suction of the circumcision wound) should be discouraged by public education and other suitable measures.

        5 Before anyone is circumcised, an independent doctor must certify in writing that the person is free of any bleeding disorders and any other contra-indications and is strong enough to withstand the surgery.

        6 Before a child is circumcised, both the mother and the father must give informed and written consent to the surgery. No child should be circumcised against the objection of a parent.

        7 If a man or an older child is forcibly circumcised against his will, this should be treated as a sexual assault, and the perpetrator prosecuted accordingly.

        These rules won’t interfere with most circumcisions, but they would, if implemented, give more protection to those who undergo this procedure.

        • professormorris

          Medical authorities would agree with your list Michael.

          • Mglass

            The reforms that I have proposed will only be enacted when people realise that these reforms are essential to minimise harm from circumcision.

        • Jhon Murdock

          The key question, is whether the net benefits (i.e. after taking all harms into account) are great enough to justify performing the operation on children who cannot give informed consent. In making this assessment it is not enough to dredge through the vast accumulation of medical literature to find studies supporting some degree of risk reduction; nor is it enough when considering the cons to consider merely the risk of surgical complications, as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control have done. The calculation required is far more complex.

          First you must consider the frequency, severity, transmissibility and curability of the diseases etc to which circumcision is claimed to provide protection. Then (2) you must make a comprehensive study of the physical harms, including impact on sexual experience, surgical complications and other adverse outcomes, not merely in the immediate post-operative period, but long-term, until sexual maturity. Then (3) you must factor in the sexual, aesthetic, and personal value of the foreskin to the individual and the psychological impact of removing it. Next (4) you must assess the ethical harms and damage to human rights arising from operating without informed consent. Finally (5), you must find some widely acceptable formula for weighting all these disparate factors to produce a final judgement.

          Until all of this can be accomplished, non therapeutic foreskin amputation of all minors, male and female, must be terminated.

          As you continue to avoid in all of your comments, the ethical questions that arise from the forcible amputation of body parts from unconsenting, under age victims, you must be classified as an enabler or promoter of this abhorrent human rights violation.

          • Mglass

            Hello Jhon,

            Thank you for your interesting comment. You make some very good points. Of course it is ridiculous – and cruel – to circumcise a child because his foreskin is too tight, if this can be remedied by simple stretching. Certainly it is outrageous to circumcise a child because his foreskin is too long for the aesthetic sensibility of his carers or medical advisers.

            However, in a world where two major religions believe that their deity ordered circumcision, and where some doctors see merit in promoting circumcision, your call for the immediate termination of circumcision would be an exercise in futility if you oppose every partial reform.

            If you want to write me off as an “enabler or promoter” of a practice you abhor, so be it. However, I ask you to consider if the world would be a better place if:

            * Forced circumcision of men and older boys was treated as s sexual assault?

            * Unqualified people were forbidden to circumcise anyone?

            * Qualified but incompetent circumcisers were weeded out pronto?

            * Babies were checked for bleeding disorders and other contraindications before they were circumcised?

            * No child to be circumcised if a parent objected?

            By all means campaign for your ideals. It is essential for any reform. However, don’t make the perfect the enemy of every partial improvement.

  • 4skin4life

    Your gig is up Brian Morris. Only those who share your same fetish or are blinded by their cultural and religious beliefs support your bull. You are a sad man desperate to maintain some sense of importance in this arena. Your wrong Brian. Read about yourself on circleaks and consider therapy. Promoting the genital cutting of children is a sickness.

    • professormorris

      Since you are unable to provide logical or evidence-based comments you have resorted to slander. You play the man not the ball, a true sign that you have lost the game! Of course what you say about me is absolute rubbish, showing how desperate you are.

  • QuestioningMorris

    If what you stated was true that “over their lifetime 80% of uncircumcised males will suffer an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin” common sense would say that medical associations from all over the world would be recommending circumcision. But none do. And men from non-circumcising nations who may read your claims are not knocking at the doors of their local urologists asking to have their foreskins removed. Are you so much smarter than all the doctors in all the countries around the world?
    And as far as your ideas about aesthetics, all the art and sculpture of the male body that can be seen in any museum anywhere shows a naturally intact male. Take for example the Statue of David. So your idea of aesthetics isn’t in line with most of the rest of the world.

    • professormorris

      Only a matter of time before these data stimulate a rethink on strength of recommendations.
      For a better understanding of Italian art such as David’s statue you will need to read: “The Prepuce in Italian Art—Evidence from Von Gloeden’s Photographs” in Open Access Library Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102898
      http://file.scirp.org/Html/69787_69787.htm

      • Adam Cornish

        Perhaps The David would be healthier, if you circumcised him.

  • Hassan Ibrahim

    Mr. Morris, do the same health benefits apply to women, when the clitoral hood is cut off? The clitoris hood is made out of the same tissue and plays a similar role to foreskin. Is foreskin only human genetic defect or all mammals just as unfortunate to have foreskin are humans are?

    • Gregory Malchuk

      Studies in circumcised women in Africa suggested the same reduction in STD’s that is “claimed” for circumcised men. Thankfully, that revelation didn’t alter how we think about FEMALE CIRCUMCISION, because the fundamental ethical calculus doesn’t change whether or not there are claimed “medical benefits”. If there is no disease process in place, then surgery, much less amputation is UNJUSTIFIABLE. We need to reconcile this aspect of female circumcision with the public opinion on male circumcision.

  • Mglass

    Despite the boosters, both religious and medical, circumcision is not automatically safe and beneficial. Because circumcision means cutting the body, there are always risks. These risks can be minimised but cannot be eliminated entirely. There are also ethical questions about this practice.

    The following proposals won’t address all the ethical questions, but they might help to minimise the bad outcomes..

