HPV Last Longer in Uncircumcised Males

The evidence keeps adding up for all males to shed that disease-entrapping foreskin as soon after birth as possible. This latest study comes from the May 2010 edition of the Journal of Infectious Diseases, as reported by Reuters Health news service today.

The good news for the uncircumcised, according to this study at least, is that they are no more likely to acquire human papillomavirus (HPV) than their clean-cut counterparts. But -- and here's the bad news for foreskin lovers -- it takes the uncircumcised a whole lot longer to get rid of HPV than circumcised dudes. The study found that clean-cut males can shed HPV in 91 days, compared to 154 days in uncircumcised males. The researchers concluded, "Circumcision may protect against HPV‐associated disease by enhancing the resolution of infection."

Here's the Reuters story:

Sex virus lasts longer in uncircumcised men
Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:27pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - While uncircumcised men don't seem to be at higher risk of acquiring human papillomavirus (HPV), it takes them longer to clear the virus from their bodies, new research shows. Because HPV causes genital warts and certain cancers, the finding, say researchers, could help explain why uncircumcised men have a higher risk of such penile cancers.

It could also play a role in how likely their partners are to develop infections.

"Our study demonstrates that the apparent protective influence of circumcision against genital HPV infection may not involve a reduction in new infections but rather the enhanced ability to resolve existing HPV infections," Dr. Brenda Y. Hernandez of the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii in Honolulu and her colleagues write.

But why this might be, and whether circumcision would be a good way to help prevent the spread of HPV-related disease, remains unclear, according to the researchers.

Some HPV strains cause cervical cancer in women, and are the targets of the vaccines Cervarix and Gardasil. Some strains may also be associated with penile cancer in men.

There's evidence that circumcision lowers a man's likelihood of developing cancer of the penis and contracting HPV infection, as well as HIV infection, in some populations. Because partners of uncircumcised men face a higher risk of cervical cancer, it's possible that circumcision could affect the spread of the virus as well, Hernandez and her team note.

The researchers had previously found that circumcised men were less likely than their uncircumcised peers to be infected with HPV at a given point in time. To determine if circumcision might influence a man's risk of acquiring HPV infection, as well as how readily he could clear the virus from his body, the researchers followed 357 men for an average of about 14 months. Every two months, the men, 290 of whom were circumcised, underwent HPV testing.

During the study, the researchers identified 536 different HPV infections, with no difference in risk between the circumcised and uncircumcised men. However, the researchers did find that HPV infections of the head, or glans, of the penis lasted 154 days, on average, in the uncircumcised men, compared to 91 days in the men who were circumcised. The increased duration was seen for both cancer-associated and non-cancer-associated HPV strains.

Cancer of the penis most commonly develops in the glans, Hernandez and her team point out, and the fact that infection with cancer-related strains lasted longer in uncircumcised men "has clinical significance."

It's possible, they add, "that transmission of HPV to sex partners is more efficient among circumcised men because of the greater duration of their infection." However, they add, "whether circumcision is an effective means of facilitating HPV clearance has yet to be demonstrated."

Are Uncircumcised Fathers Most Likely to Circumcise -- or Not?

Here's a question worth pondering. Are uncircumcised fathers more likely to circumcise their sons than circumcised fathers are to leave their sons uncircumcised?

My gut says that, as the medical evidence grows on the health value of circumcision, more and more uncircumcised dads are saying, hey, I want what's best for my son -- and that means a healthy, clean-cut penis from the start of life.

Is there any empirical evidence for this supposition?

I have blogged earlier that there is nothing more admirable -- and no one more deserving the title of FATHER -- than an uncircumcised dad who gives his newborn the gift of circumcision. There is a special place in Heaven for these men who recognize that just because they have a foreskin is no reason for their sons to be so afflicted, especially when the chances are much greater in the 21st century that a foreskin will increase a male's chance of HIV, STD, HPV, and other diseases.

Are there circumcised men who leave their sons with a foreskin prone to disease? Of course, there must be some who are taken in by the anti-circ propaganda and a few who have developed a psychological problem over being clean-cut. But, once again, my gut says that most circumcised dads want their sons to enjoy the healthy penises that they have -- to say nothing of the aesthetic and social reasons to circumcise.

In my view, circumcising your son to "look like" you is no more valid than leaving your son uncircumcised to "look like" you. The best reason for all fathers, regardless of their own circumcision status, to circumcise their sons is that it is in the child's best health interests. That's all you need to do the right thing!

New Study: Circumcision Reduces Herpes & HPV in Males

How long must we wait for the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics to take account of the growing body of medical evidence that points in only one direction -- every boy should be circumcised to protect himself, his partners, and society as a whole.

