Don’t worry because the change of the color can be handled recently and there are some solutions which can be done by people, such as brushing the teeth in regular way. Besides that, controlling the types of food which are consumed by people is important and using teeth whitening kits to support the process in returning the pure color will be great.

When people search the teeth whitening, they can go to smile for you because there people will find the absolutely best for returning the color of their teeth and they can perform better in smiling and speaking without being ashamed of their yellowish teeth. Last but not least, give up from smoking will make the teeth in white longer that using smoke in life.

The x4 enlargment provides the permanent result for extending the length and the girth of a penis after a proper exercise with the extender product. The comfort strap technology from this product can deliver the best enlargement result with proper usage and exercise. There will be more information about the product on www.x4-labs.com. There will be more information about the enlargement methods like the rubber tubing support on the comfort strap technology to provide hybrid enlargement system that the users can choose which method  that suits their needs and requirements. The products are doctor approved, CE certified and FDA registered to guarantee its safety and its result.

As in your attempt to solve your hair problems, laser hair treatment seemingly can become the best solution. Luckily, there are many medical service providers that have been using laser in their treatment so finding laser treatment for your hair is not a big deal. What you must consider in finding laser treatment is to choose the best laser treatment. Actually, there are two main reasons why you must manage to use the best laser treatment. The first reason is high quality result. As customers, you surely always look for high quality service. If you are able to receive high quality laser vein treatment, you will become very happy and fully satisfied since the result of the treatment will make your future life brighter. Then, the second reason to choose the best laser treatment is fewer risks. You surely have ever heard that careless treatments potentially promote health risks. You can avoid this if you use the best laser for your laser vein removal since the laser is surely checked and supervised.

In short, there are two main reasons why you must choose the best laser treatment. Therefore, before deciding to use laser to treat certain condition, you must make a thorough and careful survey in order to make sure that you choose the right laser.

Anybody think the day will come when the TSA will haul aside uncircumcised dudes and send them off to a doctor? I admit, that’s extreme. But you do wonder whether knowledge that a man’s circumcision status will be checked every time he goes through an airport has any impact on circumcision rates in the USA.

Small Business Financing will be your good source to grow up your business. You will have flexibility to expand your business with this kind of loan. Of course, you have to be wise for spending new business loans money to be able to repay the loan on time. Do a little research about small business loan rates, so you can get the best rate. You don’t have to worry to take Unsecured Line of Credit since the process is super fast. You will not wait too many weeks to get the approval information. Also, the process is very convenient which means that you don’t need to leave home for applying the loan. Furthermore, you only need to check the site which provides security on your personal data with encrypted system. It means that unauthorized party can’t access your data.

Business Lines of Credit will be your good partner for starting and growing up your business. You don’t have to submit any collateral and no deep investigation. Feel free to contact customer support to get further information regarding Small Business Financing features. If necessary, you can read testimonials from other customers who have used the loan feature. Take this good chance today!

“If you find the idea of taking Botox injections disgusting, why not try a little foreskin on the forehead? Scientific American is reporting that 150 patients in Britain have received injections of Vavelta, a skin treatment derived from the discarded foreskins of babies intended to rejuvenate damaged skin, including wrinkles, acne, burns and surgical incisions.

“It seems that Vavelta is brimming with fibrobrasts, a skin firming protein that becomes scarce with age. The treatment is approved in the U.K., but the F.D.A. has yet to approve the drug.
Of course, many boys have been circumcised for generations, and no one seems to ask where the foreskins end up. Some, we now now, end up on women’s faces. But if you support stem cell research (and I do), how can you oppose this?”

I love the reporter’s lead sentence: “If you were the parent of a baby boy and were told a minor operation could provide him with protection against three diseases (at least) that kill millions worldwide, would you be interested? It is safe to assume that you would. When, however, you discovered that the operation in question was circumcision, would your enthusiasm dwindle?”

In Great Britain, unlike America, the foreskin had a come-back, so being clean cut — while perfectly acceptable — is not the norm. At least not yet. The good news is that more British sons are being circumcised, as the growing evidence for universal circumcision mounts. So here’s a shout-out to our British cousins (who actually introduced circumcision to America a hundred years ago) who are following the medical science to a clean-cut country.

Old Letter to NYT from new CDC Director:

“The New York City Health Department has not planned, developed or announced a campaign to encourage at-risk men to get circumcised. Like other domestic health agencies, we are encouraging people to discuss and study this issue.”

“Because circumcision has the potential to decrease H.I.V. transmission by more than half, we hope that men who choose the procedure will have access to it. A campaign to promote circumcision in this country would be premature without stronger evidence, but the time is right for a communitywide dialogue.”

A recent posting from a pediatrician discussed the importance of doctors who examine children keeping a close eye open for child abuse. We all agree with that. But, no surprise, some whacky FL commented on the abuse of circumcision. His first line was to attack pediatricians who retract the foreskins of uncircumcised boys. WTF. The foreskin is a filthy, diseased cover that collects smegma and harmful germs in close proximity to an otherwise healthy penis. The notion that a pediatrician who gently retracts the foreskin to make sure the child’s penis is okay has somehow engaged in child abuse is preposterous.

