I absolutely will not...

[Law2Doc]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Why not at least wait until the kid becomes a sexually active adult and decide for himself?

The level of pain is enormously greater in this area after development is complete, not even to mention the degree of pain that would occur in the event of a post-op erection. Talk to adult males who had later year circumcisions for religious conversion reasons and they will assure you you want to have it done as an infant, if you are doing it.

 

[Iain]

By chopping off the whole penis, you eliminate all risks; HIV, other STDs, Partner Cervical Cancer, penile cancer, etc.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

If you are uncut, you have to have noticed you are in the distinct minority -- hard to imagine you think the percentage is 50% or better.
At any rate, I suspect your inlaws are going to lobby your wife for your kids' circumcision ceremonies -- better hope you have girls or there may be future family turmoil. 😀 Good luck!

So we should remove perfectly normal, healthy tissue because of peer pressure concerns?

 

[Dr. Giggles]

The level of pain is enormously greater in this area after development is complete, not even to mention the degree of pain that would occur in the event of a post-op erection. Talk to adult males who had later year circumcisions for religious conversion reasons and they will assure you you want to have it done as an infant, if you are doing it.

Fair enough, that can be included as a legitimate pro for infant circumcision as well. I still think that the cons far outweigh the pros, but I guess both points are sufficiently reasonable to respect either decision the parents choose to make.

 

[DrBowtie]

So we should remove perfectly normal, healthy tissue because of peer pressure concerns?

Weren't you the one telling me that "well being" involves psyche?

 

[Law2Doc]

So we should remove perfectly normal, healthy tissue because of peer pressure concerns?

I didn't say that. This poster was the one who posted majorly inaccurate percentages of circumcision and so I was suggesting he should know that simply wasn't the case based on his own minority status.

 

[Law2Doc]

By chopping off the whole penis, you eliminate all risks; HIV, other STDs, Partner Cervical Cancer, penile cancer, etc.

Um no, you'd have to sew up his other orifices to eliminate all the STDs.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

Weren't you the one telling me that "well being" involves psyche?

Sure, if the child is having severe anxiety about having a foreskin, then it makes sense to remove it. But to suggest to parents that it's a good idea to just have it done so that he doesn't possibly feel bad around other male children makes no medical sense.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

PD, Nice Article 👍

actually there are others; I just skimmed that. I just wanted something to post as reference so people wouldn't think I totally made it up, and I knew I had read/studied that before...

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Once again, this is ridiculous. Have you heard of a retrospective study? If they had a sample size of 100 cases and found a statistically significant disproportionate number of uncircumcised men, the results would be publishable. Review the God Damned methodology BEFORE criticizing the conclusion, dingus!

No methodology was presented or described. That would seem to make the results even less meaningful.

 

[DyersEve]

OK, I got into this thread way late. Anyway, I just thought I'd weigh in because I was circumcised at age 19. Why you might ask? I won't gross you out with the details but I suffered a VERY painful freak injury that necessitated it 🙁 .

Of course, the circumcision procedure itself was painful. I was under anesthesia when the surgery was performed but it hurt when I woke up. For several days, I had to comport my lower half in a towel because the slightest contact hurt. It also bled a lot. Of course, with time it healed. It's been two years since I had the operation. It's definately something I wouldn't want to go through again!

I've noticed a drop in the sensitivity of the glans after it hardened. Sex is still very pleasurable, but the feeling just isn't as intense as it was pre-circumcision. The best analogy that I can draw is that it's like going from a higher resolution TV to a somewhat lower resolution one. There is a noticeable drop in the intensity of the sensation but it's not massive.

I researched a lot into the pros and cons of circumcision because of how it affected me, but really it's difficult to say whether it does really lead to these claimed medical benefits. I've found articles that completely contradict each other. I won't get into those as there has been lots of back and forth argument already. Most major national medical organizations are neither for it nor against it.

