Accu-Circ – Future of Circumcision is here!

Future of Circumcision is here!

Okay, this post might gross some of you out a little but circumcision is fact of life and 95% of males have to face it some time in their life. Basically, Accu-Circ is a new surgical tool that allows quick and easy circumcision for newborns and alike. There are some videos on the site if you are into this type of medical device on the site. I did take a look myself and it seems like this device will change how people are circumcised in the future. I remember being circumcised at age of 7, and having to carry a freakin’ cup for like a month. What a horrible experience, this gadget could change all of that.

The AccuCirc is an innovative, new circumcision device that helps physicians provide precise, consistent and reliable outcomes. It combines the delicate crush and cut of the foreskin into a single lever action, eliminating bulky clamps, painful pins and freehand scalpels, significantly simplifying the procedure.

The AccuCirc utilizes two revolutionary devices to provide predictable, consistent results: a flexible foreskin probe and a clamp-and-cut device. These two parts work together to reduce trauma to the infant, provide convenience for the physician, and shorten the procedure time.

[via] accucirc

61 Responses to Accu-Circ – Future of Circumcision is here!

  1. Brad says:

    In fact, no male HAS to face circumcision–and certainly not 95%. No matter how you try to make it sound, there is something essentially strange about stripping half the skin off a male’s penis and saying that it is good for him! Doing it more easily doesn’t make the damage any better.

    It was too bad that you had to face circumcision at age 7, but as you learn more about circumcision, you may discover that it wasn’t necessary.

    There are no legitimate medical reasons for circumcision (and that includes the recent bogus studies about HIV).

    Brad

  2. Brad Nelson says:

    In fact, circumcision is an issue that men do NOT have to face. Only in the US and Muslim and Jewish nations is circumcision even seriously considered as a common surgery.

    No matter how you do it, it is just not possible to cut half the skin off a male’s penis and say that it is good for him.

    There is no medical reason for circumcision (and that includes the recent bogus studies on HIV).

    Please do not continue the myth that circumcision is necessary or even useful.

  3. Mark Lyndon says:

    “circumcision is fact of life and 95% of males have to face it some time in their life”

    Actually, 95% of non-Muslim males worldwide are not circumcised, and it’s getting even rarer:

    drops in male circumcision:
    USA: from 90% to 56%
    Canada: from 47% to 14%
    UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among Christians)
    Australia: 90% to 12.6%
    New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans, less than 1% among whites)
    South America and Europe: never above 3% (includes many of the world’s most Christian countries eg Poland, Spain, Italy, Brazil)

    The sooner this practice dies out for good, the better.

  4. Studio Equipment says:

    I have been visiting this site and commenting for a quite a while now and this is the most outlandish post ever! Accepted that it is a very useful surgical tool, why would you want to post it on this site? I am stumped really!

  5. max says:

    Lol… I think we have to cover “unbiased” reviews of all technology. Sorry to “stump” you buddy. Lol…more fun posts coming up…

  6. max says:

    yes, maybe you are right, sorry for the stats…

  7. Jason says:

    Just to clarify, there can never be a trauma free circumcision because in order to remove healthy, living tissue, some form of trauma must be imposed. Circumcisions should never be carried out on unconsenting infants. Only adults should be able to make that decision for themselves. If I sound a bit defensive, I guess I am. I was circumcised against my will as a baby. I really didn’t think much of it until my first baby almost died after he was circumcised. I have no one to blame except myself for consenting to the procedure. I left my second baby boy uncircumcised, as all parents should do. It simply isn’t the parents penis to surgically alter. All parents need to understand the real risks involved before they put their babies life in jeopardy like that.
    I will say if an adult chooses circumcision, complications such as accidental glans removal are less likely since it’s much bigger”target” and not shadowed by an attached foreskin. Basically, the doctor can see how much he should remove and mistakes are less likely. Ethical arguments aside, a baby penis is really too small to be operating on.

    Peace,
    J.

  8. Studio Equipment says:

    Brads and Mark, you have left out a big chunk of humanity – the non-Muslim population of India! Take a billion more of non circumcised males!

    Max, you left out another possible group of victims, female Muslims who too are subject to the so called circumcision. I wonder whether this gadget will work on them!

    Strictly ribbing you. Keep all the “high tech” stuff coming!

