Foreskin: Why does it exist?

Foreskin: Why does it exist?

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) states that many sexologists view the foreskin as "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role 'in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation'." We can then say that the major function of the penis is procreation, that is, the perpetuation of the species. Without the penis, there would be no more humans. The penis cannot procreate in the relaxed or flaccid state. It must erect, engorging with blood, to perform its major function. With this change in condition, from being relaxed to being erect, comes an increase in length of approximately 50%. Now where does this enlarged erect penis obtain skin to cover its significantly elongated shaft? From the foreskin. In the relaxed state, the tip of the penis of the intact adult male is covered by the foreskin, which consists of a fold of skin overlying a complex mucous membrane. As the shaft of the penis elongates with erection, this double layer becomes a single layer which covers the longer shaft. In spite of these self-evident functions, some people have tried to argue that the foreskin does not have a function. When I was a medical student, several decades ago, it was thought that the appendix was the one organ without a function. I was taught that the appendix was a vestigial organ, left over from the remote past. We now know that this is not true. The appendix functions as part of the immune system, producing large numbers of lymphocytes. Since the known parts of the body have a function, the probability of the foreskin no having one is virtually nil. The foreskin covers the elongated shaft of the penis during erection; at other times it protects the sensitive glans penis. The foreskin contains many minute muscle fibers which give it tone. It covers the glans snugly, and helps to prevent the glans from developing a thick, many layered epidermis, which happens in the absence of the foreskin. This thickened epidermis reduces sexual sensitivity. Since the penis is used for procreation only a few times in the entire life of the individual, sexual pleasure must also be a major function, and the foreskin is an integral part of that pleasure. Many anthropologists believe that sexual pleasure with an available mate contributes to the stability of the pair bond. Surely it is not the aim of ethical doctors to interfere in matters of such vital importance. Despite the foreskin's important functions, the amputations continue. Doctors who do them try to justify their actions. When they suggest that it will prevent cancer of the penis, there is an alternative. It is generally agreed that the hygiene of men who develop cancer of the penis has been poor. Since the simple act of cleaning beneath the adult foreskin can help prevent cancer of the penis, doctors could simply wait until the man is of age, and let him choose whether he wants his foreskin removed, or whether he would prefer to retract his foreskin whenever he showers! Urinary tract infections (UTI) may well be caused by two improper medical procedures, and not by the foreskin. Swedish scientists from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm claim that such infections are caused by colonizing the newborn infant with foreign bacteria from the hospital nursery. They recommend strict rooming-in to permit colonization of the infant by its own mother which would thus prevent these infections.4 Second, the colleagues of the author who advocates circumcision to prevent UTI taught the mothers in the study to retract the foreskin, perhaps tearing the skin off the glans, in the mistaken belief that this was proper care. This raw surface may then become a good site for the growth of bacteria which can ascend the urethra causing UTI. IN an intact infant, the proper care is to do nothing. If the infants who had not been circumcised had been left alone, they might have developed even fewer urinary tract infections. Dr. Benjamin Spock, in early editions of his influential book on child-rearing, recommended circumcision. He changed his position in the 4th edition and in subsequent editions, and expressed the wish that he had had the foresight to recommend against circumcision in earlier editions. Circumcision is Not a Universal Practice
via YouTube https://youtu.be/ir6_Y_YcMyY