Personally, I'm from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought. My uncut wang functioned just fine. The majority of men on this planet are uncircumcised. I think the hygeine aspect is WAY exaggerated. It's not that difficult to keep an uncircumcised penis clean. All you have to do is roll up the foreskin (takes less than a second) and from there you treat it pretty much the same as you would a circumcised penis.

Yes there is a potential for smegma build up etc., but then there's also the potential for your mouth to stink like a dead animal. All smegma is just a bunch of dead cells. Smegma also builds up the vagina too. I'm not aware of any male mammals that naturally lack a foreskin. If a foreskin was a big health liability, natural selection would have led to a high proportion of foreskin-less males, yet most healthy males are born with foreskins.

If I had sons, I wouldn't have them circumcised, but I wouldn't refuse to perform circumcisions on others' sons if they asked me to and I was in that line of work.

 

[The Madden Bus]

I will not ever perform an abortion.

Even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy and the mother's life is in jeopardy? I would do it in that case without even thinking twice.

 

[Brickhouse]

Even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy and the mother's life is in jeopardy? I would do it in that case without even thinking twice.

That's not an abortion by choice - that's a pregnancy that will spontaneously abort all by itself and take the mother with it if not removed.

 

[RandomGuy]

there is NO WAY i am dissecting a cadaver.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

there is NO WAY i am dissecting a cadaver.

i hope that's a joke; otherwise you'll never make it thru gross anatomy lab

 

[Callogician]

No methodology was presented or described. That would seem to make the results even less meaningful.

Not really. That's the whole point of the peer review system. I just read a series of reviews on traumatic brain injury in preparation for a research project. I'll be damned if I'm going to read all of the source articles just to be marginally more confident in their conclusions.

 

[Carmenita79]

I grew up in the Midwest:

According to the National Center for Health Statistics in Washington, D.C., the latest figures on circumcision for the four basic regions of the U.S. as of 1994 (the latest reported date) are:

Northeast 69.6%
Midwest 80.1%
South 64.7%
West 34.2%

Average for entire U.S. is 62.7%

Did you just calculate the average from these four regions equally, because the population is not distributed equally.

Also I have lived my entire life in the west and I have a hard time believing that only 34% of men are circumcised out here.

 

[DrBowtie]

Did you just calculate the average from these four regions equally, because the population is not distributed equally.

Also I have lived my entire life in the west and I have a hard time believing that only 34% of men are circumcised out here.

Ask the National Center for Health Statistics. I didn't do anything but copy and paste.

 

[The Madden Bus]

That's not an abortion by choice - that's a pregnancy that will spontaneously abort all by itself and take the mother with it if not removed.

Well removing it is technically an abortion by choice, albeit there really isn't much to think about and any doctor who wouldn't perform it in that case should lose his/her license and get thrown in jail.

 

[e_phn]

there is NO WAY i am dissecting a cadaver.

good luck in med school.

hopefully this is a joke.

 

[Brickhouse]

Well removing it is technically an abortion by choice, albeit there really isn't much to think about and any doctor who wouldn't perform it in that case should lose his/her license and get thrown in jail.

I mean it's not in an abortion by choice in that the pregnancy would abort regardless. Semantics.

 

[Carmenita79]

there is NO WAY i am dissecting a cadaver.

You should check out JABSOM then, I heard anatomy is an elective

 

[TCIrish03]

I mean it's not in an abortion by choice in that the pregnancy would abort regardless. Semantics.

Good point....what alot of people on both sides of the debate forget is that the AMA defines a "miscarriage" as a spontaneous abortion.

I too would never perform an "abortion of choice"

Speaking of, and I am trying to hijack this thread...are doctors who work in abortion/planned parenthood clinics all OBGYNs? General surgeons? I'm not that well read up on abortion procedures (for better or worse), but I thought some required a surgical license (or are most still sticking the vacuum up there?)

 

[Doula-2-OB]

Speaking of, and I am trying to hijack this thread...are doctors who work in abortion/planned parenthood clinics all OBGYNs? General surgeons? I'm not that well read up on abortion procedures (for better or worse), but I thought some required a surgical license (or are most still sticking the vacuum up there?)

