Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?

[Blue Bubble]

I consider circumcision (both male and female) to be abhorrent and barbaric.

Can any rational thinker consider it otherwise ?

[Capsid]

There is some evidence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16231970&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum)that male circumcision can reduces HIV infection risk.

[Melendwyr]

That doesn't justify removing a large portion of the penile skin, and essentially all of a specialized section of that skin.

Condoms, condoms, condoms.

[uruk]

I heard of a report that said that one in five hundred circumcisions results in a serious medical problem. I'll try to find it and post a link.

But on the other hand I suffer from a condition called Phimosis. Google it if you "really" want to know what that means. (because you probably really don't want to know what it means)

[ImaginalDisc]

I heard of a report that said that one in five hundred circumcisions results in a serious medical problem. I'll try to find it and post a link.

But on the other hand I suffer from a condition called Phimosis. Google it if you "really" want to know what that means. (because you probably really don't want to know what it means)

Done.

"True" phimosis—better termed "preputial stenosis," because "phimosis" has so many different definitions it now is devoid of any useful meaning—occurs in less than 2% of intact males. The incidence of preputial stenosis in circumcised men is actually similar.

Of these 2%, 85–95% will respond to topical steroids. Of those who fail this, at least 75% will respond to stretching under local anesthesia, either manually or with a balloon. The arithmetic is simple: At the very most 7 boys in 10,000 may need surgery for preputial stenosis. No wonder the Canadian Paediatric Society calls circumcision an "obsolete" procedure!


http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/


Blue Bubble, are you aking about circumcision in general, or child and infantile circumcsision specifically? An adult getting elective operation performed, why does the phrase "Pimp My Genitals" come to mind, is an informed and consenting patient. An infant getting their bits whacked is another matter.

[bzimmer4]

I consider circumcision (both male and female) to be abhorrent and barbaric.

Can any rational thinker consider it otherwise ?

The short answer is "Yes." The subject is still highly controversial within the pediatrics community, with substantial opinion on both sides. Rather than state all the arguments, go to the American Academy of Pediatrics (they won't let me post the URL) and search for "circumcision." Very enlightening. Right or wrong, it's definitely controversial.

You must distinguish between newborn male circumcision and female genital mutilation. You can't even call the latter "circumcision" because there is no "foreskin" to remove. The former is a controversial medical procedure. The latter isn't.

BZ MD

[Blue Bubble]

Blue Bubble, are you asking about circumcision in general, or child and infantile circumcision specifically? An adult getting elective operation performed, why does the phrase "Pimp My Genitals" come to mind, is an informed and consenting patient. An infant getting their bits whacked is another matter.
I'm actually targetting both. Infant circumcision is blatantly criminal, in my opinion. As to adult circumcision, this is why I asked whether a rational thinker could defend it.

[Blue Bubble]

You must distinguish between newborn male circumcision and female genital mutilation. You can't even call the latter "circumcision" because there is no "foreskin" to remove. The former is a controversial medical procedure. The latter isn't.

BZ MD

Hmmm... "newborn male circumcision" and "female genital mutilation". In what way is the male circumcision not genital mutilation ?

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm actually targetting both. Infant circumcision is blatantly criminal, in my opinion. As to adult circumcision, this is why I asked whether a rational thinker could defend it.

An adult should be free to have their genitals coustomized to whatever form or configuration they please.

[Blue Bubble]

An adult should be free to have their genitals customized to whatever form or configuration they please.

Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/625680.stm

This might be what you recall. A doctor in Scotland carried out two amputations of healthy limbs.

If the alternative is the patient carrying out a DIY amputation or killing themselves, then I can see circumstances where it would be justified.

[ImaginalDisc]

Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

There is no reason why a consenting adult shouldn't be free to do with their bodies what they please. Volunatirly having limbs removed, and voluntarily having a cosmetic alteration are wildly different. In the former case, I can't imagine the silliness that might result from someone vuluntarily having both legs amputated without a medical reason, and then requesting government assistance with purchasing a wheelchair, and finding a job.

[CurtC]

Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.

As far as I'm aware, the only downside is the risk of complications, which are pretty rare and not usually serious. It is in no way comparable to female genital mutilation (which destroys a woman's capacity to ejoy sexual intercourse, or even endure it comfortably), nor to losing a limb.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.

As far as I'm aware, the only downside is the risk of complications, which are pretty rare and not usually serious. It is in no way comparable to female genital mutilation (which destroys a woman's capacity to ejoy sexual intercourse, or even endure it comfortably), nor to losing a limb.

Carrying out a medical operation for purely social reasons is no big deal?