    1 Unqualified people should be banned from circumcising anyone!

    2 Qualified but incompetent circumcisers should be banned from circumcising anyone else!

    3 Strict and thorough record-keeping would help in finding out who the incompetent operators are, and weeding them out.

    4 Dangerous traditional practices should be discouraged by public education and other suitable measures.

    5 Before anyone is circumcised, an independent doctor must certify in writing that the person is free of any bleeding disorders and any other contra-indications, and is strong enough to withstand the surgery.

    6 Before a child is circumcised, both the mother and the father must give informed and written consent to the surgery. No child should be circumcised against the objection of a parent.

    7 If a man or an older child is forcibly circumcised against his will, this should be treated as a sexual assault, and the perpetrator prosecuted accordingly.

    These rules won’t interfere with most circumcisions, but they would, if implemented, give some protection to those who are circumcised.

    • Rodney Davidson

      The problem is that when pro-circumcision advocates talk about “risks” and “benefits” of circumcision surgery they neglect to mention long-term (lifetime) complications and harms of having a normal healthy functioning body part amputated. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that they do not really know the extent of long-term complications and harms of infant circumcision. Pro-circ advocates talk about the risks of the surgery itself but almost NEVER talk about the value of the body part to the individual from whom it is being removed. They never talk about the functions of the foreskin and usually pretend it has none. They will not concede that a man may place value on retaining his foreskin. The foreskin is not just a “useless flap of skin” that has no value to its owner. A case could be made for amputating other so-called “useless” body parts of infants either prophylactically or for aesthetic or cultural reasons. This used to be done with tonsils and the appendix and even parts of female genitalia. But no more! Circumcision will eventually be relegated to the same fate. It is just a matter of time. The USA is practically the last bastion for routine infant circumcision in developed nations. Some countries practice it in large numbers for religious reasons, but THAT is a whole other discussion. Most other nations have abandoned the practice in ever-decreasing numbers. Routine infant circumcision in the USA is declining as well, now that information is readily available on the Internet. Parents, do your homework and do not rely solely on the recommendations of those who stand to make money from the practice of circumcision.

      • Mglass

        The question about whether or not to circumcise will be decided by millions of parents individually making choices. Time will tell if circumcision is rising or declining or remaining steady.

        What we can say with some certainty is that circumcision has gone from being routine to being controversial. This article in the Washington Post may give some clues about future trends: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/26/americans-truly-are-exceptional-at-least-when-it-comes-to-circumcision/?utm_term=.8fcf82d58680

        • Rodney Davidson

          Yes, and as long as it is legal the parents who make these decisions must have unbiased full disclosure about the physiology and function of the part of the child’s body that is to be amputated. Not just the risks of the surgery itself to remove that body part. Parents need to decide if it is ethical for them to decide whether or not a part of another person’s body has value to that person who cannot consent to its permanent surgical removal. Again, the point is UNBIASED FULL DISCLOSURE. That is what is missing here. For example, since I live in the USA and have access to soap and running water, I would be willing to accept the tiny risk of developing penile cancer in old age, in exchange for the benefits of keeping my body whole. Cleanliness may be as protective as prophylactically amputating healthy human tissue. There are vaccines and condoms to protect against STD’s, as well as abstinence and in the USA I may rather choose that route than having body parts amputated as a preventative. In the USA I may rather take my chances with a UTI and antibiotics.

          • Mglass

            If it’s any help, it appears that circumcision is declining in parts of Australia. See http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/circumcision-rates-continue-to-fall-in-canberra-20170207-gu7j1j.html

          • Rodney Davidson

            Yes, good to know that even in his own country of Australia, the pro-circumcision fanatic’s opinions are being rejected, just like they are in the rest of the civilized world.

          • Mglass

            Circumcision rates vary between countries and even within countries. That’s true of Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

        • Gregory Malchuk

          “Time will tell if circumcision is rising or declining or remaining steady.”
          Time has already told. The circumcision rate in America is below 45% and falling fast. Circumcision is a MINORITY position among the youth in America.

          • Rodney Davidson

            Yes, circumcision rates are declining from their highs in the 1980′s. The Washington Post article says:
            “Survey data indicate that we may see these declines continue. A YouGov survey conducted earlier this year found that young people were more skeptical about the practice than their elders: only 33 percent of 18-to-29 year-olds said that male children should be routinely circumcised.”
            This is the younger generation that has information at their fingertips on the Internet. It does not take much looking on the Internet these days for people to find out for themselves the truth about circumcision. For good reason, circumcision Is indeed becoming a minority position among the youth in the USA, just as it has in most developed nations in the rest of the world.

          • Mglass

            Are you sure? The most recent figures appear to have come from 2010 and showed a rate of that was higher https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

          • Preppydad

            White males in the USA have a circumcision rate above 80%, the only reason some states like CA and FL have low rates is the influx of breeding third world animals.

          • Mglass

            Preppy, you have sunk to a new low, calling fellow human beings animals. Shame on you!

          • Preppydad

            Hey they are just Mexicans……

          • Mglass

            Hey, they are just human beings.

          • Preppydad

            Uncircumcised animals…..

          • Mglass

            No. Human beings.

          • Preppydad

            No, uncircumcised males are lower life forms…lower than my dogs.

          • Mglass

            That attitude is seriously weird.

          • Preppydad

            They are mere animals, lower life forms…pond scum.

          • Mglass

            Preppy, you’re wonderful. Having said something mad, you’ve topped it by saying something even more crazy!

          • Preppydad

            Your belief’s are crazy to me…..I have an employee who is a Satanist, seems a bit over the top, but hey he is happy and successful. So Fcuk off already!

          • Mglass

            Preppy, let’s see if you are man enough to correct the word you misspelt and remove the foul language in your previous post.