No surprise, that comment elicited even more stupid responses from anti-circ FLs. You know the argument: circumcising boys is child abuse, blah, blah, blah. Of course, they never mention that it is the healthy smart thing for parents to do to protect their children. But the image they want to conjure is that baby docs, the pediatricians, will report all circumcised boys to the authorities for “child abuse.” What nonsense.

If there are any child abusers in this story, clearly it is the parents who harm their sons by failing to circumcise them at birth. Those are the real child abusers, but you won’t hear stories about that.

“At present, skin grafts can be expanded by making cuts in them to create a mesh, or by inserting balloons under the graft once it has been attached to the body.

“These gradually expand, stretching the overlying skin. But, skin meshes heal unevenly and balloons are painful, take months to expand fully and leave scars.

“According to a report in New Scientist, to try to improve on this, Sang Jin Lee of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, took foreskin donated after circumcision and placed it between vices inside a bioreactor, a vessel that bathes the skin in nutrients to encourage cell growth and division.

“The vices were controlled by a computer and could be set to move apart at specific times.
The researchers found that the best method was to stretch the skin at hourly intervals, leaving it to produce new cells in the meantime, then stretching it again.

“By doing this, they were able to elongate the skin by 20 per cent a day, which after five days resulted in an intact strip that was twice as long as the original.

“Tests of the stretched skin showed that its general structure was maintained and that its thickness and pore size were almost identical to the starting tissue.

“Lee said that they have since added extra vices to stretch skin lengthways and widthways at the same time.”

Botswana plans to circumcise nearly half a million

GABORONE (AFP) — Botswana, which has one of the world’s highest HIV infection rates, has launched a scheme to circumcise nearly half a million men to curb the spread the disease, the health ministry said Thursday.

The country hopes to circumcise 460,000 men over the next five years, after a series of studies found that circumcised men were two to three times less likely to contract HIV, said Janet Mwambona, a public health specialist in charge of the project.

“For the public health benefits of the preventive effect of circumcision to be realised, the Ministry of Health is supposed to cover 80 percent of eligible males in Botswana,” she said.
Government is running television and radio campaigns to encourage men to visit clinics for safe circumcision procedures.

“All primary and district hospitals are currently booking clients and performing the procedure,” added Mwambona.

About 50 healthcare providers, including 27 doctors have undergone training on surgical circumcision.

The rapid spread of HIV and AIDS once threatened the survival of the approximately two million people of the land-locked southern African country, until the introduction of antiretroviral drugs in 2003.

According to a 2005 UNAIDS report, Botswana’s HIV prevalence among pregnant women between the ages of 15 and 24 has stayed between 35 and 37 percent since 2001.
The rate among the older pregnant women was last measured at 43 percent in 2003.

“Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man’s risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse,” says NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. “This new research provides compelling evidence that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections as well.”

“The cumulative scientific evidence supporting the public health value of medically supervised male circumcision is now overwhelming,” says Thomas C. Quinn, M.D., study co-investigator, chief of the International HIV/STD Section in NIAID’s Laboratory of Immunoregulation and co-author of the study. “This new research confirms the substantial health benefits of male circumcision, including reduced acquisition of HIV, genital herpes, HPV and genital ulcer disease.”

“These findings have significant public health implications for the control of HIV, genital herpes and HPV in areas of high prevalence, such as Africa, and further suggest that efforts to scale-up male circumcision could have tremendous benefit,” said Dr. David Serwadda, co-principal investigator and dean of Makerere University’s School of Public Health.

In the eyes of the anti-circumcision fanatics, these doctors must just be looney.

But this story provides one reason that I reject as an incentive to circumcise — the prevention of child abduction. Turns out that in northern Uganda little boys are being abducted for child sacrifice. That’s sick and a crime, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. Parents in that region say that the abductors do not want circumcised boys (or those wearing earings), so more little boys are being circumcised to protect them from being abducted and killed.

Now I’m in favor of almost every reason you can conjure to circumcise males, but this one is totally unacceptable. Go after the criminals! Here’s an excerpt from the story:

“Uganda: Circumcision, earrings deter child murder”

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
By IRIN

“More cases of child trafficking and abuse are being reported in the northern Ugandan districts of Gulu, Kitgum and Pader, according to officials. The region is mainly inhabited by an internally displaced population recovering from over a decade of war. . . . Recently, Uganda’s chief judge Benjamin Odoki urged the courts to pass tougher sentences for those involved in child abuse offenses. In the meantime, parents in the north have taken to circumcising their children and adorning them with earrings to deter would be perpetrators. “I hear that witchdoctors do not want circumcised children or those with earrings,” Lukwayi Ayot, a local resident told IRIN. “I have decided to circumcise my two boys.” Schools have embraced the practice too, said Ayot a local teacher. “We do not forbid any child from wearing earrings in school… to protect them.”

