Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

[madethesame]

Sounds like you have a paper to write and get peer-reviewed then.

the day i become senile, i will go deep into science.
but these days i am wandering what to do with this life.

I do think it is a cultural thing and one based on how the penis looks (religious reasons aside of course).

I've heard of men in the US having their son's circumcised so that their penis look the same. I'm sorry, but I don't personally see that as a valid reason. It would be akin to having a baby girl's nipples 'done' to look like her mother's, for example, or plastic surgery to her vagina so that it matched her mother's. And in Australia, cosmetic circumcision of baby boys or male infants is banned in public hospitals and quite a few private hospitals as well.

From a religious standpoint, there are inherent dangers in how that is performed in certain religious ceremonies.


My sons have never had a UTI. Until their foreskin can be retracted naturally and without force, there is no reason to retract it. If you try to force it, it can actually damage a child's foreskin. In short, they do not have to retract it for years. If they wash normally, that is all that is needed.

As for lowering the risk of cancer to the penis. Some claim that the foreskin can become cancerous, so they argue that removing it reduces the risk of that form of cancer. I am yet to see anyone argue that baby girls should have their ovaries removed and their cervix removed for a similar reason. You're not going to hear it because it would be an insane reason.

But in the case of penile cancer and increasing the risk of cervical cancer in women if they have unprotected sex with an uncircumcised male, one of the factors in penile cancer is hygiene. And if you do not wash yourself properly and wash away the smegma, it can irritate the foreskin, which can lead to cancerous growth. Again, hygiene. Then you have issues which are medical where the foreskin cannot retract properly and becomes inflamed and also injuries to the skin or soft tissue around the penis can increase the risk of penile cancer.

As for cervical cancer, the washing can increase the risk of HPV.


My ex-husband is not here, obviously. But yes, it comes down a lot to hygiene. Once the boy is old enough and able to retract his foreskin easily, then he can be taught to wash it with water.. Before then, just washing externally is all that is needed and trying to retract the foreskin too soon can actually cause permanent damage and inflammation.
But penile cancer is very rare in developed countries. But in 3rd world countries, the rate is higher. It's still rare, but it is higher than in developed countries. And also, because of the lack of protection while having sex, especially in 3rd world countries, circumcision is also touted as being helpful in preventing the spread of HIV - as it reduces the chance of contracting it from unsafe sexual practices according to some studies conducted in some countries in Africa... And this is where the waters become even murkier..


It's become a big deal because of some studies that were conducted about 10 years or so ago, which ended up recommending that males in some African countries be circumcised to reduce the spread of HIV.

In countries where access to water to wash, in developing countries for example, where being able to clean one's genitals properly may not be possible, male circumcision is touted as being necessary and encouraged to prevent a multitude of problems.

The studies that were conducted were themselves flawed and exceptionally unethical and frankly, endangered men and women alike. There was an article written in 2011, which discussed the African HIV studies and the claims that circumcision reduced HIV spread and it goes through and details every flaw in the studies themselves and it is an astounding read: http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

this circumcision has least to do with HIV. the people are uneducated,poor, that should be main concern, so they don't go on having sex with any one mindlessly.
men with intact penis cant hurt women by pounding, without getting their frenulum torn.

 

[Kittamaru]

I do think it is a cultural thing and one based on how the penis looks (religious reasons aside of course).

I've heard of men in the US having their son's circumcised so that their penis look the same. I'm sorry, but I don't personally see that as a valid reason. It would be akin to having a baby girl's nipples 'done' to look like her mother's, for example, or plastic surgery to her vagina so that it matched her mother's. And in Australia, cosmetic circumcision of baby boys or male infants is banned in public hospitals and quite a few private hospitals as well.

From a religious standpoint, there are inherent dangers in how that is performed in certain religious ceremonies.


My sons have never had a UTI. Until their foreskin can be retracted naturally and without force, there is no reason to retract it. If you try to force it, it can actually damage a child's foreskin. In short, they do not have to retract it for years. If they wash normally, that is all that is needed.

As for lowering the risk of cancer to the penis. Some claim that the foreskin can become cancerous, so they argue that removing it reduces the risk of that form of cancer. I am yet to see anyone argue that baby girls should have their ovaries removed and their cervix removed for a similar reason. You're not going to hear it because it would be an insane reason.