          • Jhon Murdock

            Avoid the influx of these humane, non mutilating peoples and take your culturally biased *ss and ritually mutilated p*nis to the heights of Masada. Don’t forget your grocery clerk’s box cutter.

          • Preppydad

            Spik stay in your third world ghetto and leave America to American’s! God I hate Spiks….

          • Jhon Murdock

            .You despise everyone, especially your own kind, and that’s why you cut them. Masada is your only way out . Make for the exit. Now.

          • Preppydad

            Not for white males who get circumcised at a rate of 80% plus….

    • Rodney Davidson

      Minimizing “bad” outcomes of male genital mutilation is like enacting voluntary rules so that slave owners did not treat slaves so brutally. The underlying ethical questions cannot be ignored because EVERY nontheraputic infant circumcision has a BAD outcome. Permanent surgical alteration of a baby for aesthetic and cultural reasons is immoral. Failure to fully inform parents about the long-term risks and HARMS of circumcision make those who perform the surgery unethical. Failure to fully inform parents about the sexual function of the human foreskin makes the practice criminal child abuse.

      • Mglass

        As I said above, my proposals don’t address all the ethical questions, but they are designed to minimise the really bad outcomes of circumcision.

        By all means stick to your principles, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of smaller improvements. Ask yourself these questions.

        * Is treating the forced circumcision of adults and older boys as a sexual assault a worthy aim?

        * Is insisting that no child be circumcised against the objection of a parent a worthy aim?

        * Is banning unqualified people from circumcising anyone a worthy aim?

        William Wilberforce battled for decades for the end of the slave trade because he knew that difficult though this was, it was a stepping stone to the abolition of slavery altogether. Wilberforce had the sense to aim for the achievable in his lifetime; the Slavery Abolition Act was passed a month after his death.

        I believe my proposals are difficult, but could be achievable. By all means, fight for more, but don’t oppose less sweeping proposals.

        • Rodney Davidson

          I have a question about your proposals. You seem to be an intelligent person so I expect that you will have an intelligent answer. You say that one of your proposals is “Before a child is circumcised, both the mother and the father must give informed and written consent to the surgery.” Informed consent means explaining more to the parent than just the risks of the surgery itself, but explaining about the physiology and function of a normal healthy foreskin in both a child and an adult male, and what is lost to its amputation. A parent cannot make an INFORMED decision about this surgery on an infant without this information. Please explain what YOU would propose to tell a parent to accurately inform them about the body part that is to be surgically removed by circumcision.

          • Mglass

            Certainly parents should be given accurate information about the foreskin. Here is what the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says on page 7 of their document:

            “The foreskin has two main functions. Firstly it exists to protect the glans penis. Secondly the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis.[21] The effects of circumcision on sexual sensation however are not clear, with reports of both enhanced and diminished sexual pleasure following the procedure in adults and little awareness of advantage or disadvantage in those circumcised in infancy.[22, 23] Two recent African studies reported no evidence of sexual disadvantage or dysfunction after adult circumcision.[24, 25] An Australian study of homosexual men reported that circumcision status did not affect their sexual experience.[26]”

            See: https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf

            I have quoted this in full, even though it seems paradoxical that removing “”some of the most sensitive areas of the penis” could have an effect on sexual sensation that is “not clear.”

            It may be that the German and Scandinavian policies have more to say on the question, but that seems to be the best that I can come up with.

            I hope that answers your question.

          • Rodney Davidson

            The doctors who perform circumcisions on infants must be honest and thorough with parents with informed consent regarding the physiology and function of the male foreskin and what is lost to circumcision else it is not informed consent at all. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) seems to be playing dumb with the long-term harms of circumcision, although they at least readily admit that infant circumcision is not medically necessary and the benefits are not great and that it is usually done for cultural and religious reasons, not medical benefits. Professor Morris is worse than the AAP with his deceitful exaggerations of the so-call medical benefits of circumcision that are HUGELY out of line with EVERY medical association in the world, and he does not admit to a SINGLE long-term HARM of circumcision. I am still not certain where YOU fit in and how thorough you intend to follow through with your goal of “Before a child is circumcised, both the mother and and the father must give informed and written consent to the surgery.” Informed consent means explaining more to the parent than just the risks of the surgery itself, but explaining about the physiology and function of a normal healthy foreskin in both a child and an adult male, and what is lost to its amputation. A parent cannot make an INFORMED decision about this surgery on an infant without this information.

          • Mglass

            I agree that parents should have accurate information about the foreskin. That, of course, is highly contested. Nevertheless, it’s a worthy aim.

            However, if you reply, I would value your answer to the following three questions:

            * Is treating the forced circumcision of adults and older boys as a sexual assault a worthy aim?

            * Is insisting that no child be circumcised against the objection of a parent a worthy aim?

            * Is banning unqualified people from circumcising anyone a worthy aim?

          • Rodney Davidson

            Well, sure, those are indeed worthy aims that are at least 100 years overdue in the USA. They are no-brainers, of course, BUT, they are too little, too late, and could have and should have been implemented by circumcisers 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago. In the meantime, thousands upon thousands of baby boys are being harmed and will continue to be harmed, even if your voluntary rules are agreed to. But the question is, agreed to by whom? The AAP? And how could these rules be enforced? You seem genuinely concerned and eager to help, and I applaud you for that. But I still see the best avenue of improving things is educating parents and the public, i.e., to get the truth out about the true risks and harms of infant circumcision. Ethical questions aside, when people know the truth about the harms of circumcision, the practice will all but disappear in the USA, except for religious zealots, just as it has in almost all other modern industrialized countries. Free speech will continue to erode the influence of those who thrive when the topic of circumcision is kept quiet.

