What are the statistics on complications from NOT circumcising?

More specifically, what are the chances of getting penile cancer if there is no circumcision?

What are the statistics on complications from NOT circumcising?
The American Cancer Society actually said that circumcision does not reduce your chances of getting cancer. Penile cancer is extremely rare. Some European nations (uncircumcised) actually have lower penile cancer rates, so it makes sense. You can find the links to the American Cancer Society at 6a and 6b. Basically, they found previous 'studies' biased and attempting to push circumcision here in the USA.





Here's some more info on circumcision, with more links to other statistics and studies, too.Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim procedure, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys find it more convenient to use a commercial lubricant as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin that is like the eyelids is not present to rub the glans with (4).





Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation, and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision is now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)





However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, they have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible.





Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)





To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. In addition, in one survey it was found that up to half of circumcised guys expressed concerns on wishing to have had the choice themselves. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.
Reply:There are some stats that claim that "circumcision " gives a great advantage but then why is it that the Scandanavian countries (non-circumcising) have lower rates of penal cancer and stds than the US for all the mutilation that has been done here. They do not "circumcise" their male babies and their infant mortality rate is lower than the US, coincidence?
Reply:I agree with the first answerer to check out CIRP. I don't know about cancer, but I know that intact boys are twice as likely to get UTI in their first year of life, but it's still rare. My two sons aren't circumcised and so far neither has ever had any problems of any kind. (The oldest is four.) My dad went weeks without bathing in Vietnam and he never had an infection or any other problems.





For people who think uncircumcised penises are more difficult to clean: The intact penis is self-cleaning, just like a vagina. The reason people think it's harder to clean is because the foreskin produces smegma, a white waxy substance similar to the vernix that covers a baby at birth. Smegma gets its name from ancient Greek. Smegma actually means "soap" in Greek. Women also produce smegma. I have personally dealt with excessive smegma production after bad (possibly allergic) reactions to various soaps, powders, and scented tampons. These things dry out the delicate tissue, and the body makes more smegma to return the skin to it's normal suppleness. It's similar to washing your face with harsh cleansers that initially dry out your skin. Your oil glands work overtime to make up the difference and your skin ends up oily.





You have to be pretty lazy to think that cleaning an intact penis is hard work. You pull the foreskin back, wipe with a wet washcloth, and slide the foreskin back down where it belongs. Piece of cake. I don't even use soap on my son. It dries him out too much and he says it hurts. (My other son is just a baby and his foreskin isn't retractable yet.)
Reply:The risks of getting penile cancer are very very small. While some studies say that the risk is more if you are natural there are many risks with getting circumcised. overall it is better to be natural, just like we were born. I'm natural and many of my friends and family are. So far all been ok.
Reply:What is a better question are the complications of circumcision. Remember, it is a pretty big surgical operation and like any operation it can have problems. Yes, they are rare, but they happen. Problems with anaesthetics, problems with bleeding out, problems when going wrong. I know it's an extreme example, but look up David Reimer - his circumcision as a baby went wrong and his entire penis was accidentally removed. This happens in 1 in a million circumcisions. If all the men in the US got circumcised, that would be 150 people losing their penis.





Complications from circumcision are actually more common than penile cancer. Have a google for more statistics, there are some slight pieces of evidence regarding spread of HIV being slightly less to circumcised men (bearing in mind this is only if you have unsafe sex with an infected person, and makes no difference in male to female infection).





Also, at what point do you start preventing possible rare things that will occur later in life? Chopping off baby's nipples would severely decrease breast cancer, but we don't do that. We also don't remove tonsils or appendices at birth.





Cool, I like your journal entry. Look like we think the same LOL.
Reply:There is no health organization in the world that recommends routine infant circ. There is a slightly higher risk of penile cancer, but it doesn't warrant circumcision. It would be like removing every womens breast tissue to prevent breast cancer (which is much more common btw)
Reply:I have had four boys, (teenagers now), and none are circumcised. They have never had any complications.
Reply:little boys have a harder time cleaning it when not cirumcized and also it gets harder for old men cause their penis shrivels and sometimes they have to get circumcized when they are old because of that reason.
Reply:One in 600 uncircumcised men get penile cancer, which often requires penile amputation.
Reply:This report gives you some information.





http://www.cirp.org/library/complication...





Here's another


http://www.drhull.com/EncyMaster/C/circu...





Quote from above:


Of the 60,000 cases of penile cancer reported since the 1930's, fewer than 10 occurred in circumcised men. The risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men is 1 case per 380-600 men; in circumcised men it is 1 case per 75,000 to 8 million men.





Interesting question you asked. I was surprised by the results!

home teeth cleaning