I attended my sister's abortion last year and they did use a vacuum, and it was a physician who attended her. There are also CNMs who work in the clinic as well (Planned Parenthood).

 

[Firebird]

I attended my sister's abortion last year and they did use a vacuum, and it was a physician who attended her. There are also CNMs who work in the clinic as well (Planned Parenthood).

Just out of curiosity, would you perform an abortion?

 

[Doula-2-OB]

Just out of curiosity, would you perform an abortion?

My aunt asked me this question and honestly I would.

Logic- I know, there isn't any. It doesn't make sense. 🙂 I feel way stronger about circ than I do abortion, even after attending one. I know I wouldn't have one but I believe in a woman's right to choose for herself. I'd do it if I had to, but I wouldn't want a job doing it.

ETA:

I would probably cry in the closet after it was over. 😳

 

[noonday]

i'm not intending to ob/gyn, endocrinology, or plastics but i would not: perform "vanity only" plastic surgery (i.e. facelifts, etc., but reconstructive, etc. is great, though) nor would i ever do any kind of fertility treatment procedures nor in vitro/surrogacy implantation, etc. too many babies need adopting to spend so much in time and resources to feed the vanity of someone wanting only a kid with their own genes.

i would, though, perform abortions and circumcisions. i just don't get the whole circumcision controversy, really...doesn't inhibit functioning or pleasure, kid doesn't remember it, etc....but that's me, and i'm a chick, and if guys got together and voted and decided they didn't want it happening anymore i'd respect that, too.

 

[Law2Doc]

If a foreskin was a big health liability, natural selection would have led to a high proportion of foreskin-less males, yet most healthy males are born with foreskins.

Natural selection can take many thousands of years and is dependant on certain fortuitous mutations occurring, such that a phenotype can be selected for. An eye in the back of almost any animal's head would be beneficial (against predators) but that hasn't evolved -- that doesn't mean it's not preferable.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

i'm not intending to ob/gyn, endocrinology, or plastics but i would not: perform "vanity only" plastic surgery (i.e. facelifts, etc., but reconstructive, etc. is great, though) nor would i ever do any kind of fertility treatment procedures nor in vitro/surrogacy implantation, etc. too many babies need adopting to spend so much in time and resources to feed the vanity of someone wanting only a kid with their own genes.

i would, though, perform abortions and circumcisions. i just don't get the whole circumcision controversy, really...doesn't inhibit functioning or pleasure, kid doesn't remember it, etc....but that's me, and i'm a chick, and if guys got together and voted and decided they didn't want it happening anymore i'd respect that, too.

do you have any idea how difficult it is to adopt a newborn baby? at least a white one but I think other races are difficult too. i'd help out with bringing on new life, but not killing it.

 

[MossPoh]

do you have any idea how difficult it is to adopt a newborn baby? at least a white one but I think other races are difficult too. i'd help out with bringing on new life, but not killing it.

Pretty difficult..sister just spent 35,000 dollars, plus 2 trips to Russia and god knows how many hours of lost work hours, and headaches with government. He also needed a surgery that cost a fair amount.

I don't get the argument about circumsizing either.......if you don't want your kid to get it then don't. I am circumsized and it is not like some horrible memory I have as a kid...in fact I am quite proud of it.lol I don't like using the word "mutiliation" it is just an emotional argument word..just like "pro-life" and "pro-choice"...not like there are too many people that are AGAINST life or having choices. Mutiliation just seems like there is some sadistic serial killer rubbing his hands together and licking his lips to torture someone. There are lots of things that don't NEED to be involved in our life. I can travel places without a car..who cares I still want one. I can live without my computer...still want to use it. The list can go on.
As far as a procedure I will refuse to do...I don't really know..nothing really freaks me out and while I might never want my girl to get an abortion I feel it isn't my place and I essentially there as a public servant to do a specific deed. (Granted I would make a bit more money) I have to say eye surgery kind of weirds me out..simply because I can't stand having stuff near my eyes but it is not something I'd absolutley refuse to do..just won't go into it.