          • Mglass

            Education is the key to changes in circumcision practices. The changes that I have recommended won’t come about without a groundswell of support. It’s not a case of education versus legal changes, the two approaches will work together to improve the present situation.

            Remember that the law has a powerful educative effect. That’s why we need to ban unqualified people from circumcising anyone and why the forced circumcision of adults and older boys should be treated as a sexual assault.

          • Rodney Davidson

            I do agree with you in principle, but those who circumcise police themselves and so there is nobody to enforce the standards you propose. Who determines who is “qualified” to circumcise? Holding a license to practice medicine does not make one “qualified” to circumcise. There is too much variability in the practice of performing non-therapeutic “cosmetic” surgery on tiny infants. Some harms of circumcision do not become apparent until decades after the assault, and therefore thousands of boys and men will have suffered harm before an “unqualified” circumciser is forced out of the business. I do agree with you that education is the key to changes in circumcision practice.

          • Mglass

            I’ll give you a clear instance where the laws of England failed to protect the public from a smooth-talking rogue who pretended to be a doctor and circumcised young boys. When caught he argued that there were no laws governing circumcision in England. The magistrate accepted this and let him off! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3205849.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3244925.stm

            I think that any reasonable person would agree that the law should prohibit unqualified people from circumcising anyone!

            Controlling circumcision by law is not a magic bullet, and it won’t be easy to enact, but it’s better than the present situation where circumcision is essentially unregulated.

          • Rodney Davidson

            To my knowledge in the USA there is no case law saying non-therapeutic circumcision on an infant is actually legal. Existing laws against sexual assault and child abuse are not being enforced, but there will eventually be a challenge that the federal law protecting girls in the USA from female genital cutting gives equal protection under the law to boys. I cannot see that it would be helpful at this time to enact laws to regulate what is essentially an illegal practice. Especially laws that are unenforceable and woul only confuse people into thinking they are somehow being protected from harm. I, personally, believe that is counterproductive and shifts the focus of ending the practice of circumcision, which is and always has been a horrible surgery to inflict on a newborn. An informed public and informed parents are how this atrocity will be stopped. The numbers are dwindling in the USA and are in single digits in most other countries. The tide has turned. At a certain percentage below 50% critical mass will be reached in the USA and circumcision will be a very unpopular thing to do to a child in the USA, as it is in most other countries. Still, I applaud you in the thought you have given to this issue. You are trying to do SOMETHING so power to you. As philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke wrote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

          • Mglass

            It seems – correct me if I am wrong – you believe that male genital cutting is illegal under the 14th Amendment. You fear that regulating circumcision would be counterproductive by suggesting that circumcision is now safe because it is regulated.

            This approach leaves you open to the accusation that you oppose regulation so that circumcision remains more dangerous than it needs to be. This is like opposing needle exchanges because they could facilitate drug abuse, or opposing condoms because their distribution could make fornication safer.

            My approach, as I have explained all along, is harm minimisation. It is designed to build on the common ground between both supporters and opponents of circumcision and make the world a somewhat better place. My approach is designed to:

            *Stop or greatly reduce the botched jobs, the children bleeding to death and the dangerous infections that can result from circumcisions.

            *Weed out the fraudulent quacks and the incompetent surgeons who make a mess of others’ genitals.

            *Brand those who forcibly circumcise men and older boys as sexual criminals.

            *Stop or at least greatly reduce the ugly fights between warring parents over circumcision by simply ruling that it is up to the owner of the foreskin to decide what to do with it – when he is a grown man.

            These aims are difficult enough to achieve. All I ask of you is not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

      • Mglass

        Sometimes harm minimisation is the best that we can accomplish in the circumstances I’m not arguing against your beliefs, but suggesting a way forward that might be achievable

    • ac05jn

      circumcision isn’t medicine; it’s CULTure. there are no benefits to the victim

  • Adam Cornish

    How did circumcision protect the nearly a million American men who died of AIDS so far? 85% of them were circumcised.

  • John Hammond

    The so-called “protection” offered by circumcision is not good enough and not worth the loss in sensation for both participants in intercourse. Ever heard of condoms? Or perhaps partners getting to know each other a bit more and waiting for results from the doctor to make sure that they won’t pass anything harmful on? EDUCATION, come on Morris! You should know all about the importance of educating, rather than cutting up penises before even giving young and vulnerable boys a chance.

  • John Hammond

    I don’t think you’re even reading half of the stuff that anyone says. You’re just regurgitating studies ad nauseum. Your response barely acknowledges anything that I have said.

    • Adam Cornish

      Thank you, John, for putting into words, what most of the rest of us feel, so eloquently.

  • Adam Cornish

    Thank you, John Hammond

  • Rodney Davidson

    Those who advocate for routine circumcision for all male newborns in the USA are outliers. The fact is that no medical association in the entire world recommends it. In their extensive literature search of research that supports their views, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force reported in their 2012 Policy Statement that “health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns.” The professor’s claims that the benefits outweigh the risks 200 to 1 is not supported by any medical association in the entire world. Furthermore, these highly exaggerated claims of benefits do not give any value whatsoever to the value that an individual may place on his own healthy and functioning body parts. Many men find their foreskin to be a very valuable part of their anatomy and would not sacrifice it without medical necessity for any of the purported benefits of having it amputated. It is a grave disservice for anyone else to decide for another person that a healthy part of their body has no value and then amputate it without the consent of that individual. It is not an informed decision if parents are not educated about the physiology and function of the foreskin. It is not just “a flap of useless skin.” Far from it!

    • Preppydad

      White boys in the ISA are still circumcised at a rate greater than 80%. The only reason our rates are down are all the damn Mexican animals that breed like rabbits…Herr in CA wetters make up 4 of 6 births and whites only 1 in 6…wetters do not circumcisr as they are filthy animal’s… One reason I voted Trump!

