The Uncircumcised Penis Debate - Which Side Are You On?

The prospect of having an uncircumcised penis is growing more popular in the United States these days as circumcision rates have fallen dramatically since the seventies. But even the medical establishment cannot state categorically that having an uncircumcised penis is better or worse than having a circumcised penis. These days, having an uncircumcised penis has become popular enough to actually spawn a movement towards foreskin restoration. Backed by a group of disgruntled American men who felt that they were mutilated against their will when they were circumcised as infants, foreskin restoration, which has actually been practiced for centuries, has once again gained a following. Some men have even taken the task of championing an uncircumcised penis to the extreme by launching their own so-called genital integrity movement. The members of this movement condemn all kinds of infant circumcision, including those that are medically recommended, because they regard it as male genital mutilation. However, their numbers are few and their beliefs largely unpopular. Nonetheless, today, there are a number of non-surgical (as well as surgical) restoration techniques that can successfully restore an uncircumcised penis as well as a number of restoration devices that provide men with the do-it-yourself option of foreskin restoration. The logic and need for male circumcision has been a topic of debate in the medical profession for decades. Many doctors feel that the only valid reasons for male circumcision are religious and medical. In fact, the medical association of the USA, Canada and Australia have all ruled against "non-therapeutic" circumcision or circumcision that is "non-religious, non-ritualistic and not medically necessary." In spite of that, an American Medical Association review in 1999 said that if American parents "chose elective circumcision for their child, it is largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns. On the other end of the circumcision debate are those doctors who strongly endorse circumcision, pointing to the fact that an uncircumcised penis is more prone to sickness and disease such as penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases as well as urinary tract infections in babies. In some cases, male circumcision is a necessary procedure such as in the treatment of phimosis and chronic inflammation. Penile cancer is a key concern for any man with an uncircumcised penis. According to a study by Kochen and McCurdy in the seventies, penile cancer "exclusively" affects those over the age of 70 with an uncircumcised penis. Their study cited an occurrence rate for penile cancer to be 1 in 600 among uncircumcised men with a median age of 67. Their study also concluded that, "Since the uncircumcised male is uniquely susceptible, virtually all of these cancers are preventable by neo-natal circumcision." In 2005, the American Cancer Study came out with a study that acknowledged that circumcision "may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer, it is important to concentrate on the main risk factors: poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and cigarette smoking." Overall, their consensus was that "circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."