BS: Circumcision: pros and cons

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:15 PM

Mark

At the risk of beating a dead horse......why is it that we never hear about the medical benefits of prophylactic hysterectomies or mastectomies yet there is still controversy about the prophylactic removal of a perfectly healthy and functional portion of the male anatomy?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 12:23 AM

Well, um, er. I once had a beau who was uncircumcised. (Kaleea sheepishly admits she was not always the most prim & proper of ladies.) He was a wonderfully satisfying man. He entered the service, & for some reason decided to get circumsied. When we reunited, he had grown, but was not as satisfying.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 02:17 AM

Actually, bobad, there are some women who are undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, at their own request, because of a strongly unfavorable genetic predisposition to breast cancer. (one article, and another article.) It's still controversial.

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of circumcision, just in favor of backing up arguments with facts.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:17 AM

Not so long ago, surgeons regularly removed and tossed the appendix, when doing other abdominal surgery, just in case the patient might get appendicitus some time in the future.

Apparently that does not happen now if the appendix is healthy. As it turns out, the appendix is a very useful part to have about, because it can be used in future reconstructive surgery of the bladder and other related parts in the patient. Perhaps the jokes about using foreskins in reconstructive surgery are not that far fetched. LOL

Also it has been discovered recently, that the appendix also serves a very important function during fetal development and in young adults, with regard to the immune system. So much for vistigial or superfluous bits. I'm certain we haven't quite learrned all there is to know about the wonderous design of the human body.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: alison
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 04:24 AM

well as a midwife I talk to mums each week going through the "should I or shouldn't I?" questions......

back in Ireland we didn't do circs on babies - they were only done for medical reasons on older kids (2-5 years) & under general anaesthetic........so it was a bit of a shock when I came to Oz and found it was done regularly.... & even more when they said "its your job to hold the bub down while the baby does it" - 14 years later and I can say I still haven't had to do that!

the reason parents give for doing it which really annoys me is "I'm going to have it done so he looks like his dad" - I've got pubes & boobs..... doesn't seem to worry my daughter at all that we look different!! *grin*

as to the question of what do women prefer?........ don't care as long as he knows what to do with it!!! but I will say that circ-ed in my experience aren't so sensitive & tend to last longer........ mind you on those occasions when you just want to get to sleep......... hahaha


slainte

alison

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:28 AM

Interesting, Kaleea. Can't find the webpage right now, but I was reading yesterday how circumcision was often performed on ancient Egyptian, African, and Middle Eastern armies just prior to battle, to protect the men from diseases. Apparently certain painful penile infections were quite a problem in those dry, hot, desert countries - sometimes to the point of taking out whole armies. And to this day, American soldiers line up for circumcision before being sent overseas (the Gulf War, Vietnam).

Someone mentioned that the foreskin evolved in apes and early hominids to protect the glans while running through tall grasses. Found a couple references to that, including this one

    "The foreskin is a remnant of earlier stages of evolution (much as the appendix is) where it was necessary to protect the glans from abrasion from undergrowth and tree branches. Now that man travels on 2 legs rather than 4 and is generally clothed the foreskin serves no further purpose.
      
    The presence of a foreskin can lead to phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, urethritis, retained smegma, a higher risk for penile and cervical cancer, and a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS."

Other 'experts' claim that once humans learned to make clothing, the foreskin became redundant. Hmmm .... while I have no doubt about hygiene and protection against disease, I question the long grasses bit - not only because of what Mark just said about recently-discovered purposes of the appendix (thanks, Mark! Very cool!) but if that's the case, why then do elephants and horses have foreskins? Must be some mighty tall grasses in those locales!

There's some pretty ridiculous claims on both pro and anti-circumcision sites ie circumcision reduces "bathroom splatter"!?!
HA! :-D After living in an all-male household for almost 30 years, I can tell you without doubt that scuplted guys splatter all over too. Especially very young little sculpted guys.

Peace, that's some pic! :-O   I do see why you shave your beard! ANd let it hereby be known that notwithstanding all the evidence that women sacrifice so much more than men to pass on their genes, men's sacrifices in so many other areas of community life (and death) have been duly noted and are very much appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 08:11 AM

Mark

One big difference there - those women who have prophylactic mastectomies make that decision themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:01 AM

bobad, circumcision is much easier and less risky in infancy than it is later in life. And the foreskin presents problems for hygiene and disease in infancy too. So if it were my own body, I'd much rather have it done sooner than later. Even if this meant that my parents made the decision on my behalf.

The procedure is much cheaper in infancy as well ... although in Canada that's not a concern.   Circumcision is covered by the gov't, like most other forms of surgery.