But in the case of penile cancer and increasing the risk of cervical cancer in women if they have unprotected sex with an uncircumcised male, one of the factors in penile cancer is hygiene. And if you do not wash yourself properly and wash away the smegma, it can irritate the foreskin, which can lead to cancerous growth. Again, hygiene. Then you have issues which are medical where the foreskin cannot retract properly and becomes inflamed and also injuries to the skin or soft tissue around the penis can increase the risk of penile cancer.

As for cervical cancer, the washing can increase the risk of HPV.


My ex-husband is not here, obviously. But yes, it comes down a lot to hygiene. Once the boy is old enough and able to retract his foreskin easily, then he can be taught to wash it with water.. Before then, just washing externally is all that is needed and trying to retract the foreskin too soon can actually cause permanent damage and inflammation.
But penile cancer is very rare in developed countries. But in 3rd world countries, the rate is higher. It's still rare, but it is higher than in developed countries. And also, because of the lack of protection while having sex, especially in 3rd world countries, circumcision is also touted as being helpful in preventing the spread of HIV - as it reduces the chance of contracting it from unsafe sexual practices according to some studies conducted in some countries in Africa... And this is where the waters become even murkier..


It's become a big deal because of some studies that were conducted about 10 years or so ago, which ended up recommending that males in some African countries be circumcised to reduce the spread of HIV.

In countries where access to water to wash, in developing countries for example, where being able to clean one's genitals properly may not be possible, male circumcision is touted as being necessary and encouraged to prevent a multitude of problems.

The studies that were conducted were themselves flawed and exceptionally unethical and frankly, endangered men and women alike. There was an article written in 2011, which discussed the African HIV studies and the claims that circumcision reduced HIV spread and it goes through and details every flaw in the studies themselves and it is an astounding read: http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

Makes sense to me (your post does, I mean) - in all fairness, I don't have any memory of when I was circumcised, and I think, so long as it can be done safely and by a doctor who knows what they are doing, I would probably prefer to have my child circumcised when the time comes... dunno, sounds like a discussion I need to have with my wife

None the less, it seems that making it illegal is a bit... extreme? I dunno... then again, I also don't see the need to putting a warning label on a hair dryer telling you not to use it while standing in the shower so... yeah... lol

the day i become senile, i will go deep into science.
but these days i am wandering what to do with this life.


this circumcision has least to do with HIV. the people are uneducated,poor, that should be main concern, so they don't go on having sex with any one mindlessly.
men with intact penis cant hurt women by pounding, without getting their frenulum torn.

You keep talking about hurting a woman while having sex... again, this is less an issue of the penis and it's shape/accessories, and more an issue of the person and the act - if the guy is going at it like he's riding an out of control pogo stick then yes, someone is going to get hurt!

 

[madethesame]

Makes sense to me (your post does, I mean) - in all fairness, I don't have any memory of when I was circumcised, and I think, so long as it can be done safely and by a doctor who knows what they are doing, I would probably prefer to have my child circumcised when the time comes... dunno, sounds like a discussion I need to have with my wife

None the less, it seems that making it illegal is a bit... extreme? I dunno... then again, I also don't see the need to putting a warning label on a hair dryer telling you not to use it while standing in the shower so... yeah... lol



You keep talking about hurting a woman while having sex... again, this is less an issue of the penis and it's shape/accessories, and more an issue of the person and the act - if the guy is going at it like he's riding an out of control pogo stick then yes, someone is going to get hurt!

porn is great influence.

 

[madethesame]

do a simple thing, regrow your skin. this best method to test what is right and wrong.

 

[sculptor]

I would not suffer nor inflict genital mutilation------------------ON ANYONE

It is a barbaric practice handed down from a guy who would have sacrificed his own son.
Why do people feel the desire to copy/follow the truly insane?

 

[madethesame]

I would not suffer nor inflict genital mutilation------------------ON ANYONE

It is a barbaric practice handed down from a guy who would have sacrificed his own son.
Why do people feel the desire to copy/follow the truly insane?

circumcision makes sense only for nomadic people and children with tight foreskin. otherwise it is wrong.

 

[sculptor]

Unless you have a good place to wash it when you're done, it's probably best to, at least temporarily, cease fornicating with sheep also.