  9. Katherine says:

    I’m glad people called you out on your “95%” figure. Where did you get that, exactly? Anyway, I think it’s just disgusting that there are people out there who are working to make circumcision more efficient. It’s a barbaric, outdated practice that has no place in society, and never did. How about we let babies keep all their bits and pieces intact, and let adults choose when and if to mutilate their genitalia?

  10. max says:

    Lol… wow, this topic is creating a big debate here. Yes, I agree with you guys, maybe it is still a practice that should be considered by itself first. I wonder how the doctors never figured this one out 100%. It seems like there’s different answers for the topic.

  11. max says:

    “female Muslims”??? Hmmm… I didn’t know that, that’s something new…

  12. Katherine says:

    If you’re really interested, there are many books about how and why circumcision came to be practiced widely in the United States (the only country where it’s practiced for primarily non-religious reasons). One such book is Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery, by David L. Gollaher.

    The short answer is that back in the day (in the Victorian era, specifically), circumcision was thought to curb masturbation, which as everyone knows will send you straight to hell, so for the sake of childrens’ souls, a couple of religious nuts managed to convince everyone that it was an absolute necessity. The idea caught on, and people have been scrambling ever since to find health justifications for a procedure that deep down they know shouldn’t have been done in the first place, but that they want to feel less guilty about. Even though the justifications offered up are paltry and usually discredited soon after, the perception that cut penises are more healthy or hygienic persists, largely because most people don’t spend very much time thinking about this, so the cycle of misinformation and misperceptions continues.

  13. max says:

    Hmmm… thanks for the informative comments on the circumcision. I however have heard similar responses before, I guess I will have to dig a little bit deeper on this subject to see the “real” affects of non-circumcision vs. circumcision.

  14. Joe says:

    If you are serious about digging in to this question there are some things you have to keep in mind. The first is that there are two ethical cases. The first is an adult who, by and large, is free to do what they want. The second is a minor child which requires a whole different set of ethical guidelines. The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states, “Pediatric health care providers. . . have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. . . .[T]he pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent” (p. 315) [1] However the Academy has been hesitant to apply this simple policy to circumcision instead deferring to the parent rather than recognizing that: [T]he pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent.

    While you are digging into this you should keep these three questions in mind:
    1. Do the overall medical benefits outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them?
    2. Is this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits? That is to say are there not safer, more effective, and less invasive ways to obtain these benefits?
    3. Are these benefits necessary to the well-being of the child? That is to say does the child have an immediate need for this procedure?

    If you dig deep enough you will see why outside the US articles like this are regularly published. The full press release can be read here. (you will have to scroll down a bit or just look for ‘Mason’.

    An alternative way to look at this is that there are four cases regarding male circumcision:
    Case 1: Intact adult and satisfied.
    Case 2: Intact adult and not satisfied.
    Case 3: Circumcised in infancy and satisfied.
    Case 4: Circumcised in infancy and not satisfied.

    Which case is the easiest to remedy? Case 1 and 3 require no action. Case 2 can be rectified. Anyone in case 4 is screwed. You should definitely dig into it but you should know that the more you dig into circumcision the worse it gets. Keep in mind that this is never about what happened before but when you know better you do better.

    (1) American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice.” Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113665.htm

    http://www.circumstitions.com/Rights.html

  15. Studio Equipment says:

    I would like to get back to my obsession – female genital mutilation under the belief that it prevents them from being promiscuous. This is widely practiced in many Muslim communities. I believe that this practice is more barbarous than male circumcision.

    As a female, I would really appreciate someone like Katherine to take this up further in this very interesting debate, actually, more of a discussion!

  16. Laura MacDonald says:

    In response to Studio Equipment, actually female genital mutilation in Muslim communities such as Egypt, Indonesia and parts of the middle East is often similar to male circumcision – it targets just her clitoral foreskin (hood). This is what The Prophet Mohammed is believed to have called honourable (although like male genital mutilation there is no mention of it in the Koran). Sometimes in Egypt (about 8% of cuts) just the labia are removed. This is done generally by doctors and the justifications given include that it will prevent smegma, and cancer and that natural female parts are considered disgusting and ugly by the opposite sex (remember Nicole Ritchie’s comments about not dating men who have natural parts!). Female circumcision (of the labia) is now one of the fastest growing plastic surgeries in America – although it is done consensually, it’s generally done because women come to believe their parts are freakily large and dirty. Plastic surgeons are encouraging this by the pictures they put on their sites and the comments they make about infections and cleanliness (google ‘labiaplasty’ to learn more about this). So if this trend continues one day American parents with boy and girl twins may be strapping both down to mutilate their parts with equipment like the above… What a wonderful world we live in!

