MISSISSIPPI: Man Loses Penis to Circumcision, Circumcises Son Conceived Via Artificial Insemination

 

I was following the story of the man who lost his penis to circumcision, who had to get penile reconstructive surgery, and whose reconstructive surgery was so unsuccessful the only way he could conceive a child was through artificial insemination.

My one burning question was, OK, so he lost his own penis through circumcision. HERE IT IS FOLKS! Partial or complete penile ablation is a risk of circumcision, and here we have a living example. Would he go on to circumcise his own son?

Dishearteningly, I read today that the answer was yes, he would.

And, it seems he and his wife are choosing to believe in comforting lies for their own sakes. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Mike "was nervous about having him circumcised," his wife, Heather said, "but there was no cutting involved – just a little plastic ring that goes around him and then it just falls off."

The procedure went smoothly, and everyone is happy and healthy and in tact."

I am absolutely floored.

I mean, you think after having LOST YOUR PENIS, you would say "No way this is happening to my son."

What was the conversation going through this man's mind when he decided "We're going to do it. We're going to put our son through the same risk I was."

Here, we see his wife touting a myth that just isn't true.

She's talking about the Plastibell method of circumcision, and contrary to the lies she is either being fed, or telling herself for her own sake, yes, there is cutting.

Not only is there cutting, but the Plastibell method is actually notorious for complications. (WARNING: GRAPHIC. Visit link at your own risk.) Were they informed on them?

Did they see the above complications and STILL CHOOSE to put their perfectly healthy son through this?

"The procedure went smoothly, and everyone is happy, healthy and intact."

Who is "everyone?" Have they asked the kid? Was the kid UN-healthy beforehand?

I'm sorry, but any which way you try to slice it, no, this child is no longer intact.

Perhaps to a lesser degree than his father, but this poor child has a mutilated penis.

Yes, I dare say it, 30% of the world's male population are living with mutilated penises. Perhaps they are blissfully ignorant about it, but they are.

I'll tell you what was going through this man's head; circumcising his son was necessary to validate what he went through. His son remaining intact would have been a daily reminder that he lost his own penis to a needless procedure with risks. There was a mental necessity for this father to have his son "safely on the other side," for his own reassurance that (despite his own missing penis) circumcision is "harmless."

I'll I've got to say is, really dude? After losing your penis to circumcision you, STILL thought putting your own child through this was a good idea?

I hate to say it but what a shame. Shame on this father, shame on the doctor. And shame on this article for allowing the dissemination of misinformation.

Circumcision has risks.

This man's story is a living example of what can go wrong.

The "Plastibell" method of infant circumcision is not any "better" than the other circumcision methods, whose objective and end-result are the same. In fact, the "Plastibell" method carries its own particular risks.

No, the circumcised penis is NOT "intact," it is MISSING an intrinsic part with which all boys are born with.

Absolutely disheartening to learn that in spite of it all, this man went through with inflicting his son with the same risk that lost him his own penis.

Even after having had to employ artificial insemination to conceive him he STILL went through with it.

What was this man smoking?

What were the doctors that went through with it on?

In what mind is it acceptable to put a perfectly healthy child through needless risk?

A risk for which the example is hanging right between your legs?

There are no words.

I'm in utter disbelief.

GUEST AUTHOR: Meatal Stenosis

OK.

So I've been following the ramblings of a knowledgeable intactivist on Facebook, and I've recently run across something in my news feed that I think merits a guest author post on my blog. I am trying to convince him to start his own blog, but until he does, I think his best should at least be posted SOMEWHERE.

I've seen elsewhere in medical literature that meatal stenosis is a problem most common in circumcised males, and I've understood that it is a narrowing of the meatus, or hole at the end of the penis, but I had no idea how much impact this may have on the well-being of men.

After reading this man's post on the matter, a lot of things suddenly make sense. For example, I myself have actually noticed that there is a different sound when men urinate. And I've often heard of men having problems with urine retention, the "drip" factor, and problems with the urination stream.