 

[Kittamaru]

I would not suffer nor inflict genital mutilation------------------ON ANYONE

It is a barbaric practice handed down from a guy who would have sacrificed his own son.
Why do people feel the desire to copy/follow the truly insane?

Much the same, why do people feel the need to get their ears/eyebrows/belly buttons/tongues/vulva/et al pierced? Why do some people add rings to extend their neck to the point they cannot hold their own head up because the muscles have become so weak? Why do people feel the need to become so muscular as to become muscle bound?

Culture... culture my friend.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

If you want a multicultural society, you can't make a peoples' cultural heritage illegal without extreme cause.
The Cologne ruling was overruled by the Bundestag in 2012.
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/112/1711295.pdf
Clitorectomy is a bigger problem than circumcision, as it is both a cultural practise and a mutilation.
In the UK it is illegal, but rarely prosecuted.

 

[GeoffP]

circumcision is bad. why here people think a male will sex with many, so cut the skin ?.
circumcision is crime, it affects sex life. women don't enjoy circumcised penis.
it gives deep shock to little baby.

I imagine it certainly does give deep shock to a little baby. Personally, my suggestion would be not to flap an uncircumsised penis at them. Or a circumsized one. Or, maybe, not to write ludicrous crap on an internet discussion board. That could be least shocking of all shocking things.

 

[madethesame]

I imagine it certainly does give deep shock to a little baby. Personally, my suggestion would be not to flap an uncircumsised penis at them. Or a circumsized one. Or, maybe, not to write ludicrous crap on an internet discussion board. That could be least shocking of all shocking things.

maybe

 

[Kittamaru]

I have to question though... is it really so cruel to do (in terms of pain inflicted) considering it will be forgotten almost the instant the pain goes away (which it can be argued is much quicker for a newborn than it is for an adult, in terms of how quickly they heal, etc)

 

[Bells]

If it isn't medically necessary, why would you do it at all?

Not everyone uses any form of pain relief or anesthetics, especially on a newborn. And pain causes newborns a lot of stress. Ask any parent who has seen their newborn or any person who has seen newborns in pain, and they can tell you just how stressful it is on the baby.

And do you really have to ask if it really is cruel to slice a part of a newborn baby's foreskin off because they won't remember it anyway? Does it make it right?

I don't understand why parents would voluntarily put their children through that much pain, increase the risk of infection and permanent damage and scarring for something that is for the greater majority, something cosmetic and because it is a family tradition and so the child's penis looks just like their dad's... Because father's drop their dacks and compare their penis with their sons on a regular basis? I find men who use that as an example of why it is necessary to be ridiculous.

As for religious tradition... considering children have died as a result and contracted herpes (which can be deadly for babies - a newborn in my home state died recently because someone at the hospital came into contact with her and passed on the cold sore virus), really? I just do not see how or why even religious tradition should trump a child's health and safety.

It isn't recommended by all the major medical associations, especially those that deal primarily with babies and infants. The minute benefits and the fact that some of the so called benefits are based on flawed research in Africa where there is reduced access to clean water and medical care for children and adults, do not outweigh the risk and therefore, it isn't recommended as necessary.

 

[madethesame]

I have to question though... is it really so cruel to do (in terms of pain inflicted) considering it will be forgotten almost the instant the pain goes away (which it can be argued is much quicker for a newborn than it is for an adult, in terms of how quickly they heal, etc)

It is a dangerous Abrahmic

If it isn't medically necessary, why would you do it at all?

Not everyone uses any form of pain relief or anesthetics, especially on a newborn. And pain causes newborns a lot of stress. Ask any parent who has seen their newborn or any person who has seen newborns in pain, and they can tell you just how stressful it is on the baby.

And do you really have to ask if it really is cruel to slice a part of a newborn baby's foreskin off because they won't remember it anyway? Does it make it right?

I don't understand why parents would voluntarily put their children through that much pain, increase the risk of infection and permanent damage and scarring for something that is for the greater majority, something cosmetic and because it is a family tradition and so the child's penis looks just like their dad's... Because father's drop their dacks and compare their penis with their sons on a regular basis? I find men who use that as an example of why it is necessary to be ridiculous.