  17. Katherine says:

    Thanks for that quote from the Bioethics Committee, Joe. I’m going to start using that. It’s laid out extremely clearly what responsibility a pediatrician has to his/her patient, and it’s independent of the parent’s or guardian’s wishes. I really don’t understand how any physician, whose first duty is to “do no harm” can justify in his/her own mind performing elective circumcisions.

  18. Katherine says:

    I completely agree that FGM is barbaric. Whether it’s “more barbaric” than MGM is debatable, and it’s important to remember that there are degrees of both. Some would argue that a little snip of the clitoral hood is less severe than a full male foreskin removal. Not me, though, I think anytime anyone takes a scalpel (or a piece of glass, or a rusty blade, or scissors, or even a new high-tech accu-circ device) to a child’s genitals it’s barbaric. The reason I haven’t mentioned FGM here is that my efforts on curbing it are targeted primarily overseas – to places like Egypt, the Sudan, etc. FGM has been outlawed in this country for just over a decade (yeah, seems recent, doesn’t it?) and what I want to see is that same standard of genital integrity protected in this county for boys and intersexed children. (Intersexed children are almost never talked about, but usually when a child is born with ambiguous or incomplete genitalia, the doctor will advise the parents to pick a gender – usually female since it’s easier to “correct” to – and surgically assign it. The child is usually not told about their unique condition, and often experiences extreme emotional problems later in life because of it. As with all other children, these childrens’ genitalia should be left alone until they reach the age of consent and can decide whether to alter their bodies or not.)

  19. max says:

    wow… that is something new for me, thanks for sharing with us.

  20. Mark Lyndon says:

    Labiaplasty is booming, even though it is actually illegal, even at the request of the subject. People seem to feel the need to turn themselves into Barbie dolls. I recently read a report of a mother who brought her 9-year old daughter in to have her pubic area waxed. The girl didn’t have any hair down there of course, but the mother insisted on it, and the salon went ahead figuring that she’d get it done somewhere, and they might as well take the money.

    The radical forms of female circumcision have also been practised in the USA, and there are middle-aged white women walking round with no clitoris because it was cut off, usually as a “treatment” for “wayward” girls. Some of the victims don’t even know what’s happened to them, but one of them found out later in life, and wrote a book about it:
    Robinett, Patricia (2006). “The rape of innocence: One woman’s story of female genital mutilation in the USA.”
    N.p.: Aesculapius Press. ISBN 1-878411-04-7.

    There are several references to the practice in US medical literature, though they are uncommon after the early 1950’s. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross Blue Shield paid for clitoridectomies till May 18, 1977.

  21. Hugh Young says:

    A pediatrician has commented that this seems to be a “blind” device, which is asking for trouble. In other words, it doesn’t make sure that it isn’t cutting the glans (head) before it cuts. Also, the “flexible foreskin probe” (which might be that “antenna” sticking out the top) is used to separate the foreskin from the glans (it is attached all over for the first few years by a membrane called the synechia), rather like taking out a fingernail – a skilled and exquisitely painful process (which max was lucky to be spared, but newborns aren’t).

    It’s great to see so many people seriously questioning this extraordinary custom, that never would get ethical approval if it were being introduced today.

  22. Hugh Young says:

    I’m not surprsied that in their streaming video they replaced the sound of the baby shrieking with lush, pretty music. They could hardly have screaming video to sell their product, could they? Try this video instead.

  23. Joshua says:

    I notice that the usual crowd of anti-circ activists has descended upon you.

    Lets start here with the benefit of circumcision in relation to female to male heterosexual HIV infection.

    In a joint statement WHO and UNAIDS state:
    (New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
    http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf )

    “Conclusions and Recommendations

    Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
    The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
    The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
    The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.

    Recommendations :
    1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
    1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.”

  24. max says:

    Holy crap, now I don’t know who to believe, is there a clear answer for a regular joe like me?