A friend of mine, who I know for a fact is circumcised, has confided to me that he has constant UTIs, and that doctors tell him he needs an operation to correct a problem with his urethra. OF COURSE! My friend's meatus and/or urethra are probably narrow, most likely due to his circumcision, causing him urine retention and his constant UTIs!

Learning about my friend, and learning about so many other cases, and reading these thoughts from my online friend gets very frustrating, as UTI reduction is one of the most prominent rationales used by circumcision advocates. According to some, a slight reduction of UTIs within the first few years of life, is quite possibly the only observable benefit of male infant circumcision, if the current body of medical literature is correct. (And many say it is questionable.)

What is the meatus? What is meatal stenosis? How does this impact a man's well-being?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Jason F.!

The following was copied and pasted from a status on the Facebook wall of Jason F. with his permission.

Meatal Stenosis and Its Impact on the Well-being of Males
Jason F.

Hey boys and girls,

Time for my periodic rant about circumcision and meatal stenosis.

Most of us know that meatal stenosis is a routine undesired consequence of infant circumcision. However, even many people who include it in their list of complications don't really know what it is, how it looks, or how it actually affects males.

Stenosis means narrowing. The urinary meatus (in English pronounced mee-AY-tus or mee-AT-us) is the peehole. Many people mistakenly call this the urethra, but the urethra is the tube that carries urine from the bladder to the meatus. The meatus is the terminus of the frenulum, which in turn is the distal end of the male raphe, the seam that runs from the anus, across the perinaeum, across the scrotum, up the ventral side of the penis, and forms the peak of the frenulum and meatus.

First thing to understand about the meatus is that it is supposed to be large. The design of the male urethra is that it becomes linearly larger in diameter from the bladder to the meatus, allowing urine flow to accelerate as it moves through. The widest part of the urethra is just at the meatus, and actually the amazing design of the distal urethra prompts a vortex effect to help pull urine outward. This allows the male to empty his bladder efficiently and completely.

Meatal stenosis occurs when irritation, abrasion, infection or injury allow scar tissue to form and the urinary meatus to narrow. The size of the opening may decrease by half or more. The effect on urination, or ejaculation, is obstruction. What was previously a wide-open highway narrows to a lane or two at the terminus. This disrupts the flow of anything coming down the urethra and creates churn in the fluid dynamics of the urethral chamber toward the end. The effect is a certain amount of reflux, and occasionally backward pressure on the bladder. This can result in retained urine in both the bladder and urethra, as well as damage over time to the bladder muscle. Plain English: cut boys and men drip more.

If there is enough back pressure from meatal stenosis on the central urethra itself, the body may respond with some degree of scar tissue and formation of urethral stricture. This risk is heightened somewhat by urethral infections, which may be more common in circumcised boys because of greater ease of pathogens entering the constantly-exposed meatus and less-efficient flushing of the meatus during micturition.

Friends of mine know that I have been saying for years that I can nearly always tell whether the guy at the urinal next to me is circumcised or intact merely by the sound of his urine stream. Intact males have on average a notably more forceful stream. They generally empty their bladders more rapidly and more thoroughly than circumcised males.

Meatal stenosis risk is much higher in boys circumcised in infancy versus later in childhood, and almost unknown in intact boys and men. The phenomenon is rare where infant circumcision is not routine, so many urologists worldwide have seldom or never encountered it. The medical profession in the United States has begun to grudgingly acknowledge that meatal stenosis is common, but they tend to put the figure low at 5-15% of boys. They decline to admit that it is limited almost exclusively to circumcised boys.

In my personal experience, about ½ to ¾ of all neonatally circumcised males undergo some degree of unnatural meatal narrowing by adulthood. That means about 700,000 new cases every year, a national disgrace. Thousands of American boys undergo surgery to address their advancing meatal stenosis, making it one of the most common surgeries after circumcision. This, along with surgery for readherent prepuce remnant, skin bridges, skin tags and iatrogenic chordee, is just part of the US circumcision industry. It's a booming, if depressing, business for pediatric urologists and a never-ending tragedy for American boys and their families.