 

[Depakote]

The human body was designed/evolved/whatever to have the umbilicus detach from the mother. The male penis is supposed to have a prepuce/foreskin.

I understand.

I, for one, refuse to perform appendectomies.







Edit: Bleh. someone already made that point. Yay for originality.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

I understand.

I, for one, refuse to perform appendectomies.

That's just silly. Any good doctor would remove a prepuce/foreskin that was diseased, malformed (i.e. deformed where it causes pain during erections, damaged), etc.. Same goes for an infected appendix. But you wouldn't remove a perfectly healthy appendix now, would you?

 

[DyersEve]

Natural selection can take many thousands of years and is dependant on certain fortuitous mutations occurring, such that a phenotype can be selected for. An eye in the back of almost any animal's head would be beneficial (against predators) but that hasn't evolved -- that doesn't mean it's not preferable.

I believe that there are some people born with extremely short foreskins that don't even cover the glans. We would have seen a higher proportion of these people if having a foreskin was a major liability. After all, our very ancient ancestors didn't have showers etc. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all; these people comprise a very tiny minority.

Contrary to what a lot of pro-circumcision advocates might say, most people with foreskins have no problems with them. Uncut penises are not hard to keep clean. As I said earlier the majority of men on this planet did not have their foreskins removed and I'm sure that most of them are doing just fine. Yes people can have problems such as phimosis etc. but then people can have problems with pretty much any body part/organ.

 

[Gut Shot]

2. Cervical Cancer: What if the kid turns out to be gay?

Then he should be concerned about HPV-related anal cancer.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

Then he should be concerned about HPV-related anal cancer.

No, he should be concerned about HIV more than HPV. This is the danger of saying that circumcision offers some "protection". Some studies show a statistical advantage between circ and non-circ with regards to HPV/HIV/STDs, some don't. If you tell patients that it offers protection, they will think that it protects against everything. You'd be better off telling him to use a condom rather than offering circumcision, or tell him to clean his penis once in awhile!

 

[Doctor Bagel]

There is no way I am killing a dog 😡

Me neither, and the good news is that you don't have to do that any more. Dog labs are becoming a thing of the past.

 

[Rafa]

That's just silly. Any good doctor would remove a prepuce/foreskin that was diseased, malformed (i.e. deformed where it causes pain during erections, damaged), etc.. Same goes for an infected appendix. But you wouldn't remove a perfectly healthy appendix now, would you?

I would if the appendix offered no discernable health benefits to its owner while significantly increasing said owner's lifetime chances of giving and getting cancers, various preventable diseases and numerous infections. Oh, and if the appendix was removable in an outpatient-type operation at birth. Don't tell me...I'll make a terrible doctor. 😎

 

[Firebird]

My aunt asked me this question and honestly I would.

Logic- I know, there isn't any. It doesn't make sense. 🙂 I feel way stronger about circ than I do abortion, even after attending one. I know I wouldn't have one but I believe in a woman's right to choose for herself. I'd do it if I had to, but I wouldn't want a job doing it.

ETA:

I would probably cry in the closet after it was over. 😳

The woman's right to choose, eh? So why does a woman have the right to choose to end the life of the fetus, but she doesn't have the right to circumcise it? I am sure I'm going to take a lot of flak for saying that.

Anyway, regardless of what all these people are saying, there is an increased risk associated with uncircumcised men. Regarding Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Robbins says, "circumcision confers protection;" on page 1037, 7th edition.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Not really. That's the whole point of the peer review system. I just read a series of reviews on traumatic brain injury in preparation for a research project. I'll be damned if I'm going to read all of the source articles just to be marginally more confident in their conclusions.

You have A LOT to learn if you trust that everything that is published is valid because of the peer review system.

As far as having to go back and read all of the source articles, I agree, it's not really efficient to read all of the source articles of EVERY study. That's where common sense enters into the process. Smegma and/or foreskin causing penile cancer fails the common sense test, IMHO. Therefore, a more detailed review of the source material/methodology/data is necessary. Oops, there is none, so my only reasonable choice is to reject the study.

