The fact is - both
things you discern me as having said, would appear to be true not only back in 2007, but five years later as well.
But they are by no means contradictory!
The American Cancer Society statement now appears on this page
but still contains a peculiarly American bias towards circumcision. In particular, there seems to still be a fixation with smegma despite
the declaration that no evidence exists to suggest this is involved.
take on this is (presently) that the connection between phimosis (and smegma) and cancer is probably inverted. Phimosis in this situation is more likely to be secondary
to chronic irritation such as from - as we so often discuss here - Candida or other genital infections including
interestingly (because in the female equivalent, HPV is a known cause of chronic vulvodynia), HPV and possibly, tobacco usage. The connection with "poor hygiene" generally relates not
to washing - as we point out, the penis as with the vagina is largely self-cleaning and rinsing with water is not only sufficient, but the only safe option - but to poor "sexual
hygiene" which is to say, multiple partners and lack of condom use.
Smegma production to any disturbing extent, is generally also
of chronic irritation more often due to soap
(by any pseudonym) and in either gender, a self-perpetuating cycle frequently develops with the use of ever more soap attempting to "clean out" the ever more prolific smegma which the soap causes.
It then remains - there is indeed, "not much risk from Phimosis" because there is little risk overall. As long as your phimosis is not the result
of unsafe practices. The risk is in failing to avoid
the phimosis by treating the cause
. In a sense, "phimosis" is so easy
to resolve whether by coming here or simply realising by oneself that it just needs to be stretched, that failing to search
for a solution is actually an indicator of a "social" risk factor which category certainly includes the other two.
I'm not sure of the exact frame of mind in which I wrote those postings because I suspect I meant to say that having a foreskin
is the most obvious risk factor because circumcision removes at least half and more commonly two thirds of the total
(mobile) skin of the penis and almost all
of the mucous membrane so it must
reduce the risk of cancer by at least
this proportion - skin you do not have
develop cancer (nor in the same proportion, can it collect tobacco tars or HPV).
(You don't get breast cancer if you do not have breasts, though in fact men still do
have breasts to some extent, some more so than others and do have a small risk.) For that very same argument, it might be expected that circumcised men will
have a slightly
higher risk of HPV carriage though not much
higher simply since the virus is so highly infectious.
And incidentally, HPV is generally considered to be responsible for virtually all
cervical cancer (potentiated
by tobacco use) as well as the others nominated in those articles
has even been found as an association with breast