By Deena Hamza
(Yet another controversial topic!)
The aesthetic appeal of a circumcised member plus health benefits, or the au natural and less “barbaric” version…everyone, Everyone, EVERYONE has an opinion on this topic especially my G.O.P’s!
Quick Penile Points:
- foreskin is designed to prevent disease and infection
- foreskin appears much longer in boys that older males
- nutrients found in breast milk also help the foreskin act as a shield against disease and infection
- tobacco use in any form can cause penile cancer
- poor hygiene can lead to HPV (human papilloma virus), a precursor for penile cancer
- males must wash their member before and after sexual intercourse regardless of intact or circumcised situations
- retraction of foreskin in dirty bath water increases risk of infection
- after washing, intact males should return foreskin to its original forward protective position
- excessive washing will remove natural oils from the inner lining causing an overgrowth of yeast and dermatitis
Which is better, an intact foreskin as opposed to a circumcision? Neither is necessarily better than the other however, circumcision is deeply rooted in cultural traditions and ceremonies while granola tree huggers are completely against the thought of putting an infant through a torturous ritual when helpless. Some males choose to be circumcised when they’re much older, and I have heard this is an extremely painful experience that also affects the individual psychologically. What’s D’s opinion? Culturally, males are circumcised 7 days after their birth while females have their ears pierced. I wonder if granola tree huggers find ear piercing barbaric…. Whatever your poison, just keep general bathing and hygienic practices to a maximum to ensure optimal, disease and infection free health.