 

[Firebird]

You have A LOT to learn if you trust that everything that is published is valid because of the peer review system.

As far as having to go back and read all of the source articles, I agree, it's not really efficient to read all of the source articles of EVERY study. That's where common sense enters into the process. Smegma and/or foreskin causing penile cancer fails the common sense test, IMHO. Therefore, a more detailed review of the source material/methodology/data is necessary. Oops, there is none, so my only reasonable choice is to reject the study.

Common sense is not a particularly effective way to do basic or clinical research. It is common sense to think that beta blockers would be bad for a patient with CHF...but they're absolutely indicated in these pts.

 

[fyi411]

. i'd help out with bringing on new life, but not killing it.[/QUOTE]

me too i don't think it's fair under any circumstances to the unborn child to kill without an extreme reason(such has to choose between the life of the mother or the baby. In that case then it's up to the mother and her other half to decide).

 

[bbas]

[/QUOTE]me too i don't think it's fair under any circumstances to the unborn child to kill without an extreme reason(such has to choose between the life of the mother or the baby. In that case then it's up to the mother and her other half to decide).[/QUOTE]

What about in cases of rape?

 

[Doula-2-OB]

The woman's right to choose, eh? So why does a woman have the right to choose to end the life of the fetus, but she doesn't have the right to circumcise it? I am sure I'm going to take a lot of flak for saying that.

Hey, I didn't say it makes sense. As a matter of fact, I said it doesn't make sense. I'm okay with that. It's not about the parent's right to choose what to do with their child, fetal or otherwise, it's about MY right to choose not to participate in cosmetic surgery on infants. It's not about the parent at all. I never said anything about a parent's right to choose for their child.

Anyway, regardless of what all these people are saying, there is an increased risk associated with uncircumcised men. Regarding Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Robbins says, "circumcision confers protection;" on page 1037, 7th edition.

The foreskin has twelve known functions.

They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner

Compiled by George Hill

The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision

I have to ask --

As med students...

Are you willing to find out more? Are you willing to discover that you might be wrong about this procedure? Are you willing to have an open mind about it and learn ALL sides of the issue, not just the ones that fit in with your beliefs? Can you enter into the discussion with an open mind that there might actually be two sides to this issue? I hope so.

I planned to circumcise my son when he was born, but we couldn't afford it and insurance didn't cover it. I started reading about the procedure and while I am not nearly as knowledgeable as some of my other 'naturalist' friends, nor do I feel the need to defend my choices about my son's genitals (or decision to not make choices, I should say), I feel comfortable with my choice. I am not denying my sons anything they can't choose to lose later. I am not putting them at risks for hemmorhage, amputation, skin bridges, infection, death, surgical traumas, and functional problems like hairy shaft (NOT normal, for any of you guys who have it), lack of skin mobility, curved or bent penis, painful erections, buried penis syndrome, etc.

 

[Doula-2-OB]

I have to ask, too... Women have more smegma than men, and if smegma is so terrible then why aren't our pu$$ies falling apart? I mean really...

And while I am not debating FGM, I have to ask:

If we started removing the clitoral hood, I'm sure after a hundred years of it we could find some 'benefits' to women and men. That doesn't mean we should do it.

The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision - BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 77, Pages 291-295,February 1996.

 

[TCIrish03]

You mean that slight upward curve isn't normal (uh oh)

Most male pron stars have it...I figured it hit the G spot better

Hey, I didn't say it makes sense. As a matter of fact, I said it doesn't make sense. I'm okay with that. It's not about the parent's right to choose what to do with their child, fetal or otherwise, it's about MY right to choose not to participate in cosmetic surgery on infants. It's not about the parent at all. I never said anything about a parent's right to choose for their child.



The foreskin has twelve known functions.

They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner

Compiled by George Hill

The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision

I have to ask --

As med students...