As for religious tradition... considering children have died as a result and contracted herpes (which can be deadly for babies - a newborn in my home state died recently because someone at the hospital came into contact with her and passed on the cold sore virus), really? I just do not see how or why even religious tradition should trump a child's health and safety.

It isn't recommended by all the major medical associations, especially those that deal primarily with babies and infants. The minute benefits and the fact that some of the so called benefits are based on flawed research in Africa where there is reduced access to clean water and medical care for children and adults, do not outweigh the risk and therefore, it isn't recommended as necessary.

We have understood the science behind most disease that effect the glans. Therefore the prevention is best cure. Parents should themselves clean their children's genitalia and routinely check them. It is very simple.
Circumcision have been mostly used to divert people away from sex, so they can be 'better sand productive' members of society.

 

[Kittamaru]

If it isn't medically necessary, why would you do it at all?

Not everyone uses any form of pain relief or anesthetics, especially on a newborn. And pain causes newborns a lot of stress. Ask any parent who has seen their newborn or any person who has seen newborns in pain, and they can tell you just how stressful it is on the baby.

And do you really have to ask if it really is cruel to slice a part of a newborn baby's foreskin off because they won't remember it anyway? Does it make it right?

I don't understand why parents would voluntarily put their children through that much pain, increase the risk of infection and permanent damage and scarring for something that is for the greater majority, something cosmetic and because it is a family tradition and so the child's penis looks just like their dad's... Because father's drop their dacks and compare their penis with their sons on a regular basis? I find men who use that as an example of why it is necessary to be ridiculous.

As for religious tradition... considering children have died as a result and contracted herpes (which can be deadly for babies - a newborn in my home state died recently because someone at the hospital came into contact with her and passed on the cold sore virus), really? I just do not see how or why even religious tradition should trump a child's health and safety.

It isn't recommended by all the major medical associations, especially those that deal primarily with babies and infants. The minute benefits and the fact that some of the so called benefits are based on flawed research in Africa where there is reduced access to clean water and medical care for children and adults, do not outweigh the risk and therefore, it isn't recommended as necessary.

I understand those points - my question was, however, in a different vein: Is it cruel, purely in terms of "pain inflicted", to have that done (assuming, of course, it is done the proper way, and in a medically correct way) while a babe?

The reason I ask in such specific terms is purely a nagging question - people often say it is "cruel to inflict such pain upon a child"... is there any reason it is more painful to have it done as an infant than as an adult? It was my understanding that infants would heal faster, not to mention that any pain felt (again, modern medicine... why not use at the VERY least a topical painkiller/numbing agent) would be short lived?

Is there actually any increased risk of infection, scarring, or permanent damage, assuming the procedure is done right? Obviously if the doctor screws up then yes, there is an increase in risks; but done correctly, what actual risks are there?

Please note - I'm not trying to be condescending or anything - I'm genuinely curious because it seems we have two very different sides that are taking their arguments to extremes (the pro-circumcision saying such things as it can reduce the chance of HIV/AIDS, cancer, et al; then the no-circumcision side saying it causes irreparable damage, scarring, inflicts incredible pain to the point of torture, etc)

It is a dangerous Abrahmic

We have understood the science behind most disease that effect the glans. Therefore the prevention is best cure. Parents should themselves clean their children's genitalia and routinely check them. It is very simple.
Circumcision have been mostly used to divert people away from sex, so they can be 'better sand productive' members of society.

... okay, seriously, what in the world does being circumcised have to do with driving people away from sex and making them "more productive members of society"? You keep saying these things... yet I have not seen any evidence of this... you claim that being circumcised puts the woman at risk of being "injured by pounding"... again, that doesn't seem like an issue with circumcision, but rather a guy not knowing how to make love to a lady and instead treating her like some sort of masturbation device...

 

[madethesame]

I understand those points - my question was, however, in a different vein: Is it cruel, purely in terms of "pain inflicted", to have that done (assuming, of course, it is done the proper way, and in a medically correct way) while a babe?

The reason I ask in such specific terms is purely a nagging question - people often say it is "cruel to inflict such pain upon a child"... is there any reason it is more painful to have it done as an infant than as an adult? It was my understanding that infants would heal faster, not to mention that any pain felt (again, modern medicine... why not use at the VERY least a topical painkiller/numbing agent) would be short lived?

