Why is circumcision not practiced in Poland?

that's a poor argument.

would you like me to list for you the seemingly endless list of physiological things nature got wrong with our species?

Classic :)


its not even that,its a joke.
I suppose Mama Nature got it right with the 6 legged baby in the news today,or Tit cancer or bad teeth............
I love PF,it works as a nice add on to the series " Inside the medieval mind" Im watching on the Beeb at the mo'.

It does not prevent, but statistically it somewhat reduces the risk. Nevertheless, the same benefits are available through proper hygiene. So, here is my point: circumcision may be a good solution for people who have problems with maintaining hygiene. There is an appropriate saying in Polish: "to się myje, a nie wietrzy".

I wonder if that's behavioural/cultural, rather than medical.

As De Rochfoucauld said to Nietsche, that which is wrong condemns man to be discarded, even as a piece of skin on a hospital floor.

There are valid medical factors, IMO. Without the foreskin, it is easier to wash that body part, or, even without washing, the virus is more exposed to the environment and "dies" more quickly. If proper hygiene is maintained, however, both these mechanisms are moot.

P.S. "To się myje, a nie wietrzy" means "You are supposed to wash this, rather than ventilate".

It dies very quickly once it's outside the body, and paradoxically (anyone squeamish should look away now) an unwashed one is less likely to be an environment where the virus could survive due to the properties of what one would wash away.

I strongly suspect there are other reasons for any correlation in HIV prevalence and circumcision.

According to what mechanism? As far as I know, the thing one washes away provides nice, semi-liquid, anaerobic conditions for the virus, facilitate the opening of skin pores (or even the formation of lesions, facilitating the viral entry).

In order to survive it needs a host culture with a high temperature and very precise pH levels. If the circumstances are right, it survives for a long time - if they are not it dies in less than a minute.

It certainly doesn't live under a foreskin!

A virus is not a higher organism. It does not need to process energy to remain infective (in a broader sense "alive", although the term is disputable with respect to a virus). As for the pH - it is relevant to the cell entry of influenza (the conformational rearrangement of the hemagluttinin is pH-triggered), but HIV relies on a different mechanism, and the "very precise pH" is not necessary.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that circumcision - a barbaric practice if ever there was one prevents HIV transmission on medical grounds.

And by the way, yes - it can only survive within a very precise range of pH.

The study of HIV infection (conducted in Kenya) that is sometimes used by pro-circumcision isn't actually as positive as it seems:

Circumcision if for Jews and Muslims, where their religion makes them do it. Why on earth would anyone even consider voluntary amputation? Close the thread.

No evidence? Yes, there is. Many studies have been done on Africans showing that it does help prevent HIV transmission.

One study was done, and it's quoted two posts ago.

Watch a video how it's done. It's better to worry about what is happening now than what "might" happen in the future. Edit. How many wives do you think there might be?

Circumcision is practiced for one reason and one reason only. It has nothing to do with cleanliness or some way-out religious practice.

It is simply for the fact that the man should not 'feel' satisfaction during lovemaking. If the skin protects the tip, then when the tip is exposed it is more sensitive and therefore more pleasure can be gained. If the tip is exposed all the time, it requires more stimulation, as it has got used to being touched by undergarments, or clothes. Pure and simple.

Sex was never intended to be the 'pleasure principle' that it is now. Women in some religions (you can guess which one) still have sexual relations but they must be covered from head to foot with a hole cut out where the man can insert his 'baby making' machine. This is to make sex dirty and something that the wife should not enjoy. I cannot for the life of me think where 'foreplay' comes in here, but then again, sex was never intended for pleasure....

Oh, come on. 6-legged babies are, of course, where something went wrong - but they are not the plan, not how Nature actually intended. Breast cancer is due to chemical pollutants and stresses that we have imposed on ourselves (it doesn't exist in primitive societies), so unfortunately a reaction of our bodies to generally unnatural things. And bad teeth? Do you think Nature intended us to eat sugar by the bucket-load?

I don't know quite why there is such a gung-ho approach to a delicate physiological mechanism. What, is it easier to keep clean if you are circumcised? Frankly if I were a guy, I think I'd rather stay intact and make a bit more effort in the shower ... but I am not a guy, so can't say. Only would say from a female point of view, that I prefer the uncut version. I guess the Polish ladies do as well ...

oh OK, but I guess nature intended us to have:

weak, poorly built knees, spine, hips....some design huh?

women's pelvis/hips/birth canal way too small and weak for birth. before modern medicine, it was common for women to die from childbirth.....some design huh?

wisdom teeth that come in late in the teen years/early 20's that force the adult teeth in the mouth to shift and cause pain, infection, which is why we always have them removed. imagine the pain people were in years ago before modern dentistry. some design, huh?

constant sinus trouble like infection, polyps, snoring due to a restrictive airway....some design huh?

weak eyesight. i've worn corrective lenses since I was 9 and without them, i couldn't carry on a normal life. an estimated 75% of all Americans wear some form of corrective lenses. having normal eyesight is the exception to the rule. some design, huh?

the human espophagus is a terrible design.

flat feet.

acne.

hair loss. may not seem like a big deal now (aside from aesthetics) but if you lived somewhere really cold years ago, it would be a major problem.

the human species is riddledwith physical insufficiencies and most other species in our world make us look like genetic disasters.

and the list goes on and on--however it is not medically necessary to circumcise -it is something done based on biblical times when hygiene was sub par.

