Improved
6118 HealthChanged
3788 LivesSaved
3574 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
Former White House Doctor Connie Mariano returns to reveal the added benefits later in life to having your newborn son circumcised after birth.
Should you circumcise your sone?
The are many medical reasons for saying yes.
I'm former White House Doctor Connie Mariano with EmpowHER.
While circumcision remains a personal decision for many parents, there is now some overwhelming medical evidence that shows the procedure can significantly reduce the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
According to the CDC, clinical studies show circumcision reduces a man's risk of HIV during penile-vaginal intercourse.
But that's not all.
Uncircumcised men show an increased risk of genital ulcer disease, chlamydia, urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer for women who are partnered with uncircumcised men.
Studies also show an increased risk of HPV, the human papilomavirus, syphilis, and chancroid.
Now there are additional costs and risks associated with circumcision. And the procedure in no way should be considered a substitute for condoms and other safe sex practices.
But in my opinion and the CDC's, a little snip is well worth the risk.
I'm Dr. Connie Mariano for EmpowHER; To ask any question or for more information visit EmpowHER.com.
Add a Comment70 Comments
Being in the Military I have seen a fare share of guys getting emergency snips, and as anyone will tell you it is not a nice procedure for an adult.
Look it's just cleaner, the body does not need the extra protection. And going by what the women say a circumcised penis is more pleasing when giving head.
Just my 2cents worth,
November 20, 2012 - 4:46amThis Comment
Another disturbing video from a doctor lying about the non existant benefits of circumcision. It's just an ad campaign to make money. Little snip my ass. Shame!!!!!!!!!
November 17, 2012 - 11:11amThis Comment
"in my opinion and the CDC's, a little snip is well worth the risk"
Well Dr. Connie, what if it was a little snip of your female body? What other parts of the body are we willing to forgo in the name of some potential medical benefits? What if we are men who don't sleep around with every STD-infected female out there? Should we still get cut?
Do you know the functions of the foreskin? Have you studied its anatomy?
It's not a little snip. It's 30% to 50% of the skin of the penis, which includes muscle tissue, special nerve endings called Meissner's corpuscles, immune cells, blood vessels... It permanently changes the perception and function of sex, by a) Removing the gliding function of the skin; b) Removing most of the nerve endings of the male organ; c) Exposing the glans to keratinization and drying, which makes it dull and cracked in the long term. The reason why most men "turned out okay" is because they don't even know that their perception of sex has been altered and their sexual practices are the result of the body compensating for the absence of the foreskin.
In fact, the common punch line in movies about hand lotions and lubricants is the result of not having the gliding function of the skin and not having the internal lubrication of the glans, so it has to be compensated by a commercial product. And of course, the early cases of ED and the soaring sales of ED medication can also be traced to the amputation of the foreskin.
Furthermore, there are babies who die as a result of the procedure (loss of blood, sepsis and other complications) and there are men who suffer permanent damage (damage to the nerves, lack of enough skin for comfortable arousal, hair on the surface of the shaft, urethral issues, skin adhesions on the glans, partial amputations of the glans) which can definitively have an impact on their sexual life, well being and self esteem.
So please re-think that "small snip". An adult foreskin is about 2 inches long (approximately 3.5 if you include the inner mucosa, since the foreskin is a surface that folds over itself), and close to 4 or 5 inches in perimeter. So this is close to 3x5 square inches of erogenous tissue.
Do you have that much erogenous tissue that you would be willing to give up for some potential benefits? If not, then why should men do it?
Why don't we Empower HIM to retain control of his sexuality and his body
November 17, 2012 - 9:21amThis Comment
This is unbelievable. You say that being circumcised will prevent all these STDs but recommend wearing a condom anyway. Won't wearing a condom prevent STDs without preemptive surgery? AND surgical risks aren't even mentioned!! If there really are "benefits" to circumcision, then why don't we let the baby grow to become a man and decide for himself it he wants to do it. It has always seemed to me that the only reason we circumcise babies is because they are easier to tie down.
November 17, 2012 - 5:59amThis Comment
No medical organisation in the world actually recommends circumcision, many believe its both medically unethical and a human rights violation to remove functional errogenous tissue from a being that cannot consent, DR Connie omitted this information
November 15, 2012 - 4:14amThis Comment
A proper mother, or father, needs to teach their child proper hygiene. If that is taught, then the risk of infections goes down. If proper sexual health is also taught, risk of STD/disease is also lowered. Common frickin sense is TEACHING proper maintenance. Which obviously is lacking in society.
November 7, 2012 - 7:16pmThis Comment
Also you failed to mention any risks. Bleeding, infection, DEATH, botched circumcisions that lead to painful erections (which the skin can be so tight it actually tears and bleeds-how's that for hygienic and disease prevention?), buried penis, hairy shaft, skin bridges (which can collect bacteria), excessive scarring and loss of sensation. How about the consequences for future female partners? Without the foreskin, there is more friction, causing dry, painful intercourse which can also cause abrasions, opening her up to infection and diseases. This is just common sense!
October 28, 2012 - 6:42amThis Comment
I have personally experienced most of this. Erections were painful growing up, because even pulling up my scrotum to the max, it was too tight. The skin stretched eventually, leaving stretch marks, but due to the hairy shaft, sex has always been painful. I give myself a rugburn--on both sides of the shaft--within minutes of beginning intercourse. I usually just "push through the pain", and it takes two or three mildly unpleasant days and often a little scabbing to recover. Shaving always leads to horrible ingrowns that create huge, painful razorbumps that look STD-like until the hairs break back through. Also, sensitivity is way low, to the point that I cannot feel a light tough at all over most of the shaft. Not surprisingly, I began to suffer ED by my mid 20s. I'm so glad I have an understanding and loving spouse.
Of course, one of the many things not mentioned in the article is the toll on one's psyche this can take, and the anger and helplessness that gets you when you realize that it was all because of a unnecessary and misguided amputation performed on me at birth.
I will never know what sex is meant to feel like.
February 1, 2013 - 4:59amThis Comment
These risks are not even in the realm of rational statistical probability. The Jewish community and the entire Muslim world practices circumcision. Your assertions that it affects female partners are spurious and ignores the fact that what usually negatively impacts female partners is a clumsy and ignorant partner. Is it "common sense" to increase the risk of disease and death for both partners based on anecdotal sexual complaints? You obviously have little or no medical training (I do) and have some sort of axe to grind. Personally, I was circumcised as an infant 55 years ago and have yet to have my wife of 30 years complain.
October 29, 2012 - 2:58pmThis Comment
I am a female. You are wrong. How much tissue was removed does impact the lady. Friction hurts.
January 2, 2013 - 6:56amThis Comment