This week, still another study in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms that male circumcision reduces a male's chance of getting genital herpes and HPV.

After years of such evidence, it's amazing that the CDC and AAP feel so threatened by a small group of anti-circumcision fanatics that they appear to be back-pedaling on doing what is medically right. I will never understand why the foreskin fetishists go to such extremes, but eventually even the docs at the CDC and AAP will yield to medical science and declare what most of us know is true: circumcision is good for every boy!

For more evidence of that, read the full Reuters story, as reported in the Vancouver Times Colonist:

Circumcision protects men from genital herpes and a virus that causes genital warts and cancer but it does not appear to guard against syphilis, U.S. and Ugandan researchers said on Wednesday.

The report in the New England Journal of Medicine adds to the debate over whether men — and newborn boys — should be circumcised to protect their health and perhaps the health of their future sexual partners.

The findings from two trials in Uganda build on related research showing that circumcision cuts a man's risk of HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse by more than 50 per cent, said Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, which funded the study.

They also come at a time when circumcision rates are declining in places like the United States even as evidence mounts that the practice can provide important health benefits.

"Medically supervised adult male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual intercourse," he said.

"This new research provides compelling evidence that circumcision can provide some protection against genital herpes and human papillomavirus infections as well."

The human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. It causes cervical cancer, which kills 300,000 women globally every year.

The team, which also included researchers from Johns Hopkins University in the United States and Makerere University in Uganda, conducted two parallel clinical trials to analyse the impact of male circumcision as a public health tool.

The combined results of the studies looking at more than 3,000 men showed circumcision reduced the risk of herpes by 25 per cent and of HPV by one third. HPV also causes anal and penile cancers.

Circumcision also appeared to reduce the odds of genital warts but had no effect on the incidence of syphilis, the researchers added.

The study highlights the potential of using circumcision to protect people most at risk of the infections in the developing world, especially Africa, where HIV and HPV are widespread.

"Efforts to scale-up male circumcision could have tremendous benefit," said David Serwadda of Makerere University in Uganda, who worked on the study.

Since 2007, circumcision has been promoted by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS as a way to reduce the risk of AIDS in areas where heterosexual transmission is high.

When done in children, the operation reduces the chance of urinary tract infections and phimosis, a problem with the foreskin.

Operation Abraham Coming to USA

Three cheers for Dr. Inon Schenker! A couple weeks ago, Ha'aretz News, an Israeli paper, published a story about Dr. Schenker and something called Operation Abraham. The good doctor was at the recent CDC meeting in Atlanta and proposed bringing his Operation Abraham to America. As described in the newspaper, "Operation Abraham [is] a group of Israeli doctors who gained expertise in circumcision by performing the procedure thousands of times, quickly and safely, on Russian-Jewish men who were raised outside Jewish tradition and immigrated to Israel in the 1990s. "

Knowing that America has a growing foreskin problem, not only because too many boys are left uncircumcised, but also because our fast growing immigrant population is largely foreskin afflicted, Dr. Schenker suggests: "Why not bring mass adult male circumcision to the Hispanic and African-American communities of America?" Indeed, to all Americans, I would add, because we have many whites and asians here who still are at risk to themselves and their partners because of their uncircumcised status.

Operation Abraham is not something new and novel. The altruistic doctor and his team have already perfected it in African countries. Here's what Ha'aretz reported: "The resulting abstract, which Dr. Schenker presented in Atlanta, proposes to help train American doctors in much the same way as was effective in Swaziland: by working side by side and showing them how to circumcise efficiently. The innovation creates what Schenker called an "assembly line" technique, working in a team, using only local anesthesia and perfecting a "clamp" method of foreskin removal that uses forceps. The Israeli doctors boast that they are able to perform 30 or 40 circumcisions a day."

The link between HIV, STDs, HPV, cancer, and all sorts of other pernicious diseases and the foreskin is now conclusive. Operation Abraham is a humanitarian effort to save the lives of millions of uncircumcised Americans who, through no fault of their own, were not circumcised at birth like most Americans.

So far, the U.S. government has not embraced Dr. Schenker's proposal. They should do so immediately. After all, U.S. taxpayers spend millions to circumcise Africans. Why not spend a little of that money on our own people? Readers of my blog know that I think it is hypocritical for us to circumcise the rest of the world and ignore our own. Dr. Schenker is offering a great public service.