Marines provide safe circumcisions for Filipinos
Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Tuesday, April 28, 2009

MANILA, Philippines — U.S. and Philippine military medical personnel are helping young men in the Philippines with a rite of passage: circumcision.
The troops are performing the procedure as part of their work in Balikatan — an annual bilateral training exercise that runs through Thursday.
During a Medical Civil Action Project on Friday, 13-year-old Joel Bangate underwent the procedure, according to a U.S. military news release.
According to the release, Philippine boys are usually between 10 and 13 years old when they decide to have the circumcision. When Joel learned that the procedure would be offered thanks to the Balikatan troops, the teen decided to take that option.
Professional circumcisions are available at medical facilities in the area, but in most impoverished areas, a village elder usually performs the procedure with a razor blade and without any stitches, according to the release. Boys traditionally sit in a cold bath for two hours to numb themselves while chewing guava leaves for minimal anesthetic. The boys spit the leaves onto the open wound, hoping to heal themselves, according to the release.
Philippine army Capt. William Recuenco — a surgeon — said the end result of the traditional procedure is often an infection.
During the MEDCAP, doctors used sterile instruments and an effective anesthetic and provided antibiotics.

“I have a lot to be thankful for,” Joel said after his procedure, according to the release.

After a comprehensive review of the latest medical and scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics concludes that all males should be circumcised, preferably at birth, as a matter of both personal medical well-being and general public health to protect themselves, their future sexual partners, and society as a whole from a number of debilitating, life-threatening, and costly diseases.

In 1999, the AAP declared that “scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision,” but we cautioned that “these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” This position, reaffirmed in 2005, understandably left parents of newborn males in a quandary. While the medical benefits of circumcision were established, such as a substantial reduction in urinary tract infection, the evidence was not then compelling to recommend that every male be circumcised. Parents were left to draw their own conclusions, which meant that social, familial, and other non-medical concerns often took priority over health care in the decision-making process.

With substantial new scientific evidence over the last four years, the AAP now recommends that all newborn males be circumcised, and we encourage all public and private health insurers and medical providers to cover, promote, and establish efficacious ways to achieve universal male circumcision. We endorse routine neonatal circumcision, with all the appropriate analgesics to alleviate pain, and we recommend that all males, regardless of age, be circumcised. Circumcision not only confers life-long benefits on the male, but it also protects his female partners and society as a whole.

Among its other benefits, circumcision reduces a male’s chance of acquiring HIV by at least 50 percent, reduces his risk of acquiring HPV by 35 percent and spreading HPV to his female partners, reduces his chances of contracting Herpes Simplex Virus Type II by 28 percent, and reduces the likelihood of causing cervical cancer in his female partners. The AAP does not assert that circumcision eliminates these painful and costly medical scourges, but it will significantly reduce them. These health benefits to males and females far outweigh any risks posed by circumcision, and to suggest otherwise is to engage in a head-in-the-sand approach to science for political and non-medical reasons.

We recognize that the decision to circumcise children lies with the parent, so, consequently, just as with AAP-recommended vaccinations, an option not to circumcise must be made available. But the AAP concludes that sound science dictates the goal of universal male circumcision, regardless of the race, nationality, religion, age, or economic status of the male. A requirement by schools that all boys be circumcised before puberty is recommended, subject to exception for religious or deeply-held objection, or a rare medical necessity. But like the eradication of polio and measles through a policy of universal vaccination, the public health benefits of circumcision are best conferred when adopted by all.

This position in no way impugns the decision of many parents in recent years that left their sons uncircumcised. The decision not to circumcise was perfectly understandable, particularly in the context of the AAP’s former position. But medical science advances, and health care requirements must change with that evidence. Boys left uncircumcised, particularly as they become sexually active, increase their own risks and those with whom they are intimate. That is why the AAP encourages both public and private health insurers and health providers to establish cost-effective options to circumcise both young and older males. And we encourage parents of uncircumcised boys to take advantage of those options as quickly as possible.

Finally, we believe that the evidence for universal male circumcision is so compelling that the United States Government, through the Surgeon General, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and all other relevant agencies, needs to engage in a public information campaign and improve affordable access to circumcision for all American males of every age. Under the leadership of the World Health Organization, many other governments have taken such a pro-active lead. The American Academy of Pediatrics urges the U.S. Government to do the same. A country with the greatest medical scientists, practitioners, and institutions should once again take the lead on this critical public health mission.

You’ve heard the whacky argument. The first premise is that everyone who promotes circumcision is circumcised. Now how the foreskin lovers know this is beyond me. Maybe there’s an assumption that all American doctors and researchers are circumcised (clearly debatable), but it’s not likely that our European counterparts are circumcised. Unless they are Muslim or Jewish (ah, yes, the Islamic/Zionist plot), foreign scientists are more likely to be uncircumcised than cut.

Moreover, the assumption is insulting to anyone who believes in the scientific method. The fact that one is circumcised ought not to lead to a biased result in an ethical evidence-based study, any more than the fact that one is uncircumcised should prejudice the results. Scientists follow the evidence — not make things up because of their penile status.

The broader attack by the FLs (“foreskin lovers”) is that the reason most males (at least in the USA) are pro-circumcision is that they have “never come to terms” with their own cut state. Circumcised males are, supposedly, deeply resentful of their clean-cut penis, so they “take it out” by wanting to circumcise everyone else. What a crock of BS! But read the comments posted by some of the FLs on my blog, and you will know this is what they believe.

Once again, the resort to ad hominem attacks on those who want a healthier society, healthier males, and healthier females through universal male circumcision only demonstrates, once again, how desperate the FLs have become. They are losing the debate on the merits of the argument, so they are doing what good debaters do. But it won’t work — not this time.