The presence and absence of meatal stenosis side-by-side

Photo from the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm.

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Introduction

I'd been meaning to write a blog series, where I go through logical fallacies which are commonly used by circumcision advocates when defending circumcision, particularly the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, and dismantle each and every one of them, one by one. I have finally decided to sit down and start writing the series, though, right from the start, I shall let my readers know that I am unsure how or when this series will end. I will be drawing from several resources for this blog series, including books, other blogs and websites, and my own thoughts which I've been compiling for some time now.

I'd like for each post in this series to be thorough and well-thought-out, so as a warning, this project may span the rest of the year, if not spill into next year, as I want to devote the right amount of time for each post. The posts in this series will be interspersed amongst other blog posts, perhaps other blog series I start, so please do not expect it to be consecutive and uninterrupted; I want to make posts on other news and thoughts as I see fit.

Posts on this series will be properly labeled with the heading "CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES," so readers, be on the lookout!

To Start
The current state of affairs, at least in my country of the United States, seems to be one such that penises are circumcised by default, while anatomically correct genitals need to be apologized for. In the American psyche, the word "penis" conjures up the image of a penis, the head of it permanently exposed, without a foreskin. In most, if not all American textbooks, the male penis appears circumcised, as though it had always been that way, molded without a foreskin from within the womb by nature. The foreskin, if mentioned at all, is referred to only in passing, within the context of circumcision. Some textbooks refer to it as "that extra piece of tissue removed during circumcision." (Imagine, if you will, a book that begins describing the breasts as "those mounds of fat and flesh removed during a mastectomy.") Circumcision is considered "normal," while possessing intact genitals is considered "alien," "foreign," or even a deformity that should be corrected. While there doesn't seem to be any real need for a good reason to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting minor, a good reason seems to be required in order to NOT circumcise a child. This is the only instance in American  medicine where doctors and researchers are more interested in the deliberate destruction of a normal, healthy part of the human body, rather than preserving it. To me, all of this seems logically turned on its head.

Normally, the human body is left as is; you need a good reason in order perform surgery, or cut any part of the body away. Normally, the human body is presented as it occurs in nature, not in a contrived, surgically altered state. Normally, scientists, researchers and educators are interested in the functions and purposes of body parts, and do not begin describing them by the procedures in which they are removed. In America, descriptions of the anatomically correct penis, descriptions of the foreskin, all tend to begin by talking about circumcision, and of all the diseases and medical conditions which befall males who aren't circumcised. When we talk about, say, the prostate, or mammary glands, we do not begin by talking about prostate or breast cancer. We do not start talking about the liver by talking about hepatitis. We do not begin to talk about kidneys by talking about kidney stones. And yet, when you ask your average American doctor to talk about the foreskin, what is the first things out of his mouth? "Uncircumcised children could develop phimosis and UTIs. Uncircumcised men get smegma. Balanitis is a problem in uncircumcised men. Penile cancer is more common amongst uncircumcised men." They begin with all the ailments they know about which are said to afflict men with foreskins and couldn't care less about what the foreskin actually does, and about the fact that actually, the majority of most men in the world do fine with their whole organs. (70% or so of the world's male population is not circumcised.)

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality, injury, or condition which represents an immediate threat to the person's well being. Unnecessary, invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive. In any other case, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

When compared to other parts of the body and their surgical alteration, the logical reasoning behind circumcision in America is turned upside-down. Normally, the human body is innocent until proven guilty. With circumcision, the foreskin is guilty until proven innocent. American doctors and "researchers" aren't looking for ways to cure or prevent disease, but for diseases which justify their "cure." Normally, in the disease/cure equation, the end result, health and well-being are always constant, while the means is a variable, researchers ever searching for more effective, less invasive cures and prevention methods. In American science and medicine, circumcision is a fixed constant, and the point isn't to find better cures or disease prevention methods, but rather, to justify circumcision, and to make sure it is always a necessary end result. In short, absolute madness!