Is there actually any increased risk of infection, scarring, or permanent damage, assuming the procedure is done right? Obviously if the doctor screws up then yes, there is an increase in risks; but done correctly, what actual risks are there?

Please note - I'm not trying to be condescending or anything - I'm genuinely curious because it seems we have two very different sides that are taking their arguments to extremes (the pro-circumcision saying such things as it can reduce the chance of HIV/AIDS, cancer, et al; then the no-circumcision side saying it causes irreparable damage, scarring, inflicts incredible pain to the point of torture, etc)



... okay, seriously, what in the world does being circumcised have to do with driving people away from sex and making them "more productive members of society"? You keep saying these things... yet I have not seen any evidence of this... you claim that being circumcised puts the woman at risk of being "injured by pounding"... again, that doesn't seem like an issue with circumcision, but rather a guy not knowing how to make love to a lady and instead treating her like some sort of masturbation device...

Men have torn their frenulums while pounding women hard ( Women like slow sex). Glans is very sensitive in case of uncircumcised penis as the foreskin keeps it moist, smega's presence under foreskin protects the glans for bacteria.
Circumcision is dominantly a Abrahmic tradition and you too know it. It was used as fool proof in middle east people who were nomadic.
Men who have uncircumcised wands have longer duration of intercourse as the glan being highly sensitive can make a person ejaculate early. It is proved that men loose interest in sex after ejaculation.

 

[Kittamaru]

Men have torn their frenulums while pounding women hard ( Women like slow sex). Glans is very sensitive in case of uncircumcised penis as the foreskin keeps it moist, smega's presence under foreskin protects the glans for bacteria.
Circumcision is dominantly a Abrahmic tradition and you too know it. It was used as fool proof in middle east people who were nomadic.
Men who have uncircumcised wands have longer duration of intercourse as the glan being highly sensitive can make a person ejaculate early. It is proved that men loose interest in sex after ejaculation.

Uh huh... once again, you are missing the key point: Why is the guy ramming the woman like a crack rabbit on a pogo stick? It sounds like that is a case of "bad sex". The funny thing is, though, the way you said it this time almost makes it sound like a case FOR circumcision - less chance of the guy getting injured during intercourse.

And it's "proven" that men lose interest in sex after ejaculation? Strange how so many of your claims don't seem to apply to me and my experiences... granted, I tend to make a point of ensuring she is satisfied before pursuing my own release, so maybe I'm just strange.

 

[Bells]

I understand those points - my question was, however, in a different vein: Is it cruel, purely in terms of "pain inflicted", to have that done (assuming, of course, it is done the proper way, and in a medically correct way) while a babe?

Yes. I believe it is.

Just because it is a baby and will not remember that pain from a medically unnecessary surgical procedure does not mean it is not cruel to put that baby in that much pain for something not medically necessary in the first place. While the use of anesthetics is now encouraged to reduce the stress and the pain in newborns, not all are willing to use it and you also need to remember the risks involved. The penis continues to grow and develop after childbirth.

The reason I ask in such specific terms is purely a nagging question - people often say it is "cruel to inflict such pain upon a child"... is there any reason it is more painful to have it done as an infant than as an adult?

Informed choice and informed consent.

As an adult, you are doing it with eyes wide open as to the risks involved and most importantly, you are making that decision for yourself. It is your body and your choice. That choice isn't being taken from you by someone who wants your penis to look just like your father's penis, for example.

It was my understanding that infants would heal faster, not to mention that any pain felt (again, modern medicine... why not use at the VERY least a topical painkiller/numbing agent) would be short lived?

It takes up to 10 days or more to heal. There are very few pain reliever's available for home use for newborns. And babies who are in pain are stressed, which affects their sleeping and most importantly, their feeding. If a newborn loses too much weight or isn't able to feed properly, it opens it up to other complications. It has a flow on effect. Not to mention having to change dressings and keep the area clean for the time it takes to heal, the increased risk of infection to the penis itself.

Is there actually any increased risk of infection, scarring, or permanent damage, assuming the procedure is done right?

Yes. There is always a risk with any surgical procedure. With the religious procedure, that risk increases because of the fact that the mouth is used to suck up the blood. As I noted above, babies have contracted herpes and died as a result of it. Also when you consider that the penis itself continues to develop and the nerve endings in the foreskin and the penis continues to develop after birth, why would you want to take that risk?