What is it with these people? Science is science, and to name-call those whose medical evidence reaches a conclusion you don’t like is Luddite medicine at its worse. You remember the Luddites, don’t you? Decent enough people, I suppose, who during the Industrial Revolution didn’t like the marvelous new inventions of the era took it upon themselves to destroy the good that modern science was delivering.

Today’s anti circ crowd is just like that. They cling to the foreskin like it was some Holy Grail, denouncing every new study that shows circumcision to reduce the incidence of HIV, HPV, STDs, and a host of other ailments. These socalled “intactivists” use trash talk and hyperbole to disparage those of us who want to follow medical science to its logical conclusion — a foreskin-free society where all males are circumcised, not only for their own good health, but also for those of their partners and society as a whole.

Even on this page, the anti circ fanatics try to turn my logical and reasonable call for mandatory circumcision into a Nazi-like dragging of adult males into some hospital room. I have never ever suggested that. Universal circumcision will be achieved by custom, law, and the good sense of people, heeding the doctors and scientists of the 21st Century. It will happen over time, as every young boy is circumcised before school age, just as we innoculate children today. But such is the hysteria of the anti circ crowd that, rather than debate the science, they trash the scientists and those who follow the science to its logical conclusion.

The only good news about the growing anti circumcision hysteria is that it’s a sure sign that they are losing!

While governments in countries like Uganda and Kenya are actively promoting circumcision, the US government turns a blind eye to the growing number of uncircumcised males in America. Here’s what Africa Science News reports about Kenya: “The government has entered into a massive campaign advocating for male circumcision to help in reducing the HIV burden in the country where last year, over 18,000 males were circumcised between the age of 15-49 and targets to circumcise at least 50,000 males per year during the drive.”

Where is the leadership in the USA? This blog is devoted to an intelligent debate on the question of whether all males should be required to be circumcised for their own protection, that of their partners, and society as a whole. Even the tiny little country of Suriname is offering free circumcisions to encourage a 100% foreskin-free nation!

And in the Phillipines, the U.S. military actually assists in providing free circumcisions to the villages in a country where 100% circumcision is de facto, if not de jure, required. Why isn’t the U.S. Army medical corps offering the same to American citizens who are footing the bill?

How ironic if other nations around the world heed the advice of American (and other) medical researchers before we do so ourselves. Ironic and tragic.

Is there anything quite as worthless — or dangerous to public health — as a foreskin? Anti-circ zealots go on and on about the sensitive sexual nerves in a foreskin, trying to make clean-cut males feel like they’re missing something. Even though studies have demonstrated that circumcised males have lost nothing, sexually, by discarding this ugly piece of skin, the anti-circs try mighty hard to convince otherwise.

What is really lost in circumcision is a disease-attracting piece of tissue that harbors HIV, HPV, STDs, and all sorts of other diseases. The foreskin is a breeding ground in its moist, warm, smegma-producing skin that hides the penis. Once upon a time, when men ran naked through the jungles, perhaps the foreskin helped protect the penis. But that day is long gone. Today it serves no useful function that isn’t outweighed by the danger that lurks within. I can think of no other body part that has outlived its value — and has now become a contributing factor to so many ailments — as the foreskin.

Take a good look at this foreskin. Don’t you agree it’s time to promote universal circumcision to protect every male, his partners, and society as a whole?

There is a case for circumcision, and it is based on a study done by this author with 46 men, circumcised after their 25th year.

The Survey

The men who participated in the survey were all mature men over 25 years of age, have had sex with and without circumcision, and were able to comment directly on the difference in sexual gratification, illness, and proclivity to masturbate.

Of the 46 men, 31 were recent converts to the Jewish faith, 19 to Islam, and 6 had the procedure done for medical reasons.

The Survey Questions:

1. Is your sexual experience (a) greater, (b) the same, (c) less, after circumcision?

2. Have you noticed any difference in your incidence of genital infections since your circumcision? (a) less, (b) more, (c) no change.

3. If you masturbate, has circumcision (a) made no change in your masturbating habits, (b) you masturbate less, or (c) masturbate more.

The Results

Question #1 was answered by 32 men (a), 10 men (b), and 4 men (c)

Question #2 was answered by 35 men (a) 0 men (b) 11 men (c)

Question #3 was answered by 23 men (a) 20 men (b) 3 men (c)

The Results Interpreted

On question #1, an overwhelming majority agreed the sexual experience was more than before circumcision.

This is a very subjective question, and to compare, a man would have to had sex with and without a prepuce. No amount of conjecture on the nature of the prepuce can supplant the opinion of those who had it and then did not.

The fact that approx 70% said that their sexual experience was greater without a prepuce is significant. The fact that 91% said that is was greater or the same is very significant as a case for circumcision.

On question #2 the same majorities exist, and even a stronger case for circumcision is made. Using the studies and reasons for not circumcising men are fairly well refuted here.

Question #3 is not very clear, as the men’s masturbating habits are not clearly defined.

An old excuse for circumcision is that it would discourage men from masturbating, but this question seems only to have determined that recently circumcised men either masturbate the same as they used to (before circumcision) or less. This would tend to confirm one reason for circumcision.

Conclusions

While the above survey does not follow scientific method in its strictest form, it does have something to say from men who knew the situation before circumcision and then afterwards.