  25. Hugh Young says:

    Welcome to the circumcision “debate”, Max.

    And Joshua is one of the usual crowd of pro-circumcision activists. He always posts this appeal to authority. However, the research evidence is far from “compelling”. (Joshua’s response is usually to post the same thing again, as if he can wear you down.) And even if it were, it wouldn’t be applicable where HIV is not raging. In Africa, it would take 30-50 circumcisions to prevent one HIV transmission in two years. In the US it would be hundreds or thousands. It’s not enough to say that circumcision reduces the risk of something, if that something is already very rare. Circumcision has risks of its own (up to and including death) and it’s not enough to say “performed by well-trained medical professionals” because you get no guarantee that it will be. It’s often given to interns for practice.

    I have one question for those who advocate circumcision of healthy babies. Whose penis is it? And I get very short with people who say “parents have to make lots of decisions for their children”. This is the only decision they’re allowed to make to cut off normal healthy tissue, which he may very well want. (Joe’s Case 2 is very rare, his Case 4 is relatively common.) If it were a girl (the exactly corresponding part), if it were any other part, and of course if someone grabbed and adult and cut off his foreskin, it would be a felony.

  26. max says:

    Wow, I am beginning to think that circumcision is still a topic not decided topic by the masses…
    I am confused!

    Another thought I do have in the back of my mind is that circumcision could be a “money maker” for doctors to proceed with the surgery. Could that be another “American” motivating factor in our American society? Lol…I think medical field and insurance is really fucked up as far as “motivating” doctors and alike to promote new drugs and new surgery methods…

    Well… I am still neutral, I am not gonna believe any of you yet until someone who can prove they have something to back it up such as “I am a doctor with circumcision experience and I have seen 5 of 100 babies dies from it” or “Circumcision has 100% proved to be effective at preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases…

    Anyone up for it?

  27. Hugh Young says:

    There is clear evidence that where the money incentive is removed, the circumcision rate falls. But that’s not the only incentive. Cutting someone’s genitals is an extraordinary example of taking power and control over their lives, and some doctors just like doing it. (And as you might guess, there are some who actually get off on doing it.) Also some circumcised doctors can’t bear it that some men have what they lack, and they’d like all males to be like them.

    So it’s far from being the cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis that circumcisionists would like you to believe. Notice that Joshua presents the HIV argument as if circumcision had no history. Before HIV, the big reason/excuse was Urinary Tract Infections, before that penile cancer, before that cervical cancer, before that sexually transmitted diseases and before that, masturbation, when that was seriously believed to cause other diseases. As each one is disproved, they wheel another up. Circumcision is a “cure” desperately in search of a disease.

  28. Mark Lyndon says:

    The push to promote circumcision in Africa is truly extraordinary. Circumcision can only possibly help men who have unsafe sex with HIV+ partners, so why this would anyone focus genital surgery when we know that ABC works better than circumcision ever could? (ABC=Abstinence, Being Faithful, Condoms). The two continents with the highest rates of AIDS are the same two continents with the highest rates of male circumcision. Rwanda has almost double the rate of HIV in circed men than in intact men, yet they’ve just started a nationwide circumcision campaign. Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania. Something is very wrong here. These people aren’t interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives. There have been plenty of stories already about men who think circumcision makes them immune.

    Latest news is that HIV+ men appear to be more more likely to transmit the virus to women if they are circumcised (even after the healing period is over).

    Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldn’t investigate cutting off women’s labia, and then start promoting that.

  29. Joshua says:

    Max wrote: “Holy crap, now I don’t know who to believe, is there a clear answer for a regular joe like me?”

    Max the choice is simple you can accept the findings of numerous studies as endorsed by WHO and UNAIDS or you can allow yourself to be swayed by the incessant unsubstantiated argument from these anti-circumcision activists.

    As the evidence mounts as to the benefits that accrue through male circumcision these single issue activists are becoming more shrill. Hint, ask them to substantiate their claims as it is dangerous to anything they say at face value.

  30. Mark Lyndon says:

    There’s only one person becoming shrill here. Perhaps you’d care to debate the points we make instead of just insulting us. I’m far from a single issue activist by the way, and have a genuine interest in fighting HIV in Africa. I believe that promoting male circumcision is far more likely to make things worse than better though.