      • Adam Cornish

        Really?
        Then why is the rate of circumcision so low in Washington? Oregon?

        • Preppydad

          Illegals as well…..that is what the CDC says… FU Liberals do not help either…

    • ac05jn

      “outweigh risks” = brian morris = circumfetish.. “the gilgal society”

  • Adam Cornish
  • M Lyndon

    I know which parts of my penis provide the most sexual pleasure, and the glans provides almost none. Maybe not all all men are the same, but I’m not alone.

    These are just some of the men circumcised as adults who regretted it:

    Adult film star Rocco Siffredi (the “Italian Stallion”) called his decision “catastrophic” and that being intact “you can feel much more fun”.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/circumcision/rocco-siffredi-penis-circumcision

    Adult film star Erik Rhodes
    http://erikrhodes.tumblr.com/post/8492704035/hi-erik-have-you-lost-sensitivity-since-you-got
    “So to answer the question, after getting all that out… yes i do regret it. I should have just looked for other options before letting some crazy a–hole take a knife to my d-ck and yes i have lost sensitivity. It’s just not the same.”

    Regular guy Nick Kusturis
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAHGFx95D80
    “After the circumcision I felt nothing, no sensation at all. I knew something wasn’t right, but I just thought if I waited, everything would get back to normal. So I waited, I was in denial for the longest time. One day it just hit me that this was not going to change.”

    Kim and Pang 2006 studied 255 men circumcised as adults and found that:
    “About 6% answered that their s-x lives improved, while 20% reported a worse s-x life after circumcision.”
    http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x

    • professormorris

      The scientific evidence does not support your comments. Perhaps you are an outlier, had a medical condition that necessitated your circumcision, so inflammation, etc under your foreskin had damaged the glans, or sexual problem, perhaps cause by diabetes, or this was psychological. Your anecdotes are very low quality evidence and suffer from the same confounding factors. As for the Kim and Pang study, those data have been ridiculed by a top obstetrician, Rob Willcourt, MD: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17437447
      A critique also appears in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2013+circumcision+satisfaction

      • M Lyndon

        I’m intact, not circumcised, and I *know* where the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of my penis are, and I’m very glad they weren’t cut off. Yes, those other quotes are just anecdotes, but there are lots of other men circumcised as adults who regret it, and you seem unwilling to acknowledge that any exist.

        Would that top obstetrician “Rob” Willcourt be the same Robin Willcourt found guilty of “a crime involving moral turpitude” ? Either way, his response to Kim and Pang is very weak, starting with a misunderstanding of the word “sexuality” and a misunderstanding of why some results were given for a subset of 138 men.

        • professormorris

          Systematic reviews and a meta-analysis are the gold standard. NOT weak, small, old, outlier studies by those with an agenda. Why won’t you accept the fact that sexual problems in men are common and that some gullible men with sexual problems go to the Internet where they quickly “discover” intactivist sites telling them (falsely) that their problem(s) is due to their infant circumcision. As for Willcourt the name is common so probably another with the same name.

          • Adam Cornish

            Actually, professor, your systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not the gold standard you wish them to be.
            When many of the “studies” your meta-analyses reference are by you, it lessens their quality as objective works.

          • professormorris

            My studies reach that same conclusions as high quality studies in the UK, Canada, China and Denmark.

          • Adam Cornish

            Really? Let’s see.
            You can discard Bossio off the top. Comparing outer foreskin and the glans, while ignoring the other parts which circumcision removes, and pretending they don’t produce sensation, is bad science.
            I would love to see the UK, China, and Denmark studies.

          • Adam Cornish

            Does that include when you recommended circumcision to cure “bathroom splatter”?

      • Adam Cornish

        What a surprise!
        You wrote the rebuttal.
        Oops, you have no idea whether the inner foreskin and frenulum are responsive, because you have been circumcised.
        Thanks for playing, though.

        • professormorris

          Men circumcised as adults report better sexual pleasure. Multiple studies including randomized controlled trial data.

          • Rodney Davidson

            Men circumcised as adults are not infants circumcised as newborns, so your so-called “science” is seriously flawed. It is pseudo-science. You are comparing apples to oranges. Even a lay person can see through that. Plus, these men were not followed over a long period of time. Many of the harms of infant circumcision are not apparent until sexual maturity and years and decades beyond that. Circumcision affects sexual function and the desensitization of the exposed glans over decades, not just the few months of YOUR seriously flawed pseudo-scientific “study” designed to vindicate the practice of circumcision. It is quite possible that in the first few months after circumcision, the newly exposed glans might be extra sensitive before it loses more and more sensation over the ensuing decades of glans exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that they don’t know the long-term effects of circumcision so why do YOU pretend to know?

          • professormorris

            Do we wait until a child reaches 18 years of age before asking them if they might want to e vaccinated? …. No! Same with circumcision. And much safer, cheaper, convenient, etc when a baby. Your entire premise rests on the outrageous lie that somehow circumcision leads to sexual problems later in life. That fallacy has been disproven over and over and over again by all researchers except the lunatic fringe of propagandists. Much has happened since 2010 when the AAP review was completed and later published in 2012. So your arguments fail to withstand scrutiny. The are simply rubbish!

          • Adam Cornish

            A convenient argument. Get them while they’re young, before they can decide which healthy body parts to keep.
            The thing is, it denies them any choice in the matter. Once those tissues and nerves hit the floor, they are gone forever.
            So is genital integrity, and the ethics of giving them a choice about their own bodies.