You can certainly make up your own mind as to the conclusions, but statistically, it would seem that circumcision is a good idea, rather than a negative one.

It appears the circumcised men are enjoying their sexual experiences more than they used to, are healthier, and if they masturbate, are still masturbating.

I found there were many theories about how and why genital mutilation began but nobody knew for sure if any of them were true. Primitive people all over the globe have been practiced body modifications of every description, including genital cutting, for thousands of years.

As part of my inquiry, before I went to sleep one night I asked to know how circumcision began. In the middle of the night I saw a vivid vignette unfold, as if a television was sitting at the foot of my bed.

Two people appeared in the dream: an old man and a baby. The old man was crazy drunk and wanted to play with the baby’s penis. Since a foreskin will retract and pull the penis into the body when it is cold and also when its owner is afraid, the old man could not access the baby’s penis. This enraged him. He pulled out his knife and cut the baby’s foreskin off.

From “The Rape of the Phallus” by Dr. William Keith C. Morgan in the Journal of the American Medical Association, July 1965:

“Why is the operation of circumcision practiced? One might as well attempt to explain the rites of voodoo!… it is part of an ancient rite practiced by many primitive tribes whereby the young male and less frequently the young female, gives proof of his or her ability to endure pain. If they pass the test with fortitude, they are then accepted into the tribe as fully developed adults with attendant privileges. Thus in this respect the operation is similar to many of the tattoos and scars produced by burning, piercing or incising that are accepted as routine cosmetic procedures by these peoples.

“Second, in many primitive African tribes circumcision is performed to reduce libido. This mutilating practice is generally performed on women to keep them faithful to their husbands. Male infant circumcision is practiced by all Semitic races, Jew and Arab alike, and has been exported by them to all parts of the world and to most races. It will perhaps be a cause of surprise to those of Semitic origin to find that the Australian aborigine has practiced circumcision for as long, if not longer, and for the same basic reason as his more civilized brethren.”

Well, so much for modern and medical and upscale, logical and rational. Cutting off genitals is primal, primitive, base, emotional stuff.

The age chosen for circumcision varies according to the culture. The western, English-speaking world, which has followed the Judaic model, cuts the child at birth or a few days after. Other cultures wait until the boy is somewhat more grounded, around age five or twelve.

Some “coming of age” rituals during teen years involve not only genital mutilation but also haircutting, knocking out teeth, finger amputation, tattooing, scarring, and a variety of other quaint tribal markings. Some think the “coming of age” ritual is a message to the younger men in the family or tribe: “Our women are beginning to like you! Stay away from them! The women belong to us!”

You can read circumcision facts and myths from around the world and through the ages in Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery by David Gollaher.

But why, given that neither the New Testament, the Book of Mormon nor any national medical organization in the world encourages the practice does circumcision have such a strong foothold in the supposedly civilized, modern, predominately Christian, United States of America?

Dear reader, make sure you are sitting down, because this is something many people find difficult to believe – but it’s true! – circumcision began in the USA as a way to keep children from – egads! – touching themselves! – masturbating! Read these stirring words from the New Orleans Medical Journal in 1855…

Neither the plague, nor war, nor small pox, not a crowd of similar evils have resulted more disastrously for humanity, than the habit of masturbation: it is the destroying element of civilized society.

The last witch had been burned in the late 1700s as the evil spirit theory of disease was actively being discredited. But the evil spirit theory was soon replaced by the masturbation theory. Masturbation, doctors proclaimed, could make you crazy or physically ill – it could even kill you. You had to be saved from your evil ways – for your own good.

The witch hunt turned to an obsession for uncovering and punishing private sexual behavior, self-pleasuring.

“Over this period there was truly a remarkable upsurge in what can only be termed comic-book sadism. The advocacy of these bizarre [anti-masturbation] therapies was not confined to eccentrics. By about 1880 the individual who might wish for unconscious reasons to tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children… to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster of Paris, leather or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them, could find humane and respectable medical authority for doing so in good conscience. Masturbational insanity was now real enough… it was affecting the medical profession.” – Alex Comfort

Pain was considered to be a good thing in the war against pleasure…

“In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate.” – Athol A. W. Johnson, The Lancet, April 1860

When masturbation was thought to be the cause of all disease, doctors were under the spell of opinion-based medicine. They argued among themselves whether the masturbation theory of disease was to be blamed on loss of body fluids or from the shock of orgasm. Nobody bothered to test the theories surrounding masturbation and circumcision. No one has yet to research the long-term effects of circumcision. The U.S. is still working hard to replace opinion-based medicine with evidence-based medicine. Statistics mislead. The real story is in the numbers.

Numbers say that a lot of boys have been unnecessarily cut. Fortunately, I was savvy when it came to statistics — I knew how they can be used to mislead, so a 50% reduction in UTIs translates to: where there used to be two UTIs in a hundred boys, now there is one. 100% of one is one and two of two. But two UTIs in a hundred boys means that millions of boys have been cut who would never have had a UTI! You could safely say that out of 100 boys who are cut, all are cut unnecessarily. Why? Because while those two little boys had a UTI, five little girls got UTIs and doctors used antibiotics for the little girls – and therefore doctors could have used antibiotics instead of cutting the boys.