Forgive my edit but I think I understand the point you're tryiing to convey. I see nothing compelling in your angle though.
You could make the same list for anything in nature though: volcanoes, drought, etc, animals get old too.
There are unpleasant things in life, we get it.

However, nature doesn't get it soooo wrong at such a consistent level as to endow every male of a species (and not just one species in this case) with something that shouldn't be there for so long.

If you like how your cock looks snipped then fine, but to advocate it for every male out of a concern for safety is just ridiculous. Where was the cock cancer in the distant past? Are you suggesting dirty cocks were such a problem in the past but so few individuals were able to figure out the best way to deal with it was to cut part of it off?

I don't care one way or the other but the line of reasoning you're trying to use is a joke.

right, and it was done in hot sandy places where sand stuck under the foreskin could be...nassssssty....
poor baby boys having their dick snipped...how painful, how....ergh.

Washing is also pretty effective. I suppose you think little boys ears should be cut off because they don't wash them and get ear infections?

i'm not arguing whether circumcision is necessary or not, that's an argument you're having with the others. i'm arguing the statements earlier saying that human nature couldn't possibly give us something unnecessary, inefficient, counterproductive, etc., suggesting we're this perfect design.


i'm not arguing you couldn't and that only bolsters my point.


again, there is a long list of things that nature gets sooooo wrong at a consistent rate, even though it shouldn't be there or isn't really necessary, unless you have some sort of explanation as to why foreskin is much less of a "mistake" compared to say an appendix in today's man.

foreskin only seems more significant to you because it's on the outside hanging off an intimate part of the body. again, not arguing for circumcision, just saying that you can't argue the necessity for it with that angle. it doesn't hold water.

I think the angle it is at dick-tates if it holds water. Shaking it makes sure it doesn't.

Terri, you certainly have the right to believe Darwin's notion that Asians evolved from Oranguatans and Blacks from Gorillas, or any other myth you want, but you don't / [can't provide] any credible scientific evidence or sources to support your position. LOL. One reason only for circumcision?? REally??

Some do it purely for religious reasons -- Muslims for example.
Some do it for cultural reasons -- circumcision is routinely practiced in many places -- the majority of which are non-Jewish. USA, Philippines, South Korea, and many countries in Africa, and half of Canada.

Some do it so that their boys will look like daddy and not be teased for being odd.
Many do it for medical necessity, --- Urinary tract infections, and or phimosis.
And many do it for hygiene and cleanliness reasons.

Multiple studies and case studies in multiple countries with tens of thousands of men show the medical and hygiene benefits, and that men who were circumcised before puberty have significantly lower rates of HIV and other STD's.

Also, thousands of men around the world get this done as adults and there is no decrease in sexual pleasure or sensitivity at all.

Sex not meant for pleasure??? What, Terri?? REally?? Maybe you are thinking of Islam, but the same God who made sex and the clitoris for pleasure also instructed Jews to practice circumcision.

Center for Disease control,
Journal of American Medical Association,
and WebMD all cite multiple health and medical benefits from circumcision.

Terri, the countries with the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world, are also the same countries with the highest rates of routine infant circumcision -- and guess what?? England and Poland are not on the list. Israel, South Korea, Philippines, and USA. It's not because we don't eat Veggimite.

Here's a 'tip': Don't open with bullspit or expect anything else you have to say to be questioned. I already mentioned it on page one but anyway according to


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborn males. When making this policy, the AAP looked at the possible benefits, risks, and costs of the procedure.1 Other major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, agree with the AAP policy.

children.webmd.com/tc/circumcision-topic-overview

Saw a pic of a circumcised ahem appendage recently and it was all labelled up, in medical fashion. One label, pointing to a jagged-looking ridge of scar tissue, said 'Scar'.

Call me crazy, but it really didn't look good, and I would question a procedure that mutilates someone's arguably most vulnerable part in this way ... sorry to say mutilate, but it did look a bit drastic ...

You're quite right, and I've heard tales of woe from people who are circumcised and it was done too drastically. It doesn't look good.

What??? Bullspit?? I was making the point that she has the right to believe any fantasy she wants?? Did you even read her post, or are you defending that racist notion as well??

She made the absurd statement that there is only one reason for circumcision, which doesn't even pass the laugh test. Then the reason she gave was absolutely ludicrous- which of course she can't back up.

Also, modafini,
Just because one group doesn't recommend routine circumcision, doesn't negate all of the medical and scientific research that shows the benefits. It's like this -- just because the hospital doesn't sell krill oil doesn't mean it's not healthy. wink wink.

You can argue against circumcision all you want and say it's barbaric -- but you are arguing against scores of sources -- doctors and clinics around the world, and multiple case studies in different countries with tens of thousands of men, and the results are well-documented. It really goes back to the anti-semitic Catholic dogma, which so many Poles blindly follow, and which they try to deny, but the history of anti-semitism perpetuated by the Catholic church is dark, long and also well-documented.

Just this one site alone, by Dr Morris, proves the many benefits, and has over 60 scientific and medical doctors, clinics, studies, and various sources confirming the research.

dawanet.com/nonmuslim/intro/misc/circum1.html

You want to give a reason why the countries with the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world are the exact same countries that routinely practice circumcision, and to the surprise of our lovely British friends, the countries which don't practice circumcision at all, like Poland and Ireland, and UK have higher rates of Cervical cancer. HHhhhmmmm.

Dodgefan07
You do realise that the site you linked to is a highly partial one, advocating circumcision for Islamic reasons.


Charles Darwin didn't say anything of the sort, however evolution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt - and European society has evolved enough not to get involved in silly and pointless practices like circumcision.