Apparently, for a few decades after WWII, neonatal circumcisions were performed routinely on all boys in Canadian hospitals. That's why most people I know are circumcised. Things changed in 1982 though - the same year my youngest sons were born - when the Canadian Paediatric Society declared The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Click here for more info from the Canadian Paediatric Society re male circumcision; including these conclusions:

"We undertook this literature review to consider whether the CPS should change its position on routine neonatal circumcision from that stated in 1982. The review led us to conclude the following.

* There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%.
   
* The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision.
   
* Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required.
   
* More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed.
   
* Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood.
   
* There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases.
   
* When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief.
   
* The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed.
   
* When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:18 AM

Gypsies, tramps and thieves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:21 AM

Pardon me, I just read that circumcisions - as well as eye examinations, wart removal and a number of other procedures - were "delisted" from OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) in 1994. And in 2005, even more health services have been delisted, including physiotherapy and chiropractic. Patients must now pay 100% of these costs out of their own pockets.

WOw - I wonder what the dollar value of a circumcision is these days. If I'd had to fork out a thousand bucks X 3 way back in those less enlightened times, it would have presented quite the obstacle ....

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:25 AM

"Circumcision is covered by the gov't, like most other forms of surgery."

Medicare covers only circumcisions required for medical reasons, the most common one being a treatment for phimosis, or a tight foreskin.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:28 AM

" WOw - I wonder what the dollar value of a circumcision is these days."

In the 1970's, a series of studies persuaded most health-care practitioners that there is no medical indication for circumcision. Those studies moved British Columbia in 1984 to remove infant circumcision from its list of eligible procedures under its medicare plan. Quebec and Alberta followed suit in 1987, and Ontario last October. Most clinics and hospitals in those four provinces now charge between $80 and $135 for an infant circumcision.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:36 AM

Vaginas: pros and cons. Tell us which YOU prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Dosanjh
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:41 AM

"Medicare covers only circumcisions required for medical reasons, the most common one being a treatment for phimosis, or a tight foreskin."

If you're speaking about the Canadian system, then what Medicare covers varies from province to province.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM

GUEST, in my inexpert opinion and quite limited experience, there's an important difference between a vagina and a prepuce. To the best of my knowledge, the one is still a prerequisite for sexual intercourse, while the other is not.

I'm sure you can figure out which is which.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:24 AM

Lerts talk about who prefers which kind of vagina. Types, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 12:25 PM

Ok, lerts. Fill yer boots, GUEST!

You'll attract more attention on a new thread, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM

As usual, dianavan shows how complete of a Jew hater she is. That, and a feminist pig.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM

Thank you for sharing your insights with us, Martin Gibson.

It's obvious to all that when you were circumcised, the moyl threw away the wrong part.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,9999
Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:08 PM

Judging by some posts from both males and females, the best parts of a few went either down their father's pants or out the window after the cut.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:10 PM

FROM RITUAL TO SCIENCE: THE MEDICAL TRANSFORMATION OF CIRCUMCISION IN AMERICA

The article provides a historical view. You'll find that circumcision once was recommended for epilepsy, lunacy, chorea, hernia, orthopedic problems, cancer,...

BTW, the article is a decade old which doesn't matter for the medical history part. But the remarks on the contemporary state of the art are to be read with that in mind. For instance, he complains that the AIDS studies done were only retrospective studies and therefore methodologically flawed. Meanwhile there are also prospective studies (for instance SCIENCE, Vol 309, Issue 5736, 860 , 5 August 2005).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:51 PM

The only beneficial outcome of circumcism I am aware of is the slicing and culturing of discarded foreskins to produce temporary skin for burn victims. One foreskin can grow up to a couple hundred sq. yards of skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM

Well, the papers today are full of research which appears to show that circumcision is remarkably effective at stopping you getting HIV/Aids, at least from heterosexual sex. That sounds like a significant benefit in anybody's book. Mind you, I'm not totally convinced: I believe the research was done on adults who had been circumcised, and covered a couple of years after the operation. Maybe they were just a bit sore, so didn't bother about much activity for a while?

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:46 PM

Circumcision is no guarantee of not getting heterosexual HIV/AIDS. It is foolish for anyone, male or female, circumcised or not, to have unprotected sex (sex without a condom) with multiple partners.

Promoting the idea that being circumcised protects people from getting (and more importantly, transmitting) HIV/AIDS is incredibly irresponsible. My advice to my son, from the time he was old enough to understand, has been, don't have unprotected sex with multiple partners, and don't have unprotected sex with anyone who has had any other partners besides him. This means, of course, don't have unprotected sex with anyone with whom you are not in a long term committed relationship.