    You say that “the evidence mounts as to the benefits that accrue through male circumcision”. How then do you explain this from the summary statement of the paediatric policy on circumcision of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians:
    “After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.” (those last 9 words in bold on their website).
    http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527

    Most of the people responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves or married to circumcised men, since the circ rate in Australia was 90% in 1950 (down to 12.6% now). Now why would a bunch of circumcised doctors say that routine circumcision was unnecessary?

    Routine circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in all Australian states except one. The children’s commissioner in Tasmania wants to ban it there altogether, and has been backed by the Tasmanian president of the Australian Medical Association (he excepted religious and genuine medical reasons).

  31. Katherine says:

    The whole AIDS study argument bothers me. It looks like male circumcision might have a tiny impact on female-to-male HIV transmission, but there are studies that point out that a) circumcision causes an increase in the likelihood of male-to-female transmission, and b) like Mark pointed out, FGM also decreases the risk of transmission. As with anything else, you need to look at what other less drastic means can be used to achieve the same result. Submitting an infant, who’s at least a decade or two away from being sexually active to surgery to slightly decrease the risk of contracting an STD which is easily preventable from other non-surgical methods is batshit crazy, pardon my language. Why not just amputate the penis entirely? Your HIV transmission rate would drop significantly, I promise.

    We could use the same justification used for male circumcision to excise breast tissue from baby girls. After all, their chances over a lifetime of developing breast cancer (often fatal, certainly harder to treat than UTIs, and harder to prevent than STDs) is 1 in 8. Breasts aren’t necessary to survival. I mean, sure they’re fun for sexual reasons, and useful to breastfeed, but no one “needs” their breasts (just like no one “needs” their intact penis). So why don’t doctors routinely remove breast buds from infants/girls/teenagers at their parents’ request? Could it be because it’s totally unethical to ever perform surgery without the consent of the patient unless there is dire, immediate, pressing medical need? Possibly preventing some sort of unpleasantness years down the road is not an acceptable reason. Doctors need to reframe the issue of circumcision. It’s not about making a personal choice for your child – it’s about stopping the cycle of unnecessary mutilation.

  32. Studio Equipment says:

    Let me get some more inputs in here. I have an Indian friend who is a Hindu. His father, under advise from a Muslim doctor, underwent circumcision when he was an adult. The father insisted that his sons all be circumcised. My friend is a circumcised Hindu. He tells me that he simply refused to let his son be circumcised for two reasons. One, his own childhood friend, now a physician advised him that there are no benefits but could well be adverse reactions and two, more importantly, in India when a communal riot (read Hindu/Muslim riot) takes place, both sides ask the suspicious looking outsider to drop his pants or whatever to check. If he is circumcised, no matter what religion he belongs to, he is considered to be a Muslim. Since my friend is a Hindu, he has decided that his son/s have a better chance of staying alive by not getting circumcised!

  33. Katherine says:

    I’m also not a “one cause” activist, and as an outspoken atheist, I believe strongly in both the separation of church and state, and the separation of church and medicine! This is also why I don’t think there should be an exception to laws outlawing genital mutilation for religious reasons. If a consenting adult wants to alter him/herself because they think that’s what their chosen deity wants, fine. But to allow parents to subject children to whatever thing they want in the name of religion doesn’t make any sense to me. We already have laws against children being forced into dangerous religious practices (snakehandling comes to mind, as does the underage polygamy bust that just occurred in Texas), and parents who refuse medical treatment for children on religious grounds can and have been charged with child endangerment/neglect/manslaughter. I don’t see circumcision as any different.
    As for your friend and his political reasons not to circumcise, it makes sense to me. One common way during the Holocaust in Germany of determining who was Jewish was to do a “pants check”, so the situation you describe in India is nothing new.

  34. fredr says:

    This tool looks like it may remove the frenulum as well as all the male prepuce. That’s what the gompco clamp did to me and my brothers leading to 2 suicidal depressions, 2 cases of delayed neonatal post traumatic sexual shock dissorders that surfaced after puberty as schizophrenia, and erectile dysfunction. My circumcised dad had no problem getting erections but couldn’t climax fast enough, leading to vaginal erosion to my mother who ended up with a total hystorectomy by age 50.

