Circumcision

A man can be circumcised at any time, but keep in mind that circumcision is not necessary. Circumcision has no known medical benefits, and no major medical association recommends routine infant circumcision. Circumcision caries with it serious risks of adverse outcomes including prolonged bleeding, infection, severe pain, and surgical error that can result in damage to the penis. For these reasons most physicians recommend against circumcision.

Circumcision can have long lasting consequences. Circumcision removes a normal part of the penis that functions to protect the glans of the penis. Removal of the foreskin can cause decreased sensitivity of the penis and decreased pleasure during sexual intercourse. This is yet another reason why circumcision is becoming increasingly uncommon. If the procedure is committed on an infant there is a real risk of post traumatic stress syndrome brought on by the excruciating pain, with outcomes like lack of bonding with the mother and behavioral problems later in life.

Circumcision is far less common now in the United States than it once was. During the 1970s and 1980, around 80% of male infants were circumcised in the United States. A study conducted in the United States from 2005-2007 found that circumcision rates had fallen to below 40% in most of the United States. In the western United States, fewer than 25% of infant males were circumcised in 2005-2007.

Unfortunately, circumcision is NOT covered by health insurance.

As there is no reason to remove healthy tissue from the penis there by partially disabling it leading to a further possibility of having to deal with death further illness and trauma most insurance company's are loath to involve them selves with this activity.

Circumcision is generally not covered by health insurance as it is not a medically necessary procedure. Depending upon the type of anesthesia used, the procedure may cost anywhere between $500 and $2500.

Circumcision is a practice that the Jews picked up from the Egyptians. When Christianity was being originally organized as a religion it was working on getting into society's that would no more mutilate a child's penis them cut of their child's hand circumcision was regarded as an abhorrent mutilation of the body, this can be seen from ancient art that survived the period into today. So Saul (Paul) one of the originators of the christian church came up with a compromise which consisted of what is regarded as circumcision of the heart, which consists basically of the person acceptance of Christ as their savior. The instructions in the Jewish book the Torah are not necessarily accepted by an increasing number of Jews in any case.

Yes, women not only find circumcision more clean but are often more attracted to the look of circumcision. Circumcision eliminates problems such as smells and tastes that make performing oral sex feel unclean. This IS A LIE, all women do not prefer circumcision that is something that only an uninformed woman would say who just personally enjoys circumcised men or a circumcised guy is saying this. In fact seeing as how I personally have been sexually active with females for over 15 yrs and have a high number of sexual partners I know for a fact that many women especially women who like to experiment with sex enjoy NATURAL NORMAL MEN MORE than the Jew cut.Not only that but it has been said that circumcision could have the potential to lead to some form of ED & while this possible theory has not had any solid proof there HAS NOT been any combating theories,also uncircumcised men do infact have more pleasure from any sexual act than a man who is circumcised AND this theory HAS BEEN TESTED.think about it if you prick any part of your skin you will feel it now think of what feeling is being cut off from a man when he is circumcised,ALSO there is a great reason that government health insurance will NOT cover this procedure REASON is there is no proof it is healthy for a male it is just a preference that started from the jewsh religion & gained popularity amung single mothers with no male input & women who just decided to make this choice for their own son since they enoyed sexual relations with circumcised men.AND IF ANYONE DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GOOGLE THE MANY SURVEYS ALSO DONE ON THIS SUBJECT YOU WILL GET SIMILAR FEEDBACK.

"Micropenis?" I've never heard THAT before, but I think that applies to babies.

There is no requirement for christiand to circumcise their sons or be circumcised. It is a personal choice. There is no doctrine on this topic and is left up to the parents of the male. Females should not in anyway have their genitals circumcised. and neither should males

Catholics are Christians and have no reason to circumcise their penis. There is no reason other then it is genital mutilation for them not to do it so you may find that catholics in the US may do it for non religious cultural reasons.

Australian Aboriginal have circumcision rights as do Australian Jews and Muslims the practice of selective circumcision as practiced in English speaking country's since the Victorian era is rapidly diminishing and is being actively discouraged by the Australian medical fraternity.

most likely Muslim or Jewish. unless you are from the USA and some of the English speaking country's where some of the general populace have been coned into believing there are health benefits in this sort of abuse.

Ex:4:25: Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

I wouldn't normally log in on a website that only allows Facebook log ins (explains why there are so few answers on this website despite the name of it), but I had to log in as this is so important and the other answer was ridiculous. And naturally I'll be removing the app afterwards.

The answer is a resounding NO THEY DON'T. When questioned, most girls preferred natural penises - not circumcised (genitally mutilated) ones. It's a bit like how, even though it's unfair, people dislike other people who have facial disfigurements.

Contrary to the beliefs of some people, there is no "fish stink" if the man exercises proper hygiene - just like only girls with hygiene issues or infections have a "fish stink", yet surprisingly not one of those girls who advocates circumcision is lining up to get HER prepuce removed (foreskin is another name for the prepuce).