          • Rodney Davidson

            Professor, there is no doubt whatsoever that circumcision affects sexual function later after sexual maturity and during the ensuing years and decades after. This has been known since antiquity. These are called long-term HARMS Of circumcision. Well documented. Your studies are flawed and designed with a motive to vindicate infant circumcision and the billion-dollar industry. Don’t try to convince us that all studies are designed to get to the truth. Studies like you cite were designed to reach certain foregone conclusions depending on who was financing the study. Good evidence of the impartiality of a scientific study is likely to be found in who is paying for the study. The business of circumcision is a multi-billion dollar business. If you are not already, professor, you will join the likes of the influential and discredited Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., of the 1800′s, who promoted circumcision of boys and genital mutialtion of girls to prevent masturbation.

          • professormorris

            If you truly believe the “Gish gallop” of anti-circ drivel you pour out in this comments facility where intactivists like you can say anything with impunity, instead why not try submitting your nonsense to a respected journal asking for it to be published? I am sure you will find that any reputable journal will give your manuscript short-shrift. That’s the end of the time I have waited replying to your parroted anti-circ gibberish. GOODBYE!!!

          • Rodney Davidson

            No, professor, don’t go! Climb back up on the dunk-tank platform one more time, please! And holler your ignorant pro-circumcision fallacies and exaggerated benefits of male genital mutilation. So the passers by can try to drill some sense into your thick skull by giving you another good drenching in the dunk-tank. Thank you for listening. At least we know that you are not sticking your fingers in your ears and humming ALL of the time. The more you write in these forums, professor, the more people can recognize you for the misinformation and the utter nonsense about circumcision that spews out of you. You are in good company with “respected” Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., who advocated in the 1800′s for circumcision and female genital mutilation as a cure for masturbation. Thankfully, no medical association in the entire world agrees with your radical pro-circumcision rants. Why do you pretend otherwise? Did you support the American Academy of Pediatrics 2010 official Policy Statement advocating for female genital cutting at the request of parents for aesthetic, cultural, and religious reasons? A practice that is a felony in the USA.

          • Adam Cornish

            Really? Let’s see them.

  • Jhon Murdock

    Haven’t you proven that a circumcised man can dock a hermit crab?

    • Preppydad

      I knew you were a queer spik!

      • Jhon Murdock

        Shamefully Masada bound, you are a textbook example of a son whose mother failed to vet his sperm donor.

  • Jhon Murdock

    “Of course the real David WAS circumcised.”
    This barbaric mutilation error was a result of overwhelming cultural bias which was humanely and artistically corrected by Michelangelo who well knew what male beauty consists of, way back in the beginning of the 16th century!

    • professormorris

      If you want to know the real reason why paintings back then depicted men with juvenile uncircumcised penis you will find the real answer in: “The Prepuce in Italian Art—Evidence from
      Von Gloeden’s Photographs” — available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306083535_The_Prepuce_in_Italian_Art-Evidence_from_Von_Gloeden's_Photographs

      • Jhon Murdock

        This article by Guy C. an electron microscopist, whose specialty is plant skeletons, from The University of Sydney, is utter rubbish. Mr. C. has no credentials in any field of Art nor Urology.

        Attempting to gainsay world class genius artists for not presenting a photo-realistic depiction of their subjects is patently absurd. Ditto that they were slaves to some formal school or another in their rendering of the glorious intact human penis.

        Dramatic paintings of the day of the circumcision of Jesus and Isaac were popular. These expressed the artists’ abhorrence to forced circumcision and often involved a huge knife suggestive of decapitation or serious injury to, and mutilation of, the male body.
        Michelangelo, Donatello, Caravaggio and other great Italian masters worshiped and glorified the natural, intact male body. Something that you and your zealous anti foreskin confederate C., cannot get your heads around.

        When Mr. C. mentions Brian Morris’ “help” at the foot of his nonsensical article your entire proxy scheme becomes readily transparent.

  • Jhon Murdock

    Just another of your standard, Gish gallop trademark posts.

    But now in simple, clear terms please tell us: Where is the scientific, in the laboratory, under the microscope proof that HIV enters the male body via the foreskin? Where is it? Stop Gishing around.

    This is question number ONE. It needs to have been answered a very, very long time ago.

    • professormorris

      As just one example of “the scientific, in the laboratory, under the microscope proof that HIV enters the male body via the foreskin” see:
      Ganor Y, Bomsel M. HIV-1 transmission in the male genital tract. Am J Reprod Immunol 2011;65:284–91 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=gator+HIV-1+transmission+in+the+male+genital+tract.
      Abstract
      HIV-1 is mainly a sexually transmitted infection, and epithelial surfaces covering genital mucosa are the primary site of HIV-1 transmission. Although male circumcision was reported to reduce male acquisition of HIV-1 by 60%, the initial mechanisms of HIV-1 transmission in the male genitals remain elusive. We established two novel models of the adult human foreskin epithelium that allowed for polarized infection via the mucosal pole with either HIV-1-infected cells that are present in all secretions vectorizing HIV-1 or cell-free HIV-1. Efficient HIV-1 transmission occurs following 1 hr of polarized exposure of the inner, but not outer, foreskin to mononuclear cells highly infected with HIV-1, but not to cell-free virus. HIV-1-infected cells form viral synapses with apical foreskin keratinocytes, leading to polarized budding of HIV-1, which is rapidly internalized by Langerhans cells (LCs) in the inner foreskin. In turn, LCs form conjugates with T-cells, thereby transferring HIV-1. Seminal plasma from HIV-negative men mixed with cervico-vaginal secretions from HIV-positive women, which mimics the in-vivo mixture of these genital fluids during woman-to-man HIV-1 sexual transmission, decreases HIV-1 infection at the foreskin. Our results rationalize at the cellular level the apparent protective outcome of circumcision against HIV-1 acquisition by men.
      © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
      PMID: 21114566 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00933.x

  • Adam Cornish

    More self-referencing, Professor? You are famous around the world for that.
    That Bossio study was the dumbest design for a study yet.
    Measuring the outside of the foreskin, and comparing it to the glans showed simple ignorance of male anatomy.
    As Mr. Lyndon confirms below, and my own body confirms, the glans is far from the main conduit for sensation.
    The inner foreskin and a frenulum which has not been bisected provide far, far more sensation.

