If you’re reading this article in Europe, the chances are that your knob is in one piece. If, however, you’re reading this in America, the reverse is probably the case.
In the UK less than 3% of babies are circumcised; in the US it’s more like 50% that get that pesky skin tube nipped off the end of it. What’s all that about?
Circumcision is pretty ancient, some reckon it has been going on for 15,000 years or more. That can’t be proved, but Egyptian mummies are circumcised and the Bible bangs on about it a shit load so it’s obviously pretty old school. (Remember that article about Jesus’ foreskin? LOL!)
Some people believe that circumcision started off in the deserts of the Middle East as a public health thing. They theorise that people got sand under their foreskin which irritated their knobs and caused the foreskin to get stuck behind the bell end, which isn’t something that you want to happen. It’s called balanitis, and it’s bad news.
That sounds, initially, like a bit of a wild theory, but there is some sense to it. During WWII a lot of Australian soldiers were fighting in particularly arid conditions. They experienced a plague of balanitis of epic proportions. It turns out sand in the wrong place can be a bit of a nightmare. So it’s not such a weird theory after all.
Consequently, nearly all Australian blokes over the age of 60 are circumcised, just in case they need to go to war in a desert I guess.
Quite a few religions, including Islam and Judaism, circumcise their kids for holy reasons, but that’s not why most Americans get it done. And it’s not just on the off chance that they end up in a desert war either. That would be daft (although also kind of likely with their recent track record in the Middle East). The reasons they circumcise loads of their kids is actually a lot stranger.
Although there are no official medical institutions that promote the circumcision of babies, the practice continues. Could it be something to do with the butt-tonne of cash that American medical companies receive from the process? Hmmmm…
In the UK it used to be pretty common to get your child circumcised too; in the bad old days people used to get the knob clippers out because they thought it helped prevent the naughty fuckers having a wank when they grew up.
Spanking the badger was considered bad for the health, both mentally and physically. Lovely, hey? Personally I find it chills me out. I’m glad medical science has come on since then, don’t you?
After WWII the NHS came in. The government didn’t want to pay for random, pointless circumcisions, so they stopped recommending it and it pretty much died out over here. America doesn’t have the same luxurious healthcare privelidges as us, and I guess they’re more focused on making some cash out of genital mutilation, which is pretty dark.
So what possible reasons can there be for wanting to chop off some skin from your pride and joy’s todger? After all, Europeans aren’t exactly riddled with foreskin dramas are we?
Well, these are the some of the reasons that the American healthcare system recommends mutilating your newborn baby’s dick. Make your own minds up. And, just to reiterate, there are no professional medical associations in America who support circumcision for all. None:
Apparently a circumcised penis is easier to clean, and therefore less prone to infections. This is palpable guff. I clean my knob easily and effectively on a daily basis. Thanks.
Less Chance Of Piss Demons
Urinary infections are a literal pain in the dick. If you don’t have a foreskin you have less chance of picking them up. Also, urinary infections can lead to fairly serious kidney beefs further down the line if you have one as a child.
But, hardly any blokes get urinary infections, ever, and those that do are 50+. So it’s no real benefit.
That’s no reason to lop off baby bits.
Decreased Chance Of Getting Some STIs
This seems to have some truth to it. But, once again, it’s not a good enough reason to mutilate a child. The best way of avoiding STIs is to pop a hat on your chap. That’s much more effective. And like I said, the evidence isn’t all that compelling any way.
If you compare America’s rates of infection of STIs they are the same or higher than countries with virtually no circumcision. So it can’t work that well, can it?
AIDs / HIV
Some studies show a decreased risk in transmitting the AIDs virus if you are circumcised. Some don’t. So if you are planning on your son moving to a region in Africa where AIDs is rife, and having unprotected sex with multiple partners, maybe you should go for it.
But once again, the data isn’t convincing. In fact some studies have shown that circumcised males are more likely to get involved in risky sexual liaisons because they think they are safer.
Pop a hat on it chaps.
Preventing Penis Probs
Balanitis, mentioned above, and phimosis (where the foreskin gets stuck in the closed position) are incredibly rare conditions. Obviously, if you have no foreskin, it can’t get stuck, but seriously, how often does that happen to anyone? I’ll tell you, very fucking rarely.
Yeah, the Big C strikes fear into everyone’s heart these days, and for good reason. It’s a total cunt. Cancer of the penis (yes, that’s a real thing), is proper rare. But, it happens more commonly in people who haven’t been circumcised.
The argument still remains though. Is it worth putting your baby through surgery to prevent something that is less likely to happen than being eaten by a shark? One scientist worked out that 300,000 circumcisions would need to be carried out to prevent just one case of penile cancer. Totally not worth it.
Here’s a video if you’re still not convinced how daft it is:
So if you’re a male and you live in the UK: phew. If you are an American without his foreskin intact: I’m sorry for your loss.