And if he follows this advice, whether or not he is circumcised becomes completely irrelevant from the standpoint of contracting and/or transmitting HIV/AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

Body piercing wimps, burn design wankers and self inflicted bullet wound wierdos stand aside, make way for men with real guts...

Men with EXTREME circumcisions.
EC - the ultimate in self mutillation is only surpassed by the Ultra EC...yet not to be outdone a rare few have opted for the yearly UCH aka YUEC.

Getting a yearly UEC every hour would be a YEUCH.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM

Nobody is seriously claiming that circumcision prevents getting AIDS. The claims are about a risk reduction, not more and not less.

In that recent study in SCIENCE I have referenced above 3274 South African men considering circumcision were split in two equally large groups, one was then circumcised, the other not. At a follow up after two years, 20 in the circumcised group tested positive for HIV, and 49 in the uncircumcised group. The self reported sex patterns were comparable.

Now, if you want to make this difference of 29 look big you report the relative risk reduction for it is 61 %. If you want to make this difference look small you report the absolute risk reduction which is close to but less than 1 %.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:00 PM

Risk for contracting/transmitting HIV/AIDS should not be linked in any way to someone's decision about whether or not to be circumcised. There just shouldn't be any connection there whatever. If someone is thinking along those lines, it means that they are thinking about having unprotected sex with multiple partners. People should not be encouraged in any way to do this. Anyone who sponsors such a study and allows it to be used as a part of trying to promote the practice of circumcision is behaving very irresponsibly. If people are going to consider circumcision as an option, they should be doing it for other reasons. HIV/AIDS should not be one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:21 PM

Risk for contracting/transmitting HIV/AIDS should not be linked in any way to someone's decision about whether or not to be circumcised. There just shouldn't be any connection there whatever. (Carol)

Carol, you are talking nonsense. Whether the relative risk is related to circumcision or not is an empirical question and not a question of political expedience or personal preferences. Facts (if they are corroborated, for up til now it's just one prospective study) and evaluation should never be muddled.

I always prefer knowledge to a state of not knowing. What I make of the facts and the knowledge is something entirely different.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:40 PM

You're the one who is talking nonesense, Wolfgang. People use that kind of information as justification for things all the time. Just look at this thread as an example. There are several posts on this thread by people suggesting that prevention of HIV/AIDS is a good justification for circumcision. Prevention of HIV/AIDS should NEVER be used as justification for circumcision, but we see people right here in this thread who are using it that way.

And that is the only thing I am disagreeing with. I don't disagree with the results of the studies. But I do disagree with anyone who uses the results of the studies to suggest that people can use prevention of HIV/AIDS as a justification for circumcision. To do that is highly irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: gnu
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM

280 posts! WOW! That's a lot of dickering around.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 02:56 PM

CarolC: if uncircumcised sex is being shown to lead to the spread of HIV/Aids, it seems to me an incredibly sensible thing to consider encouraging circumcision. You call that irresponsible...I really can't see why. It is just the same with condoms: their use prevents the spread of infection, so use them. Pretty obvious isn't it? Of course, in some idealised world, people wouldn't be having sex with the wrong people....but we are dealing with human beings here.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

The only thing that should be taught about preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS is that nothing can guarantee that it won't be contracted and spread except the use of condoms and/or sex with only one long-term partner. Anything else is completely irresponsible, and encourages irresponsible behavior.

The only reason someone would get circumcised for the purpose of preventing HIV/AIDS would be if they intended to have unprotected sex with multiple partners. Otherwise they would have zero risk of contracting HIV/AIDS through sexual contact. If you suggest that they get circumcised for that purpose, you are encouraging them to have unprotected sex with multiple partners (otherwise circumcision for that reason would be irrelevant).

That's just stupid. You and Wolfgang really ought to know better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 04:54 PM

Agreed CarolC

Sort of like saying, "I think I'll deliberately poke my eye out with a sharp stick. If I wear my sunglasses I might miss."

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:23 PM

Yes, and it's also like putting a six shooter with only one bullet in it up to your sexual parners' heads and saying, "if I pull the trigger, there's only a one in six chance that I'll kill you".

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:32 PM

Better analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 05:56 PM

Having unprotected sex means you not only 'sleep' with that person, but with every other person that individual has slept with, and they have slept with, etc. Basically, it's a really stupid idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:26 PM

Eat you heart out Mr. Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:56 PM

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Till it's gone
They take off a little slice
And you miss out on a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:57 PM

The cabin boy, the cabin boy, the dirty little nipper...