    Those circumcision studies in Africa proved that if you yourself decide to have yourself circumcised as an adult, then your risk of NOT contracting HIV, when having unprotected reproductive sex with HIV infected prostitutes will increase to 3:5, where as the intact male only has a 2:5 chance. Condoms out perform and deleat any benifit of circumcision to prevent HIV except the benefit of causing sexual dysfunction to your future men.

    Other studies show that the entire shaft skin is erotogenic tissue, and taking half off reduces the skin in half.

    Couple of weeks ago was Autism awareness day. Do a Search on autism from circumcision. There’s a lot of denile. Parents tend to blaim the toxins in vaccines, over the toxins involved from the waste produced from microbial infections contracted after circumcisions. Yes it is true that intact infants, male and female, can get toxic shock syndromes as well as circumcised males, but the ratios of circumcised males developing Autism are greatest. The results are not in concerning FGM.

    When people become aware that there are functions for the male and female prepuce, they either deny any scientific evedence that goes against their religious convictions or self rightious decisions imposed on themselves or their children with their eyes wide closed, or they become intactivists with eyes opened to this atrocity.

    At the beginning of WW1, Turkish Muslims Holocausted 2 million Armanian Chricstians because they would not accept circumcision. At the beginning of WW2 circumcised half Jewish Hitler and the Nazis Holocausted 6 million Jews and 5 million Catholics who condoned infant circumcision. Now circumcised Islamic extremists THINK that Americans are intact and are waging another Holocaust by using dirty nuclear bombs on us. Mass degrees of circumcision induced schizophrenics left undiagnosed running these country.

    I think that ritual and routine infant circumcision goes against the natural laws of physics and nature.
    It’s like if your parents decide to circumcise your teeth to prevent cavities or to initiate you into their cult. Circumcise your taste buds to prevent obesity. Circumcise your eyelids to prevent pornografic viewing. Circumcise your prepuce to prevent enhanced sexual desire.

  35. Hugh Young says:

    As I predicted, Joshua repeats his appeal to authority. But WHO and UNAIDS, like the UN itself, are political bodies with internal issues of their own. Before the HIV claims came along, they loudly condemned female genital cutting but were silent about male genital cutting – hell, why alienate both the Arabs and the Jews? But tribal Africans are no threat. And the HIV-circumcision link has been mainly constructed by people who were pushing circumcision already. HIV is just the latest prop to their shonky structure.

    Katherine, breast cancer in men is more common than penile cancer, so cutting boy baby’s breast buds off would make more sense than circumcision, and more than cutting girls’, because boys will never need their breasts for lactation, only (some) for sexual pleasure, which is always superfluous to those of a cutting mentality.

    I wonder how many other causes you have to support before your support for one cause becomes valid? Please excuse my shrillness.

  36. fredr says:

    This tool looks like it may remove the frenulum as well as all the male prepuce. That’s what the gompco clamp did to me and my brothers leading to 2 suicidal depressions, 2 cases of delayed neonatal post traumatic sexual shock disorders that surfaced after puberty as schizophrenia, and erectile dysfunction. My circumcised dad had no problem getting erections but couldn’t climax fast enough, leading to vaginal erosion to my mother who ended up with a total hysterectomy by age 50.

    Those circumcision studies in Africa proved that if you yourself decide to have yourself circumcised as an adult, then your risk of NOT contracting HIV, when having unprotected reproductive sex with HIV infected prostitutes will increase to 3:5, where as the intact male only has a 2:5 chance. Condoms out perform and delete any benefit of circumcision to prevent HIV except the benefit of causing sexual dysfunction to your future men.

    Other studies show that the entire shaft skin is erotogenic tissue, and taking half off reduces the skin in half.

    Couple of weeks ago was Autism awareness day. Do a Search on autism from circumcision. There’s a lot of denial. Parents tend to blame the toxins in vaccines, over the toxins involved from the waste produced from microbial infections contracted after circumcisions. Yes it is true that intact infants, male and female, can get toxic shock syndromes as well as circumcised males, but the ratios of circumcised males developing Autism are greatest. The results are not in concerning FGM.

    When people become aware that there are functions for the male and female prepuce, they either deny any scientific evidence that goes against their religious convictions or self righteous decisions imposed on themselves or their children with their eyes wide closed, or they become intactivists with eyes opened to this atrocity.