    • professormorris

      But you would say that.
      Scientific evidence from large studies worldwide shows otherwise.

      • Rodney Davidson

        Professor, it is wonderful in this forum to have the opportunity to write to you and see that you actually do read our comments and hear exactly how we feel about your distortions of facts, misrepresentations, and pseudo-science all in the name of fanatical promotion of non-therapeutic male infant circumcision. It reminds me a bit, though, of those dunking booths at the carnival where the clown sits atop the dunk tank antagonizing and egging-on the passers-by so that they will take turns up to bat to knock the clown off his perch and dunk him into the frigid water below. Then the drenched and cold clown climbs up out of the dunk tank and crawls up on the ledge yelling out stupid remarks until the next player hurls a ball and hits the target bulls-eye, thereby dunking the clown repeatedly. That is a fun game and it gets more fun the more and more desperate the clown becomes and the more nutty things the clown yells out. At some point, though, you can begin to see that the clown really isn’t having much fun any more. Do you recognize yourself, professor?

        • professormorris

          You are deluded and a public menace. I am tired of presenting science to a person like you who is “evidence resistant.” No amount of factual or scientific evidence will unlock your mind that has been brainwashed so completely.

          • Adam Cornish

            Are you looking in a mirror?
            The foreskin is not some malignancy waiting to harm us.
            It is the product of 120 million years of mammal evolution.
            A partial penile amputation can’t improve the signals from the nerves to the brain, can it?
            Oh yes, I’m still waiting for the evidence of Paleolithic circumcisions.

          • Rodney Davidson

            I think you are talking about yourself, professor. A deluded mind if ever there was one. But I’m not certain you actually believe the stuff you write and promote or if you do it for ulterior motives and financial gain. Or maybe you do evil for evil’s sake in a sadistic way for your own gratification.

      • Adam Cornish

        But not when reliably monitored with instruments such as monofilaments, with the measurements recorded.
        You can’t say the same about the Sorrells study, can you?
        Care to cite the Danish study?

  • Rodney Davidson

    There you go, an all-time low, the professor touts circumcision as a cure for masturbation, just as did his counterpart Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., of the Victorian era. Fortunately NO medical association in the entire world agrees with the professor’s outlandish claims of 100 to 1 (or this week now 200 to 1) benefits to risks. The American Academy of Pediatrics says the medical benefits of circumcision “are not great.” The professor lies when he says otherwise. The professor is apparently too dense to understand that body parts DO have value to the people to whom they belong. Your calculation is incomplete, professor, when you fail to account for the value to a person of their own body part. Let’s be clear: the foreskin of a penis has sexual function. This has been known all the way back to antiquity. It is not rocket science. An individual may place a high value on the sexual function of their own foreskin and may not wish to trade it for a minisqule reduction in penile cancer that a little soap and water during bathing would prevent.

    • professormorris

      You make outrageous totally false allegations. Nothing you say is backed by scientific evidence. All you are capable of it parroting the fallacies and propaganda of the anti-circumcision nutters intent on damaging men’s lives and ruining public health. And for what? A cult that worships the foreskin. So weird!!!

      • Rodney Davidson

        Who are the nutters, professor? People who say that parts of babies’ genitals, both boys and girls, should not be amputated unless there is an immediate medical necessity? Or are the nutters people like you who advocate for non-therapeutic infant circumcision, without a medical indication? How do you defend the nutters at the American Academy of Pediatrics who released an official Policy statement in 2010 advocating for doctors of the AAP to be allowed to perform non-therapeutic ritual cutting on the genitals of female children? Talk about nutters! Public backlash made the AAP rescind their new policy on female genital cutting within months of its release. Thus, recent history shows us that the American Academy of Pediatrics is not always on the right side of things. YOU are not always on the right side of things, professor. And when you are wrong you influence others to cause irreparable harm to their children by following your advice.

        • professormorris

          One thing is certain. You are wrong wrong wrong! Complete balderdash. A deluded intactivist whose lies are damaging men and public heath.

          • Adam Cornish

            You are just jealous of docking, that’s all.

          • Preppydad

            Another queer anti dmegma lover…filthy queer!

          • Preppydad

            I see another queer foreskin fetishist….

          • Rodney Davidson

            Professor, you should retire and quit churning out self-referencing reports about infant circumcision that no medical association in the world follows. Don’t you get discouraged when every medical association in the world rejects your opinions about circumcision? You should consider getting a new hobby besides promoting infant male circumcision. Is it a hobby or a fetish?