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:34 AM

CarolC: I'm afraid you haven't understood what's going on here medically. You absolutely do not get HIV by having sex with mutiple partners. You get it on the occasion you have sex with one partner, who is infected himself/herself. and they transmit the infection to you. You may then, of course, pass it on if you go on to have sex with someone else. But when you get it, you get it from sex with one partner. If you use a condom on that occasion you reduce the risk. Likewise, this modern research is suggesting you may reduce the risk if you are circumcised. It is not at all irresponsible to do this kind of research, or to publicise and discuss the results. It would, of course, be grossly irresponsible to recommend getting circumcised as a reliable means of avoiding getting, or passing on, any sexually transmitted disease: because it's not very effective!.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Tasteless
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:17 AM

PHEWWW! Be a man, be a reeeaaal man ... and I'll clean you up a bit, bobad

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:09 PM

Greg, you are not understanding what I am saying. Either that, or you are deliberately missing the point.

If you are going to have multiple partners, you should always use a condom.

If you are in a long term committed relationship, and if you have had any sexual partners prior to the one with whom you are sexually involved currently, you (and your partner, if he or she has also been sexually involved with anyone prior to you) should be immediately tested for HIV/AIDS, and again in about six to nine months (incubation time). You should use a condom until both tests come back negative for both of you. Then, as long as both you and your partner remain only sexually active with each other, and no one else, you can safely have unprotected sex (assuming neither of you uses injectible drugs or has received any tainted blood through a blood transfusion, or has been accidently pricked with a contaminated needle, or has engaged in any other kinds of non-sexual high risk (for HIV/AIDS) behavior.

Aside from complete abstinance, this is the ONLY way to prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS through sexual contact. Everything else is just a stupid game of Russian roulette.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:15 PM

...but regardless of which of the above things you do, getting circumcised (or not getting circumcised) is completely irrelevant, unless you plan to have unprotected sex with anyone you are not in a committed relationship with (and whom you are confident has not cheated on you). If you are sexually active and not in a long term committed relationship, it can be safely assumed that you are having sex with multiple partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:15 PM

One last point on your post, Greg...

While you only need one partner to contract HIV/AIDS, the sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS (once you have contracted it) requires that you have sex with more than one partner (multiple partners). First, the person from whom you got it, and then the one to whom you give it.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: greg stephens
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM

You are repeating precisely the point I made, Carol. You get it from ONE person. You may then pass it on to several, if you misbehave appropriately. I repeat, you get it from contact with one person, and only one person. Condoms are very good for preventing this. Circumcision, not too good at all, but significantly so statistically, according to the latest research. There is nothin whatsoever responsible in drawing people's attentions tot hese basic facts of life. Quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:09 PM

I never suggested otherwise, Greg. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I mention both contracting as well as TRANSMITTING the desease in reference to multiple partners.

But all of this has nothing whatever to do with the actual point I am trying to make, which is and has been the FACT that circumcision (being circumcised or not being circumcised) is totally irrelevant to the issue of preventing the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS, and the question of whether or not to circumsize should NEVER be linked to the issue of preventing the transmission and spread of HIV/AIDS, because it gives people a false sense of security and encourages risky behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:16 PM

This part...

I never suggested otherwise, Greg. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I mention both contracting as well as TRANSMITTING the desease in reference to multiple partners.

Is in reference to your suggestion that one only gets HIV/AIDS from one person... NOT in reference to your suggestion that it is responsible behavior to make connections between getting circumcised and spreading HIV/AIDS.

I repeat... it is highly irresponsible to give anyone the idea that they are protected from contracting (and tranmsmitting) HIV/AIDS by getting circumcised because it is completely untrue that being circumcised protects anyone from contracting and transmitting HIV/AIDS. It may reduce your chances, but it doesn NOT protect you.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: bobad
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:54 PM

I agree with the points you are making CarolC but I have one teeny tiny nit to pick, and that is in regards to this statement "assuming neither of you uses injectible drugs". The risk is not in injecting drugs but in the sharing of the paraphernalia used in their injectiion.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:41 PM

A good point, bobad, but one that I think would be lost on the sexual partner of someone who contracted HIV/AIDS in that way. I understand the need for accuracy, but I also think we can get too bogged down with the nit picking and lose sight of the mose important message, which is that our behavior can have very serious consequenses for other people as well as ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
From: GUEST,Ian UK
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM

Well I`ve not been done, and it seems perfectly natural to me. I was born with it and I still have it.

Now I could argue that teeth really are "a design fault" that need improving upon, but what the hell, I believe in evolution, so I`m sure over the following centuries teeth will improve, and willies will change. (Grow bigger and have more staying power..says the wife!)