    At the beginning of WW 1, Turkish Muslims Holocausted 2 million Armenian Christians because they would not accept circumcision. At the beginning of WW 2 circumcised half Jewish Hitler and the Nazis Holocausted 6 million Jews and 5 million Catholics who condoned infant circumcision. Now circumcised Islamic extremists THINK that Americans are intact and are waging another Holocaust by using dirty nuclear bombs on us. Mass degrees of circumcision induced schizophrenics left undiagnosed running these country.

    I think that ritual and routine infant circumcision goes against the natural laws of physics and nature.
    It’s like if your parents decide to circumcise your teeth to prevent cavities or to initiate you into their cult. Circumcise your taste buds to prevent obesity. Circumcise your eyelids to prevent pornographic viewing. Circumcise your prepuce to prevent enhanced sexual desire.

  37. Hugh Young says:

    I meant ” boy babies’ ” of course.

    Don’t take anything I say at face value. References to the mass of studies that find no virtue to circumcision are there.

  38. Studio Equipment says:

    And it all started with a review of a gadget to simplify the procedure! Max, the moral of the story, if you want this kind of discussions on your blog, is to write more such blogs. Perhaps not on the same subject, but similar controversial ones?

  39. max says:

    Yeah I agree, let’s turn this blog into a “Controverial Tech Blog”…Lol…

  40. Hugh Young says:

    I know, controversy’s a bitch, isn’t it. People come along who disagree with you (unlike with politics, religion etc.). Just put up a promotion of an improved thumbscrew and some milksop will come along who thinks torture is immoral and they shouldn’t be made at all! (On the other hand, not every Intactivist would agree 100% with every one of fredr’s claims.)

  41. larissa says:

    Apparently, another study finds that circumcision does not affect HIV rates in American males. Uh oh. Looks like pro-circ people will need to find another reason to routinely cut a defenseless baby boy’s genitals.

  42. Hugh Young says:

    On topic: I can’t see from the manufacturer’s site whether this device is reusable, like the Gomco™ clamp, or disposable, like the Tara KLamp™ (sic). If it is disposable, is it non-reusable? (Does it self-destruct?) – because under African conditions, if it can be re-used, it will be, and that cutting assembly looks hard to sterilise, and again under African conditions, will not always be adequately sterilised.

    It would be ironic if mass circumcision campaigns spread more HIV than they prevented.

  43. Studio Equipment says:

    May be there is a conspiracy to get people to use this on multiple operations with a view to eventually reduce the population of those societies that circumcise their people!

  44. max says:

    yeah i agree, that’s probably it huh?

    Lol…

  45. mom3 says:

    I suppose this device will be helpful for those people who do choose circumcision for their sons. I don’t believe there are any proven health benefits to circumcision, but there are some potential ones. The numbers of parents choosing not to circumcise is increasing rapidly and getting closer and closer to 50/50 in the U.S. For more information and discussion about circumcision, there’s a great debate about it going on at www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-boys-be-circumcised Experts from both sides weigh in…great read on the topic!

  46. max says:

    Yes, I think this debate will keep going, it seems like circumcision is not really medically proven.

  47. Ron Low says:

    Wow, Accu-Circ is here just in time to make millions on the circumcision of Africans. What a surprise! There couldn’t possibly be any connection to the Western researchers who recently tried to claim that circumcision prevents AIDS in Africa, right? Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Circumcision does not prevent AIDS.

  48. Harriet says:

    There can never be a good way to do a bad thing. Also, most men never face circumcision.

  49. uncut and proud says:

    May i just add the following:
    I am un-circumcised and I am glad of it.
    Why did humans get a foreskin in the first place?
    Even with circumcision the babies born STILL have a foreskin.
    We are not slowly evolving away from foreskins, therefore it is something that is still needed.
    For anyone who says circumcision prevents diseases, you just cut a holw into yourself, LETS START AN INFECTION THERE!!
    thanks for listening

  50. norman says:

    circumcision is an evil practice period .its perpetrated on babies by parents who don’t think just follow and should be illegal as its surgical assault on a defenceless child. as for doing it to women well its beyond beleif
    this still goes on ,circumcision is an old out of date surgery consign it to history now and thats where it should stay it has no purpose other than to make money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Check out more interesting categories: Consumer, Gadgets, Medical, Misc.


Related News and Resources