All a man has to do is slide back his foreskin and clean under it to keep it smelling fresh. The foreskin then protects the glans. Circumcised guys don't have any protection, so they are much more likely to get infections and bacteria. Many also wrongly believe that circumcised guys don't need to wash, which means many circumcised guys stink terribly.

Whilst many AMERICAN girls prefer the look of a genitally-mutilated (circumcised) guy (until they try a guy with foreskin), this is changing as less boys are mutilated by psychopathic doctors who believe outdated "medical" advice or/and just want extra money, and most girls around the world prefer a natural penis and find the circumcised penis gross and weird. That's unfair on a guy who's had it forced on him by abusive parents, but it's fact.

The foreskin also makes sexual intercourse much more comfortable for both partners.

Yes, but tell the doctor first.

What Royal men? The royals of Britain And all of Europe are certainly not circumcised. Only the royals of the midle east would be because they are muslims.

Well, to be honest, the skull lining protects the skull, and of course, they must look at everything during an autopsy - including the skull. So this is why they remove the skull lining.

This is a very good question. There is not known medical benefit to circumcision, and no major medical association recommends routine infant circumcision.

Circumcision became popular in the United States and United Kingdom during the late 19th century as a way of preventing boys from masturbating. By removing the foreskin, masturbation becomes much more difficult and less pleasurable. it was put forward by British medical practitioners that masturbation was responsible for more then a hundred different diseases ranging from syphilis to insanity. Nevertheless, most boys continued to masturbate even after circumcision. and the rate of these diseases needles to say did not change. However one thing did change. and that was the income that could be gained by the medical fraternity. never the less as time went on the practice started to loose popularity and if it was not for the start of WW2 and the army medical board being advised by pro circumcision quacks that it would protect conscripts health it would have large faded away as is has in other English speaking countries. there are many reasons why people consider this form of mutilation and one of the biggest proponents is the existing circumcising industry in the United states. other countries unreservedly condemn the practice

In the United Kingdom the rate of circumcision quickly decreased as Victorian attitudes towards sex and masturbation changed. By the early 20th century, circumcision was rarely practiced in the UK, and today circumcision remains extremely rare except amongst certain religions such as Judaism and Islam.

However in the United States the tradition of circumcision continued. As late as the 1980s, over 70% of male infants were circumcised. However, the circumcision rate is dropping in the United States. In 2007, less than 40% of newborn boys were circumcised.

Ask your pediatrician.

The patient is always given pre-op meds in the hospital or clinic prior to a procedure, and for this , a topical anesthetic as well. Don't . You may overdose your son.

There is nothing more dificult to anethethise then the penis and circumcicion is a totaly unecesary and damaging rite. think about why tis is bein done.

kunal khemu has a Hindu background. Hindus do not mutilate their children's genitals or themselves as adults. Unless he has been treated for some disease or other medical emergency it is very unlikely that he has been subjected to circumcision.

Yes, unless there are (extremely rare) complications like bleeding or the surgeon sneezes and cut's it off.

when a boy is born he is born with the foreskin still connected to the glans penis as the glans is not finished developing yet so the first instance it protect the glans

which will form to be one of the most sensitive parts of the body. once the glans have finished developing it will detach leaving behind glans that have a fine covering of mucous tissue on both the outside of the glans and on the inside of the foreskin. Especially in situations where babies are dressed in diapers or nappies the penis is protected from the corrosive and sometimes infections effects of urine and faeces before they are toilet trained. (Imagine what it must feel like to get urine or faeces on an open wound as would be the case in a freshly circumcised baby.) The penis is first of all designed the way it is as a sexual tool. Women don't have one and don't require one. the penis however is built in such a way as to be both useful in introducing sperm into the woman and to give rewards to its owner for doing so. This is done by making its use a pleasure. The glans of the penis are lined with many thousands of pleasure giving nerve ends just below a very thin mucous tissue covering (similar to that which you find between the eye and eyelid) the foreskin has the same properties in reverse acting as a protective sleeve and adding to the pleasure of manipulation, masturbation and sexual intercourse while affording protection the whole time. Unprotected the glans penis is constantly rubbed on underwear leading to a thickening of the tissue covering it. This in turn leads to desensitisation. The penis also exudes body fats that aid in lubricating and moistening the area between the foreskin and the glans helping further protect their malleability and sensitivity. The fore skin is also more pleasurable for the woman. All in all it is little wonder that more than 80% of men prefer to go through life with intact genitals. While most of the remaining -20% commit this mutilation on their children for religious or cultural reasons. Circumcision for reasons of health is not realistic and all medical authorities will tell you that there are no health benefits to be had by the practice except in the rarest of circumstances.

No when they circumcise they remove the foreskin only. Not the penis.

Mostly nonsense and religious superstition. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that has become entrenched in some cultures as a result of religious pressure's. these pressures were originally no doubt brought about because the hygiene standard of people were lacking and the fact is that if the penis with a foreskin is not kept properly clean there is an adder risk of infection. However in a society where personal hygiene is a part of everyday life and there is a realisation of the risks involved in poor hygiene it is not just unnecessary it is downright barbaric. Sort of like crutching sheep to stop them from getting fly blown.

Yes