The Ha'aretz article notes that some of the anti-circumcision foreskin lovers are trying to portray the Israeli docs as some sort of proselytizers for Judaism. That strikes me as anti-semitic. No, these docs are not mohels. No, they are not looking for Jewish converts. But, yes, they want to help restore America to its clean-cut status of the 1960s & 1970s. After all the money and support America has given Israel over the decades, I can't think of a better way for Israel to return the favor than to let its docs eliminate the foreskin from our continent.

Obviously, the expected recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics that all newborn boys be circumcised will help in the future, but Operation Abraham could be just what the doctor ordered for American males who were not so fortunate at birth. Dr. Schenker, we need you and want you!

Aussie/NZ Doctors Cave to Anti-Circumcision Fanatics

According to The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, the Australia/New Zealand college of physicians is not yet ready to do the obvious -- recommend the circumcision of all baby boys. Anti-circumcision fanatics have been more successful on that continent than in the USA, dropping the number of healthy, clean-cut boys over the last twenty years.

Here's the article from its June 6 paper with my comments in boldface:

"THE Royal Australasian College of Physicians has flagged it will not change its policy against circumcision despite evidence the procedure can prevent the spread of HIV and other sexual diseases." [How much medical evidence do these docs need?]

"The college, which represents physicians and pediatricians in Australia and New Zealand, has adopted the position that "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision" since 2004." [A bad decision in 2004, but much worse in 2009.]

"But it has been reviewing this stance in part following recent scientific research suggesting that the risk of HIV infection could be dramatically reduced by the practice. Three trials conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda between 2005 and 2007 showed conclusively, according to the World Health Organisation, "that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60 per cent". [Repeat, docs, circumcision cuts the risk of HIV by 60% -- what are you waiting for? 100%?].

"Further research, published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine, has found that circumcision can reduce the transfer of human papillomavirus — the chief cause of cervical cancer in women — by 35 per cent, and herpes simplex virus — the chief cause of herpes — by 25 per cent." [So, on top of the HIV reduction, it cuts cervical cancer in women by 35% and herpes by 25%, and you Aussie/NZ docs still won't acknowledge the obvious?]

"The journal said the findings underscored "the potential public health benefits of the procedure". The college, which began its review in 2006 and was supposed to come out with a revised policy at the end of 2007, will not do so until the end of this year, as it considers the new evidence." [Better late than never, but what are you waiting for?]

"It is estimated that 10 to 20 per cent of male infants are circumcised in Australia." [Ewww, the thought of so many filthy foreskins in Australia should make us all sick, especially their future female partners].

"The chairman of the college's panel considering the issue, David Forbes, of the University of Western Australia's school of pediatrics, said the African studies had delayed the new recommendation, but so too had the fact "it is a contentious and non-clear-cut issue". [It's only contentious for the foreskin lovers who won't recognize medical evidence.]

"It's quite clear that there's evidence that circumcision in adult males helps prevent HIV in Africa," said Professor Forbes. "It's not so clear that circumcision in Australia in infants is of benefit to the infants or the community. Policy is about getting the right message to health planners so that we have safe but cost-effective expenditure." [The best time to circumcise is at birth, folks. Safer, cheaper, faster, pain-free, cleaner. Everyone knows that.]

New concerns about the practice of circumcision in Australia were raised last week after the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute found that parental consent might not be enough to protect the circumcisers of baby boys from later legal action. [Another distraction by the foreskin lovers. Since when can parents not consent to life-saving medical procedures for their children?]

No specific laws regulate the removal of the foreskin. [The biggest improvement would be a law to require circumcision before entering school, as a public safety measure like vaccinations.]

Professor Forbes said he wanted to have the college's position "finalised by the end of this year, hopefully before". [Again, better late than never].

"He said the benefit of reducing human papillomavirus "appears not to be such an issue in Australia" because a vaccine was being produced. And there were important differences between the HIV situation in Africa and Australia: HIV rates in Australia were far lower and condom use was much higher." [HIV rates are lower in Australia because the previous generation, now sexually active, were circumcised at birth. With so many young boys now afflicted with a foreskin, those rates will change by 2020].

"He said while there was clear evidence that circumcision reduced the rate of urinary tract infection, this alone did not justify routine use of the procedure as the infection rate was so small.
He said the 10-strong panel consisted of pediatricians, surgeons and policy and public health experts. "There are extremely strong views at both ends of the spectrum for those who promote circumcision and those who oppose it," he said." [Yes, another benefit of circumcision, the reduction of UTI. The list of benefits goes on and on and on, but Aussie docs ignore them].