  • Rodney Davidson

    Professor, your efforts at misinformation never cease to amaze me. The study you cite is not applicable to involuntary circumcision of an infant who did not consent to having normal functioning body parts surgically amputated. Nobody cares if a MAN decides for himself to be circumcised. Men circumcised as adults are not infants circumcised as newborns, so your so-called “science” is seriously flawed. It is pseudo-science. You are comparing apples to oranges. Even a lay person can see through that. Most men circumcised as adults have a medical need for the procedure, so of course they are likely to say it is better AFTER circumcision. It is a fact that no medical association in the world subscribes to your exaggerated claims of the so-called benefits of male genital mutilation. Plus, these men were not followed over a long period of time, only 24 months. The authors even acknowledge this flaw in their study. Many of the harms of infant circumcision are not apparent until sexual maturity and years and decades beyond that. Circumcision affects sexual function and the desensitization of the exposed glans over decades, not just the few months of YOUR seriously flawed pseudo-scientific “study” designed to vindicate the practice of circumcision. It is quite possible that in the first few months after circumcision, the newly exposed glans might be extra sensitive before it loses more and more sensation over the ensuing decades of glans exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that they don’t know the long-term effects of circumcision so why do YOU pretend to know? Professor, you seem to think the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) can do no wrong. Were you a supporter the AAP official Policy statement of 2010 advocating in favor of female genital cutting (circumcision) on little girls? After public outcry over this AAP Policy in 2010, the AAP withdrew their official Policy Statement a few months later. This shows the effectiveness of anti-circumcision activists when medical associations like the AAP and people like you get out of step with reality and ethics. You need us as a check on yout overzealous promotion of harmful non-therapeutic surgical procedures on infants who cannot consent and parents who have not received full disclosure of risks AND long-term HARMS of surgical amputation of normal healthy body parts, including how circumcision affects sexual FUNCTION after sexual maturity and for years and decades after.

  • Jhon Murdock

    Wrong again. The Artists were interested in accurately depicting small intact penises as nature presents them. Adult males who met the criteria would have been to busy working or otherwise gainfully occupied to sit around long hours posing for artists. And when not, would have certainly demanded much more compensation than younger boys, who would always be available and who would have taken considerably less money or even would have posed without charge.
    The Artists lived in Intact Societies which esteemed and valued the intact penis for all their males no matter their ages.
    That Mr. C. was employed at the University of Sydney as an electron microscopist counts for nothing here. The University of Sydney has had more than their share of misfits, pseudoscience zealots and charlatans. They hired you didn’t they.

  • Rodney Davidson

    Professor, the study you cite is not applicable to involuntary circumcision of an infant who did not consent to having normal functioning body parts surgically amputated. Nobody objects if a MAN decides for himself to be circumcised. Men circumcised as adults are not infants circumcised as newborns, so your so-called “science” is seriously flawed. It is pseudo-science. You are comparing apples to oranges. Even a lay person can see through that. Most men circumcised as adults have a medical need for the procedure, so of course they are likely to say it is better AFTER circumcision. It is a fact that no medical association in the world subscribes to your exaggerated claims of the so-called benefits. Plus, these men were not followed over a long period of time, only 24 months. The authors even acknowledge this flaw in their study. Many of the harms of infant circumcision are not apparent until sexual maturity and years and decades beyond that. Circumcision affects sexual function and the desensitization of the exposed glans over decades, not just the few months of YOUR seriously flawed pseudo-scientific “study”. It is quite possible that in the first few months after circumcision, the newly exposed glans might be extra sensitive before it loses more and more sensation over the ensuing decades of glans exposure. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that they don’t know the long-term effects of circumcision so why do YOU pretend to know?

  • Jhon Murdock

    The scientific truth, that there is a decrease in m*sturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings can be seen here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go

  • Jhon Murdock

    Coital induced injuries? Undoubtedly just physiologic phimosis or frenulum breve, both of which can be cured without circumcision.
    The scientific truth, that there is a decrease in m*sturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings can be seen here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977

  • Preppydad

    Condoms were designed by the military for circumcised soldiers as every guy that went in was circumcised if the were not already. The military does not make soldier’s get circumcised any longer, but they highly encourage them to get circumcised.

    • Adam Cornish

      There’s no truth to that at all.
      Cite a source.

      • Preppydad

        Absolutely true… I was in the Navy 4 yrs as an officer my father thought it would teach me not to be such a snob…..wrong! We learned that in the Naval Academy..

        • Adam Cornish

          Cite a source.
          I’ve already said both sides of my family disprove it, and I have the physical evidence.

          • Preppydad

            Dude, you are in the UK…..more than likely middle class.

          • Adam Cornish

            Dude, I’m from New England, same as you.
            My father and brother were in the US Army. My father in law was in the US Navy. My brother in law was in the US Air Force.
            Now cite some source, or shut up.

          • Preppydad

            Actually I am from Southern California, but have a home and office in the NE…..

          • Adam Cornish

            And that is how you know whether or not people in Newport are cut or uncut? Really? Do you pull down their pants when you are doing business with them?
            So, you really have no source, other than you believe that the military circumcises Americans these days?

  • Nsukwini

    Ebusukhu usatane comes out.

  • Preppydad

    Incorrect…..

    • Adam Cornish

      Prove what you say, or stop saying it. Where is the military policy which mandates circumcision in the US?
      If you can’t prove it, and have no evidence, shut up.

      It is still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.

      You’ve called foreskins dirty, a thousand times, in here as Preppydad, and as Yachty. How can you and your wife believe they are dirty, and then put them on your faces?

      What would you actually know about the pleasure a foreskin can bring? Is smearing it on your face the highest pleasure you can imagine getting from a foreskin?
      The 75% of guys who still have them attached will tell you that there is a lot more fun they can, and do, bring.

  • Jhon Murdock

    Moderation can be a killer.

  • Adam Cornish

    The Kennedys had a yacht, and they were uncut.
    I know plenty of uncut Republicans.
    Your logic is leaky, and silly.
    How is your country doing, now that it’s in the hands of Republicans? All peace and love, right? That health care reform is just sailing through, right? Is American great again yet?

    • Preppydad

      Kennedy’s were and are Democrats…JFK if uncut would have been circumcised in the Navy. I know a Kennedy he races sailboats on the same cicuit as I do and I know he is cut…

      • Adam Cornish

        So, in Preppydad/Yachty world, Democrats are uncut, and Republicans are cut?
        You can’t just keep saying that the American military are all cut. You have to put up some actual evidence.
        You aren’t Trump.

  • Adam Cornish