Only six boys in 10,000 are circumcised in Europe for medical reasons. European doctors explain to boys how to stretch the skin if it is too tight; antibiotics are used for infections. In Europe and other intact cultures, cutting genital tissue is thought of as a drastic measure, bad medical practice.

Here in the USA, circumcision was sold to parents as a way to end the cause of all disease, which was purported to have been masturbation. Now we read a study that said the less men between the ages of 20 and 50 masturbate, the more likely they are to develop prostate cancer. Masturbation helps clear out the tiny little tubes in the male reproductive system, it said.

I wondered if present-day parents should be concerned if their children don’t masturbate enough. Will doctors of the future recommend more masturbation so boys will be healthier?

“Son, you’re looking a little sickly! Go to your room, and don’t come out until you have had at least one healthy orgasm!”

“Aw, mom, do I have to? I wanted to do my math homework!”

And the irony is, now that studies have been performed, we find that loss of genital tissue results in more masturbation. Yes, the fact is, circumcised men masturbate far more than intact men – 40% more often. Are they trying to make up for in quantity what they are lacking in quality of experience?

What about loving family relationships in adulthood? How might loss of sensual tissue affect that? One man cut after adulthood said the difference between cut and intact sex is like the difference between black and white, or color TV. Something vital is missing. Could the loss of the foreskin affect the bonding process? Could loss of the foreskin be the cause of so much sexual dissatisfaction and infidelity? When something is missing, do people reach out to new partners, hoping that someone new will be the one who really “does it” for them?

Reducing the physical equipment reduces the sensual experience and sexual satisfaction, yet nature’s demand for reproduction burns as hot in the cut and the intact. With the loss of natural parts and skin, achieving the deepest levels of sensual contentment is thwarted… so a vicious cycle is established. Less skin means sexual frustration – the big itch is inadequately scratched. This surely accounts for the difference in desire among circumcised men and intact women.

People who don’t get the nutrients their bodies require to work well, crave food. People who don’t get the sensual satisfaction their bodies require, crave sex. It’s just the way it works. We naturally will try to make up for quality with quantity. Deficiency leads to obsession. Genital cutting creates sensual deficiency and sexual obsession.

The masturbation-as-cause-of-all-disease theory was bogus and the circumcision “cure” backfired. We now have a nation filled with people who are sexually frustrated and sexually obsessed. And yet circumcision persists.

We are meant to enjoy full-body orgasms, but when cut, we do not have them. The partners of circumcised people are also deprived of their full ration of pleasure and satisfaction.

Tens of thousands of delicate nerve endings are cut off with every foreskin. And some men spend months or even years stretching the skin and restoring the foreskin. Some attain excellent results that doctors cannot distinguish from natural foreskins. The restored function can be anywhere from 80 to 90% that of a natural, intact man. When a man restores his foreskin, he finds his rhythm of desire begins to more closely resemble his mate’s.

Some have called circumcision, “the cure desperately in search of a disease”.

Why the persistent sales pitch? Why do the same circumcision enthusiasts move from one claim to another? Why? Who is invested in what?

There is a predictable cycle: A claim is made for the health advantages of circumcision. The claim turns out to be untrue. Like a smoke and mirrors magic show, another claim arises to take its place. And that has been the pattern around the circumcision phenomenon for many years now.

Psychologist and author Alice Miller wrote, “What eventually happens to the person who was mutilated as a child? As a rule, children who were once injured will later injure their own children, maintaining that their behavior does no harm because their own loving parents did the same.”

Circumcision makes circumcisers. Circumcision makes people who are obsessed with sexuality, babies’ genitals, cutting of flesh, and the shedding of blood. Trauma sets us up for acting out the trauma, repetition compulsion.

Could it be that the act of circumcising is an addiction of sorts? For some, it must carry quite a charge. There are people who have blood fetishes, people who have tissue fetishes, people who get off on torturing others, people who like to fondle children’s genitals. Put them all together and circumcision surely is an ideal job for some.

And it’s not easy to give up addictions. There are no circumciser detox centers, no “Circumcisionists Anonymous” meetings. It’s unlikely circumcision clamps and knives will be easy to pry out of the hands of those who want to continue. It is an extremely emotional subject. I was shocked to read that some doctors who were surveyed said that even if it was made illegal, they would continue to circumcise. Now that’s hard core.

So I went public. I had booth at an outdoor celebration. “Circumcision is my religion,” screamed one kindly grandmother at me. Thumbs down for my Save the Males sign from one very nicely dressed and coiffed elderly lady. “You don’t know how hard I had to work to get my grandson circumcised!” spat a third.

Adults defending circumcision rather than protecting children – this truly perplexed me.

In the interest of human rights, I think it is time for circumcision to be examined with a microscope that can see beneath the surface of emotional arguments. When we are so deeply mired in anything we can’t see clearly. We need a mirror.

Westerners look askance at the ritual mutilations of the body performed in exotic tribes, but they justify their own ritual mutilations as medically appropriate. Europeans sneer at the Maasai custom of lengthening the ear lobes, but they have their own noses bobbed and their faces lifted.

“Americans are horrified at the Arunta practice of subincision (slitting the penis on the ventral side) or the Sudanese tradition of infibulation (excising much of the female genitals and sewing up the vagina), but they stand with few other modern nations in clinging to a ritual that is no less “barbaric” and no more “hygienic”, routine circumcision.” – Karen Ericksen Paige

Look at babies’ faces before and after circumcision. Before, they look peaceful, content, happy. After, their faces look dismayed, betrayed. Listen to their cries.

