->
Matt, Hello and greetings!!
You bring up an interesting question.
I guess it is sort of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
-> What's a "benefit"?
-> One woman may see a nose job as a "benefit" while another with an
-> identical nose wouldn't have one if it were offered free...even
-> though it has no physiological benefit to either.
I do not happen to see circumcision having any benefit except to the
doctor who generates income from the surgery.
-> It's been demonstrated that women in societies where men are
-> circumcised are less likely to get cervical cancer...is that a
-> "benefit" to the patient if his eventual wife doesn't get cancer?
->
In areas where the standard of hygiene is high, being cut or intact
seems to make no difference in the rate of cervical cancer.  Frequency
of intercourse does seem to make and difference and the number of
difference sex partners also seems to make a difference.  Over 85
precent of the worlds population is intact and uncut.
Smegma, the secreation under the foreskin, has not been proven to
stimulate cervical cancer in women.  Studies back in the 60's, as well
as those in the 90's, continue to show this fact.
The USA stands alone in cutting most of its males.  Other industrialized
countries that uesd to have a rather high rate of circumcision have
stopped the unnecessary procedure.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand,
England and other English speaking countries seem to come to mind.
non English speaking countries never really adopted the procedure.
I strongly feel that in a few years, The USA will catch on too.
The rate in the USA has dropped from 90 precent in the 80's to 59
precent at present.  California has a rateof only 35 precent.
I feel that the rate will good down even more as the medical benefits,
however one defines them, are repeatedly disproven.
Comments welcomed...
REgards,
James
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------