"The cardinal medical question should not be whether circumcision can prevent disease, but how disease can best be prevented." ~Morten Frisch

Why Do Normal, Natural, Anatomically Correct Genitals Need Justification?
The circumcised penis is a forced phenomenon; an artificial, contrived subversion of what the male genital organ is supposed to be. Why then, does the circumcised penis enjoy default status in the United States? Why is it that having an anatomically correct penis with a foreskin needs justification? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Since being circumcised requires causative action, and having a foreskin the natural state of the male organs, shouldn't it be CIRCUMCISION which demands an explanation?

In this blog series, I aim to turn the tables and place the onus of justification where it needs to be. Having a foreskin needs no more explanation than having lips, ears or eyelids. It is not having intact genital organs, but taking a knife and forcibly altering them in healthy, non-consenting minors that demands an explanation.

What are the arguments for taking a healthy, non-consenting child and forcibly cutting off a normal, healthy part of his body? Are they logically sound? Or are they phallacious?

I close with my mission statement. This my position, and the argument that I put forward.

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

CIRCUMCISION: "Just a Little Piece of Skin?"

We've all heard it. Whenever male infant circumcision is being talked about, somebody always has to trivialize the issue by saying "It's just a little piece of skin, I don't know what the big deal is." It's quite possibly the most common quip used to try and minimize the issue of male infant circumcision.

Since the foreskin is "just a little piece of skin," it's removal is trivial, of no consequence, and can be likened to the removal of any other dead, unfeeling body part, like the hair, fingernails or dried up umbilical cord.

But how much of this is true?

How do male infant circumcision advocates define "just a little piece of skin?"

Is it like peeling off a dead layer of skin cells?

How much is "little?"

How much would be "too much?"

What is "just the right amount?"

People say "It's just a little piece of skin" like it's really nothing, and the more I read about what the foreskin is, the more I see what circumcision is, what it does, what is actually removed, what is actually done to a child, the more it pisses me off.

Very recently, I've had the sad and depressing opportunity to see pictures of a child's severed foreskin. I'm looking at what is being removed and I think to myself, "How on EARTH is it justifiable to forcibly cut off a normal, healthy piece of flesh of this size off of anybody? 'Little piece of skin' MY ASS."

A nurse posted the following picture on Facebook:

The nurse salvaged a newborn's foreskin from a garbage can after an infant circumcision. On the left, the foreskin is shriveled up. On the right, the same foreskin is unfolded, with the inner mucosal surface exposed.

How on EARTH can anyone get away with saying that this is "just a little bit of skin?" This is no "little bit of skin," this quite a bit of flesh, and nerves and blood vessels.

If this "little bit of skin" belonged to a baby girl, there would be outrage.

It wouldn't matter that the baby girl would be "too small to remember."

It wouldn't matter that she was given proper pain management.

It wouldn't matter that it was done to fulfill a religious conviction.

The words on people's lips would be "genital mutilation," and rightly so.

Let's take a look at a picture of a baby girl's severed clitoris.

The following picture was taken from a blog written by a mother in Malaysia, who documented the "sunat" of her daughter, who was just a few months old, in her blog. She has since removed the post, as there was an outpour of international outrage in her comments section.

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

What looks more like "just a little snip" to you?

Keep in mind that as a child grows into a man, his foreskin grows too; it isn't so little by the time the child is an adult.

I'm just kind of tired that people throw the words "just a little piece of skin" around as if it were matter of fact.

The foreskin is not "just a little bit of skin." The foreskin is a complex, double-layered fold of flesh, laden in thousands of nerves and blood vessels.


The foreskin is not a birth defect.

Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft.

Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder.

Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation, and it needs to stop NOW.

AFRICA: Botwsana to Implement Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices

Circumcisionist Ambitions Realised
As if calling circumcision an HIV prevention method, and implementing "mass circumcision campaigns" in the so-called name of HIV prevention weren't controversial enough, Botswana is one of those countries whose medical authorities have been convinced to take it a step further, and start campaigns to circumcise newborn boys. Perhaps they see this as the next step, seeing as adult men aren't falling for the propaganda, and some countries, such as Japan, have begun to stop funding adult male circumcision programs?