When I was studying the subject, research had still not been performed on the long-term effects of circumcision on the infant, the bonding process with mom, the psychology of the circumcised baby, the boy and man he becomes, his relationships, the quality of life.

In England, circumcision ended abruptly after a few facts were provided to the medical boards. Europeans seem to do quite well with their natural, sexy, relaxed bodies.

But it’s as if the U.S. is under a spell, in a trance. It can’t see itself objectively. Americans are prudish and yet are inundated with sex wherever they look in the media. Even Disney films titillate.

Circumcised doctors imagine the natural penis to be a birth defect. “I can do something about that for you!” doctors say, as if natural anatomy is a condition that needs fixing.

Is circumcision really good for babies? No. Does anybody know for sure that circumcision has ever saved anyone’s life? No. Does anybody know for sure that being intact has led to anyone’s death? No. Has circumcision killed? Yes. Has it deprived? Yes, deprivation is a sure thing, 100% of the time.

Some men say every circumcision is a botched circumcision. Every circumcision maims.

So, as I read and read, it seemed to me that circumcision was a cosmetic, elective procedure, never beneficial and inevitably harmful… unless the owner had gangrene of the foreskin.

How good of an idea can it be to traumatize infants for the sake of cosmetic genital surgery? How good of an idea can it be to deprive anyone of natural body parts and natural sensation?

We owe it to our children to examine the circumcision subject carefully. It’s important we put on our thinking caps and be objective, not just argue to be “clever” or “right”, or to “win”.

Each time objective reality checks prove that circumcision claims are false, the circumcision promotion machine moves on, like a huge monster that eats foreskins for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

What could be the motivation? Who does circumcision profit? Well, there are doctor and hospital fees. I heard once a pediatric urologist complain that people who speak up and tell their stories are “scaring patients away” from circumcision.

A retired doctor-preacher man once told me he didn’t like doing circumcisions, but, “If I didn’t do them, someone else would get the money.” He looked rather shocked after he said those words.

Medicine is a business and circumcision has been big business in the USA for a century or more.

There are circumcision tools and instruments and equipment to sell. What about the commercial uses of the amputated skin? At one time there was at least one business that made and sold goods made from foreskins. One can only imagine how they obtained the foreskins… many colors, many sizes… we can only speculate. From a very odd catalog:

Introducing MANLY ARTS of Ohio, purveyors of circumcision memorabilia. MANLY ARTS specializes in providing a channel for those historians, researchers and collectors who are involved in the development of the “manhood movement” as it has been expressed in literature, research, graphics, objects and cultural practice. Foreskin Quarterly #7 (Winter 1987), pages 20-21.

Item 61. Wallet, actually made from human foreskins. Supple and imminently serviceable. Comprised of fourteen skins ranging from 3″ by 5 1/4″ to infant 1 1/2″ by 2″, the wallet contains eight compartments and is sewn together with leather thread. Of such a commanding appearance that viewers will have to ask what the material is. After that, it’s up to you. Beautiful brownish patina on the outside; the inside composed of checkerboard alternating Caucasian and Black skins. $1,000.

Item 62. Woven finger ring made from actual human foreskin. Braided, and done so by twisting: the skin was apparently not cut longitudinally during its removal. Thus there is no joint between the two ends, because there are no ends. A beautiful piece of engineering, much like a Chinese puzzle. Beautiful mahogany patina with honey-colored highlights. Would fit the middle finger of the average man. $500.

Item 63. Small (9″) pair of lamp shades made from human foreskins. Mounted on solid brass cast and polished bases. Excellent form and design. The foreskins are Caucasian, Black, Olive, Oriental and Indian and are used in a regular pattern. The mellow light shed by the foreskins produces an enviable atmosphere of calm and romance. $2,500 the pair.

Item 64. Beautiful vest made entirely of human foreskins, lined in emerald green moire. The foreskins are used as squares alternating with small diamonds of much darker skin. The seven buttons are solid gold and each is stamped “Tiffany and Co.” $5,200.

Item 65. Gentleman’s pinkie ring made from human foreskin. In constructing this item, the inner and outer layer of prepuce were left in their original relative positions, so the ring is double thickness. This may have been the product of a re-circumcision, as the forward edge retains a distinct pattern of suture marks which had healed. Being a double thickness, small circular holes have been placed in the outer skin and cat’s eye stones inserted which contrast handsomely to the honey-brown color of the ring. The width being only 1/2″ contributes to the theory that the ring was produced by a second circumcision. $375.

Item 66. This is an outrageous item. A large and long human foreskin has been expertly tanned to provide all the suppleness and softness of the intact version. It is connected to a sulcus ring of silver with cabochons of lapis lazuli so that the wearers looks as if he were an uncircumcised male wearing only a sulcus ring (granted that the ring is worn above and not beneath the prepuce). The skin is connected to the ring with a dozen silver rivets; not recommended for use in masturbation or intercourse, rather obviously. But a hekkuva decoration for those special parties. $225.