"Undertaking elective surgery of minors who are not able to consent is for many pediatricians an even bigger issue, especially when there are examples of (Muslim) societies who elect to have it at puberty when people can choose." [This 'consent' issue is another red herring raised by the anti-circ fanatics. What about parental rights and responsibilities to keep their children healthy?]

"Dr Forbes declined to preview what the college's recommendation would be. "Policy change tends to be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and given that there are no trials of neonatal circumcision for prevention of HIV, I wouldn't expect revolutionary change. I would expect evolutionary change." [Just follow the science, dudes].

"Roger Short, from Melbourne University's department of obstetrics and gynaecology, hopes the college will view circumcision in a more favourable light. "It would be exciting to see the Royal College come forward with a slightly more progressive attitude than its previous pronouncements," he said. "The evidence is coming in, and it is irrefutable, that there are major benefits." [Thank you, Dr. Short. You're a doc who speaks the truth on the science].

"Professor Short said there were no grounds for making circumcision mandatory." [Well, I disagree about this. Circumcision should be required for all boys, with exceptions for the obvious conscientious religious objection].

Instead, the college should change its recommendation. "I think we should go from saying 'when in doubt, don't circumcise' to 'when in doubt, do'." [Absolutely. So Aussie/NZ docs, just do it].

TSA Full Body Scanners Can See Circumcisions

We all know the stories about uncircumcised males being embarrassed about their foreskins, at least in circumcised countries like America. Turns out the new full body imaging scanners being put in place by the TSA at airports across the country are so detailed that TSA will soon know the circumcision status of every dude who gets scanned. I haven't yet heard if the anti-circumcision groups are up-in-foreskins, oops, I mean up-in-arms about this, but it wouldn't surprise me. Keeping track of the nation's uncircumcised males is one way to know who is the most likely threat to public health, I suppose. The TSA is obviously looking for objects and devices that can blow up planes, but I dare say that more people have died from foreskins infecting a male or his partners (especially female) with HIV, HPV, STDs, and other ailments than from a bomb on board an American plane.

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.

Pro-Circ Doc to Head Centers for Disease Control

Good news for the circumcision movement! President Obama has named Thomas Frieden, MD, to be the new Director of the Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Frieden has been the New York City Health Commissioner. He drove the anti-circs crazy when the New York Times reported that NYC would recommend that all males be circumcised to prevent the spread of HIV. Frieden apparently backed away, or claimed that was never the original intent, but in a letter to the NYT on April 9, 2007, he encouraged discussion of this issue, saying he awaited "stronger evidence." His letter is below, but NOTE that it was written two years ago. In those two years, we now have incredibly strong evidence of the value of circumcision in reducing not only HIV but HPV and STDs in both men and women. Dr. Frieden's appointment is a significant blow to the anti-circumcision fanatics, as he appears to be a man who wants to follow the science.

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."

Thomas R. Frieden, M.D. New York City Health Commissioner New York, April 9, 2007

Listen to the Medical Doctors: Circumcise Now!

Below are just a couple of quotations from some noted medical doctors that I think we all should respect. Of course, the FLs ("foreskin lovers") will disparage these docs in the misguided, ongoing anti-circ effort to protect their beloved foreskin. But with a respected doctor like Anthony Fauci says, "Circumcise!" maybe the American Academy of Pediatrics will listen.

“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.

American Academy of Pediatrics Statement on Circumcision We Hope to See

Somewhere circulating within the emails of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Task Force on Circumcision, there is a draft proposal updating the AAP's 1999 "neutral" stance on circumcision in light of the growing medical evidence in favor of male circumcision. You can call this a fictional wish-list, but we hope the AAP has the guts to issue a report something like this:

"DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT"

Task Force on Circumcision

American Academy of Pediatrics

Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh Risks

A Call to Universal Circumcision

Executive Summary

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.

Anti Circumcision Fanatics Are Getting Hysterical

Have you noticed how the anti-circumcision crowd is getting more and more hysterical, as the prophylactic value of circumcision grows with each new medical study?

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!

Mandatory Circumcision: Is There Anything as Worthless as a Foreskin?

Most Americans have never seen a foreskin in person, and that's obviously a good thing.

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?

Mandatory Circumcision: Isn't It Time to Require Male Circumcision?

Just a little post to see how much interest there is in mandatory circumcision. Am I alone, or are there those who think that the medical evidence to circumcise males is now so substantial and overwhelming that all males should be required to be circumcised? Of course, as with all laws such as those that require vaccination, there ought to be an allowance for a religious reason not to circumcise or some unusual medical condition (i.e., hemophilia) that precludes a clean-cut penis. But doesn't public health now dictate that all males be circumcised?