It should be no surprise that babies are finally being targeted for circumcision under the pretext of HIV prevention. The justification of male infant circumcision is what circumcision "researchers" have been aiming for all along. Circumcision is not this medical "solution" that "researchers" supposedly "discovered" merely 30 years ago; the fight to justify male infant circumcision has been raging on since Greco-Roman rule.

Circumcision, particularly male infant circumcision, is a cherished tradition in Judaism, and it's a money-maker for American physicians. The goal isn't to stop HIV in Africa; the goal is, and has always been, to justify male infant circumcision in the US, and elsewhere. Circumcision "researchers" want for medical organizations, such as the AAP, to point to Africa and say "Male infant circumcision prevents HIV in Africa, therefore we recommend infant circumcision for American babies." Is it any wonder that much of the funding for "mass medical male circumcision," or any similar variant, happens to be American money?

Implementation of Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices
Circumcising male infants should be controversial enough, as amputative surgery in healthy, non-consenting minors is unethical. There goes the "voluntary" part of the so-called "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision" slogan...

The plot should thicken when, not only are baby boys being circumcised, but they're being circumcised with controversial devices.

According to StarAfrica, the Botswana Ministry of Health has adopted the Mogen clamp and AccuCirc device, to be administered to healthy, non-consenting, non-sexually-active children. National coordinator Conrad Ntsuape told state-run Radio Botswana that the two devices were the best that Botswana opted for.

The following passage is disconcerting:

"Ntsuape noted that the entire procedure would be bloodless, requiring no anaesthesia, suturing or a sterile setting."

It sounds very similar to the lines of a certain Neil Pollock.

Of course there is no such thing as a "bloodless" circumcision, requiring no anaesthesia, nor a sterile setting. Even the latest AAP statement features a lengthy passage on adequate pain management for infants undergoing circumcision. A sterile setting is necessary to avoid infections, such as those with MRSA.

Let's continue further:

"Ntsuape said the decision to adopt the two devices followed a lengthy consultation process that focused on acceptability of infant male circumcision as part of HIV prevention and male reproductive health efforts that was conducted by Botswana and the United States through Harvard Institute in 2008."

Instead of the acceptability of male infant circumcision, shouldn't it have focused on other things? Like, for example, whether or not male infant circumcision is effective in reducing HIV? (There are no studies that exist on this subject, and world data shows that it does not.) Shouldn't there have been an actual evaluation of the risks involved, especially given the devices being considered?

"Ntsuape said the results of the survey indicated that 96 per cent of mothers in Botswana accepted early infant circumcision while the remaining four per cent were undecided or not interested."

Before considering what mothers have to say in a survey after being told that circumcision would prevent HIV in their sons, where is the proof that infant circumcision reduces HIV transmission? Were the risks of circumcision discussed with these mothers? Were the risks of each device disclosed to these mothers? Was the fact that circumcision cannot prevent HIV transmission, and therefore even circumcised men have to wear condoms discussed with the mothers?


What Botswana Circumcision Advocates May Not Tell Parents

The Mogen device being marketed here has a terrible track record for circumcision mishaps, including glans amputations. So infamous is the Mogen clamp for circumcision mishaps that numerous million-dollar lawsuits put the company out of business.

Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the condition of the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.

What mothers have to say about circumcision has no bearing on the fact that there is no scientific evidence that circumcising newborns will prevent HIV transmission, but would the women in this survey answer the same, if they were given this information?

The AccuCirc device is a recent invention that doesn't have much of a history, not that it needs any, as we know its intended purpose of cutting off part of a healthy child's penis.

I hate discussing the better or worse of two evils, and discussing what is the "better" male infant circumcision method is no different than discussing which is the "better" female infant circumcision method. There simply isn't a "right" way to mutilate a perfectly healthy, non-consenting child. However, there is a good critique on why the AccuCirc is particularly terrible here.