Obviously if the doctor screws up then yes, there is an increase in risks; but done correctly, what actual risks are there?

There is always a risk of infection or complications, even in surgical procedures that are done correctly.

And remember, these are all preventable and avoidable because unless it is medically necessary, this is all voluntary..

The situation in Africa and the risk to baby boys, boys and men in Africa is even greater.

Please note - I'm not trying to be condescending or anything - I'm genuinely curious because it seems we have two very different sides that are taking their arguments to extremes (the pro-circumcision saying such things as it can reduce the chance of HIV/AIDS, cancer, et al; then the no-circumcision side saying it causes irreparable damage, scarring, inflicts incredible pain to the point of torture, etc)

The HIV/AIDS studies were flawed from the start. I find the use of the findings from those studies without a warning about how flawed they were, to be dishonest. The risk of penile cancer is minute. And it is exceptionally rare especially in developed countries where we have better hygiene and clean running water. Even without that, the risk is so small that the medical associations around the world do not recommend circumcision to prevent it. They won't even recommend circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS. To prevent that, the use of condoms is always better and educating people about using them will always be more effective. As for UTI's, again, rare and it's like less than 1% and it isn't a 100% prevention. Once again, proper hygiene is key and pediatric associations around the world will not recommend circumcision to prevent UTI's. I'd rather wash my kids and teach them about hygiene rather than risk it. If they choose to be circumcised when they are adults, that will be entirely their choice. As a parent, I was not going to take that choice away from them permanently. It is their body and thus, their choice.

There will be arguments for and against, there is for just about anything. But frankly, people seem to believe that because it is their child, restrictions on what they can do to their children is infringing on what many seem to believe is their god given right. There is a reason why pediatric and medical associations around the world do not recommend it. I think ignoring the concerns of doctors for purely cosmetic reasons or religious and cultural reasons is insane personally. I personally do not understand how or why parents would take such risks with their newborns for something that is not medically necessary. Public hospitals here will not even do them if it is not medically necessary and they will exhaust all other options before opting for surgery. Many private hospitals are also the same.

 

[Bells]

... okay, seriously, what in the world does being circumcised have to do with driving people away from sex and making them "more productive members of society"? You keep saying these things... yet I have not seen any evidence of this... you claim that being circumcised puts the woman at risk of being "injured by pounding"... again, that doesn't seem like an issue with circumcision, but rather a guy not knowing how to make love to a lady and instead treating her like some sort of masturbation device...

His bizarre obsession with rough sex aside, in regards to the history of circumcision in the West and the US, as well as other English speaking countries, he isn't that far off.. One of the main reasons circumcision became so popular in the West was because it was believed to prevent masturbation. It was the same reasons given such as those given to encourage female circumcision and even hysterectomy's for women. The reality is that male circumcision became popular originally because people were concerned that men (and women) were too sexual and suffered from "masturbatory insanity".

Circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[50] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "The current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"


"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration." Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:

In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the "vestigial" prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause "nocturnal incontinence," hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might "give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation." Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that "circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity ... it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills." No wonder it became a popular remedy.[50]​

At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[50]


One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg. He advocated the consumption of Kellogg's corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.

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

Robert Darby (2003), writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, noted that some 19th-century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.[6]​

Mainstream pediatric manuals continued to recommend circumcision as a deterrent against masturbation until the 1950s.[6]

​

 

[Bells]

Men have torn their frenulums while pounding women hard ( Women like slow sex). Glans is very sensitive in case of uncircumcised penis as the foreskin keeps it moist, smega's presence under foreskin protects the glans for bacteria.
Circumcision is dominantly a Abrahmic tradition and you too know it. It was used as fool proof in middle east people who were nomadic.
Men who have uncircumcised wands have longer duration of intercourse as the glan being highly sensitive can make a person ejaculate early. It is proved that men loose interest in sex after ejaculation.

Dude, seriously, less porn. No, really, half of your posts here constitutes comments about rough sex and frankly bizarre claims about men and women. Not to mention it's as if you are literally pulling things out of your backside with your incorrect comments about men, women and sex.

Watch less porn.