Are you willing to find out more? Are you willing to discover that you might be wrong about this procedure? Are you willing to have an open mind about it and learn ALL sides of the issue, not just the ones that fit in with your beliefs? Can you enter into the discussion with an open mind that there might actually be two sides to this issue? I hope so.

I planned to circumcise my son when he was born, but we couldn't afford it and insurance didn't cover it. I started reading about the procedure and while I am not nearly as knowledgeable as some of my other 'naturalist' friends, nor do I feel the need to defend my choices about my son's genitals (or decision to not make choices, I should say), I feel comfortable with my choice. I am not denying my sons anything they can't choose to lose later. I am not putting them at risks for hemmorhage, amputation, skin bridges, infection, death, surgical traumas, and functional problems like hairy shaft (NOT normal, for any of you guys who have it), lack of skin mobility, curved or bent penis, painful erections, buried penis syndrome, etc.

 

[Doula-2-OB]

You mean that slight upward curve isn't normal (uh oh)

Most male porn stars have it...I figured it hit the G spot better

It might be normal for you- but some penises have a serious curve up (too sharp), some bend to the right or left. Some don't have enough skin to allow for the erection so the penis doesn't grow to the length it would if it wasn't circed. Etc!

 

[stella81]

So, Doula does that mean you are uncurcumcised if you are a male and if you are a female does that mean your boyfriend's thing is uncurcumcised. Have you seen an uncurcumsed p... before? If you have, i think you would change your mind

Is there anything that you absolutely will not do? For me, it's circumcision. I absolutely refuse 100% to do this surgery on a newborn without a medical reason, and I wonder if these types of hardline things matter once you show up to med school. I was talking with a Family Practice doc friend of mine yesterday who said that in her class they did 'dog lab' where they take a living dog and anesthetize it, and perform procedures on it, which results in the death of the dog. She said many students refused to do it. So I'm just wondering about things like this... anyone have insight?

 

[TCIrish03]

I think I'm ok...the Dr. left a little bit of "slack" (I don't believe I'm describing this on here)

Anyway, thanks for the information from you (and everone else on both sides) on here. Before all I knew about circumcisions was 1.) uncut=more prone to infections, 2.) girls like cut better, and 3.) we Catholics don't need to cut anymore.

It might be normal for you- but some penises have a serious curve up (too sharp), some bend to the right or left. Some don't have enough skin to allow for the erection so the penis doesn't grow to the length it would if it wasn't circed. Etc!

 

[Psycho Doctor]

It might be normal for you- but some penises have a serious curve up (too sharp), some bend to the right or left. Some don't have enough skin to allow for the erection so the penis doesn't grow to the length it would if it wasn't circed. Etc!

what... are you suddenly an expert on penises or something? 😱 How many have you seen?

 

[Firebird]

Hey, I didn't say it makes sense. As a matter of fact, I said it doesn't make sense. I'm okay with that. It's not about the parent's right to choose what to do with their child, fetal or otherwise, it's about MY right to choose not to participate in cosmetic surgery on infants. It's not about the parent at all. I never said anything about a parent's right to choose for their child.

Ok. I am sure you will not have to participate in something like this if you feel so strongly about it. If you want to go into family practice, OB or peds, you might want to ask the programs you're interested in if you would be forced to learn/perform the procedure. They won't pass you through the program if it's a required part of the curriculum. Then again, you might say you're willing to learn the procedure and demonstrate proper technique...just not perform it on a baby. Perhaps they would pass you if you were to perform it on an adult.

My whole point of bringing that up was that you are being extraordinarily inconsistant with your reasoning. If you don't mind that, then cool. But like you said, your reasoning makes no sense and I guess personally, I couldn't live with that level of inconsistancy. But that's me.

The foreskin has twelve known functions.

They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner

Compiled by George Hill

The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision

if you want to argue with Robbins, then that is up to you. But it's pretty much the definitive general pathology text...and is usually referred to as the Bible of Pathology. So if you want to blaspheme against it, that's up to you--while I wouldn't expect lightning to strike you from above, I would be concerned about the heavens opening forth and drenching you with hematoxylin.