Conflict of Interest

David R. Tomlinson

"Chief Expert on Circumcision," WHO

Inventor of AccuCirc

The citizens of Botswana may be interested to know that the inventor of the AccuCirc device also happens to be "chief expert on circumcision" at the World Health Organization. He develops, implements and evaluates male circumcision training programs in Africa, and he wrote the WHO's manual for male infant circumcision. (Reference here.) Is it any wonder that the AccuCirc device is included in many African "surveys?"

To Close
Adopting a device known to cause problems is not very wise, not to mention circumcising healthy, non-consenting newborns who are at zero risk for HIV transmission is ethically repugnant no matter what methods employed. Botswana is complicit in implementing what is effectively male infant genital mutilation, under the deceptive guise of HIV prevention.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

The Ghost of Mogen

CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

JERUSALEM: Baby Boy Rushed to the Hospital with Bleeding Complications

Advocates of circumcision often try to trivialize infant circumcision, saying it's "harmless" and "risk-free."

Well, yet another circumcision botch makes the news, this time in Israel. The last one that I know of happened in Pittsburgh, where a rabbi severed a child's entire penis during his bris. Not to mention the recent herpes infection due to metzitzah b'peh in New York.

Keep in mind these are complication cases that make the news; circumcision mishaps are often kept under wraps because there is a conviction to preserve a tradition that is ever under fire. Hospitals themselves may be obscuring these complications.

There is also financial incentive to hide or minimize circumcision complications; circumcision is a widespread practice in the United States. Annually, American doctors circumcise 1.2 million baby boys. At a dollar a pop, that's 1.2 million dollars; infant circumcision can cost anywhere between $100 up to $2,000 each. Therefore American doctors and medical facilities have incentive to hide or minimize complications due to circumcision, Jewish or secular.

Are these complications conscionable, given that infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?

AFGHANISTAN: A Soldier's Tale Challenges Circumcision Allegations

A friend of mine posted the following on his Facebook wall:

"My coworker, a 32 year old, intact, Hispanic male who has two intact boys, is against circumcision and is serving as a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army recently returned from his deployment to Afghanistan.

Being that he knows I'm an intactivist, I asked him a few questions regarding their Muslim culture. He was stationed in the Zabul province of Afghanistan. He told me that the area where he was stationed reeked of feces, sweat, and sewer. The people in the area are very poor, lack adequate facilities for proper hygiene, and yes, defecate outside. He mentioned that there were small oases where men would bathe completely nude in groups using their hands to scoop up the water, which was everyone's previous wash. I asked him if he knew what these tribal, circumcised Muslim men thought about intact penises. To my complete surprise and shock, he said that all the Muslim men there were intact. I pushed a little more and asked how he knew for certainty. He said that he'd see them bathe every day and that it was clear that all were intact men. Since this soldier worked with the medical team, I asked him how many men presented with issues relating to their foreskins being that this is a sandy area. His answer? None. He mentioned that if anything women had more complaints regarding UTIs due to improper hygiene than all the men combined.

So as you can see, a man can live in complete squalor while lacking basic resources and hygiene and still have very few to no problems with his foreskin.

What do you think?"

I must say, I'm rather surprised and shocked to hear about this myself.

If this story is correct, then circumcision isn't universal among Muslims, as circumcision advocates would like others to believe. This account also puts the lie to the myths that men with anatomically correct genitals are prone to problems in the desert, and that having a foreskin makes hygiene difficult, making men prone to problems, not to mention the allegation that circumcision is a requirement for American military.

A sheathed glans and meatus is better in sandy and dusty conditions than a bare one, because the foreskin helps protect the glans and urethra. Additionally, ensuring transudated natural moisture and emollients are retained on the mucosal surfaces of the penis is optimal for dry and/or cold conditions. There simply isn't a situation in which having anatomically correct genitals isn't preferable. The preputial space just isn't the Petri dish of pathogens that circumcision advocates would like others to believe, all of this is in addition to the fact that the foreskin is highly functional tissue in its own right.

Related Links:
The Sand Myth: "He Might Have to Fight in the Desert"