Babies’ genitals are used in expensive beauty creams. Stem cell research is performed with foreskin tissue. Flattening out football-field-sized sheets of very expensive artificial skin containing – yes! – infant foreskin.

“Just one foreskin per football field! We promise! And it was donated from the owner of the company’s son! – Honest!”

European and Japanese men do not suffer from foreskin problems. Europe and Japan score high up on World Health Organization charts – the USA is 37th. No national medical association in the world – even in the United States – endorses circumcision. Even our own American Medical Association (AMA) and American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) do not accept the health and hygiene claims. And yet circumcision myths keep on going and going and going… like the Energizer bunny.

Doctors? Poor doctors. In the past they created such a successful demand for circumcision that now they are trapped. Even though they claim they don’t want to perform circumcisions, they claim they must! Bloodthirsty parents insist! After all, medicine is a business and the customer is always right.

And so, cosmetic surgery on healthy infant penises continues.

I wonder what doctors would say if a parent insisted they cut off a baby’s nose? Or an ear? Or an eyelid? Would they do it? If the parent insisted? Why? Why not?

A cruel beast circumcision is – for all involved, but especially for the brand new visitor to the planet, the guest of honor, the baby.

No child has ever voluntarily chosen to go under the knife. Every child resists. Babies have to be held down, strapped down, restrained. Babies fight circumcision. Children do not want to be circumcised. And yet, when they have children, the circumcised will pass it down…

Pshew! Time for me to take a breath.

That was an interesting bit of reading and research. Such an emotional issue. Even for me, though it appears – so far, anyway – that I’m just an innocent bystander!

And now I have even more questions.

Did God really tell us to circumcise our babies? Or is it possible we are living under the tyranny of an ancient superstition?

Have we all been duped? Everyone? Everyone medical? Everyone religious? By tricksters from the past?

Do we really need blood rituals and tribal markings? Now? In the 21st Century?

Is circumcision at the root of man’s inhumanity to man? Early childhood trauma? Power-over? Powerlessness?

We have a big trash can of historical mistakes: stonings, crucifixions, holocausts, routine tonsillectomies, appendectomies, mammograms, and bleeding with leeches.

It’s certain that someday circumcision will take its place among those others. I’m already embarrassed for the doctors and nurses and rabbis who have done it to babies. Surely it goes against their best intentions, their highest value, which is to do no harm to any living thing, especially I am sure they do not wish to harm a baby.

Perhaps all it will take is one tiny voice that says “The emperor has no clothes,” like the courageous doctor who said to a classroom of nurses, “There is absolutely no medical reason for doing this.”

Lloyd Schofield, who started the campaign, explains the ban by saying that “it’s a man’s body, and his body doesn’t belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents.” Thus, according to Schofield, forcibly removing a male baby’s foreskin is immoral.

Religion Isn’t Like A Nose Job

This argument may sound good on the surface, but if we examine it more closely, we can see that it proves too much. What about situations where surgery is required to save an infant’s life? Should such operations be banned because “it’s the infant’s body” and no one has the right to invade it? I think most people would say no.

But this, I’m sure Schofield would respond, doesn’t undermine the ban, because circumcision is never (as far as I know) needed to save babies’ lives. Instead, he has said, it’s more like

“cosmetic surgery.” No one should be forced to get a facelift, the argument goes, and the same principle applies here.

The trouble with this argument is that, for many, if not most, of the people who choose to have their babies circumcised, the procedure is not akin to cosmetic surgery at all. It’s a religious requirement. If you believed, as these people do, that God exists, He is the ultimate arbiter of morality, and He wants you to circumcise your child, I don’t think you’d see it as a trivial matter.

In other words, when we unpack the rationale for the circumcision ban a bit, we can see that it’s based on an idea hostile to religion: that religious practices are just as frivolous and unnecessary as cosmetic surgery.

If we want to have an honest debate about this law, I think we need to acknowledge that it’s based on anti-religious assumptions of the sort we often see in the writings of “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, and ask the ban’s proponents to justify those assumptions.

The False “Religion Vs. Morality” Distinction

But there’s a deeper, and more problematic, assumption behind the ban — the notion that the ban is justified by moral principles that are separate from, and superior to, religious beliefs. “People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else’s body,” says Schofield.

Again, this sounds convincing at first, but let’s take a closer look. Where do the ban’s defenders get the moral rule that “your religious practice ends with someone else’s body?”

Did they learn this through scientific observation? No. As philosophers have often pointed out, moral principles are different from laws of nature like the law of gravity — we can’t learn what’s right and wrong by conducting experiments.

Some might argue that Schofield is expressing moral values most people share. However, even assuming most people buy the principle that “your religious practice ends with someone else’s body,” that doesn’t make the principle true. To use a timeworn “argumentum ad Hitlerum,” a majority of the German people may have supported Hitler’s rise to power, but I think you’d agree that doesn’t mean it was a good thing.

My point is: it’s far from obvious that the principle “your religious practice ends with someone else’s body” is somehow more valid than the religious view “God commands me to circumcise my child.” Neither principle is more “neutral” than the other, and there’s no good reason to dismiss the second one just because it contains the word “God.”

I suspect we’ll see more and more legislation influenced by “New Atheist” ideas being proposed, and I think we need to understand those ideas and the role they’re playing if we want to have a fully informed discussion about these laws.