Can't agree with you there.

[CurtC]

Also, the Straight Dope article is balanced:

The Last Word on Circumcision (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/940805.html)

[shalomsteph]

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

I knew a couple, and they kept passing a yeast infection back and forth. (This was before Diflucan) He got circumcised as an adult. I guess it was not fun.

For the record, if we weren't Jewish, my son wouldn't be circumcised. I only had it done because of tradition and because I did not want him to be ostracized as a non-circumcised man in a Jewish community. Now, though, there is a growing movement within the Jewish community to NOT circumcise their boys. Slowly, people are coming around....

[CurtC]

Carrying out a medical operation for purely social reasons is no big deal?Yeah, I think it's no big deal. It's quicker, simpler, and easier than having a mole or wart removed.

[kuroyume0161]

As I responded in the forum for P&T's BS episode about this - I don't think there is enough positive evidence to support circumcision except under necessary circumstances. And the fact that the infant can have no say in this procedure makes it even worse. Tonsils are things that can get infected and are often removed early in life, why don't we just start removing them as well just after birth. And the appendix to boot. And one day you might get glaucoma, so let's remove the eyes. Testicular cancer, the testicles. Slippery slope - but so are the defenses of circumcision.

[shecky]

Hmmm... "newborn male circumcision" and "female genital mutilation". In what way is the male circumcision not genital mutilation ?

The penis remains completely functional after the procedure. That would not make it mutilation in my book. No more than, say, a appendectomy is mutilation of the body.

Equating the practice of female and male circumcision doesn't seem completely rational to me.

[kuroyume0161]

The penis remains functional after the procedure (there are studies suggesting that some function is removed with the foreskin).

Who are we to say what function the foreskin may not have that hasn't been determined yet? New revelations show that the appendix isn't quite as useless as once considered. Lopping off body parts makes no sense. The only part needing to be cut during birth is the umbilical cord and I think that there is fair reason for that procedure.

[Darat]

The penis remains completely functional after the procedure. That would not make it mutilation in my book. No more than, say, a appendectomy is mutilation of the body.

Equating the practice of female and male circumcision doesn't seem completely rational to me.


An appendectomy is carried out for medical reasons. There is no* medical reason for removing the foreskin in the vast majority of cases (although of course some circumcisions are carried out for medical reasons). To support circumcision for religious or societal reasons is to support the physical mutilation of a non-consenting person. Would you accept that say removing the ear lobes of a baby would be OK if some parents believed in doing so for religious reasons? Or other non-harmful physical mutilations?


*Albeit some initial research has demonstrated that it may reduce infection rates of HIV in some parts of Africa.

[geni]

The penis remains completely functional after the procedure.


That is open to question.

[brodski]

The penis remains completely functional after the procedure. That would not make it mutilation in my book. No more than, say, a appendectomy is mutilation of the body.

Equating the practice of female and male circumcision doesn't seem completely rational to me.

but of course the penis does not remain fully functional, the foreskin provides a protective sheath for the glans, as well as having plenty of nerve endings itself. Circumcision can seriously reduce the sensation in the penis. Admit idly many forms of FGM are far far more serious than circumcision, but there aer other forms which are more similar.

However I cannot see any justification for permanently removing a fully functional part of an infant, for cultural or cosmetic reasons.

An appendectomy is not a mutilation, as the appendix has no remaining function, and can pose a life threatening risk to a person. The foreskin has a function, and I dont think you could point to any one who ever died from having a foreskin.
Also, I'm not aware of any society which rottenly removes the appendix from a child as a preventive measure.

Routine infant circumcision is unnecessary surgery, would you any other support irreversible "cosmetic" or "cultural" surgery performed on infants who cannot give consent?


And in the end it has to come down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[ImaginalDisc]

I'd like to poin out that most of the complications risks of male circumcsision arrise because it's done at infancy, when the foreskin is adhered to the glads, and circumcsision is much more difficult than it would be on an adult penis.

[CurtC]

I don't want to sound like I'm adampantly pro-circumcision or anything, but I feel like there is not a lot of balance in this discussion. Circumcision is much less traumatic and much easier when performed on an infant than with an adult. The link I posted earlier (Straight Dope) says "Circumcision after infancy is far more traumatic and expensive and has a much higher rate of complications than infant circumcision."

And geni, I'm not aware of anything indicating that a circumcised penis is less than completely functional. Uruk (see post #4) might argue the other way.

[homer]

Error Error

[homer]

Never in a Woman seldom in a Man.
Countries that perform this 'operation ' on young girls should be thrown out of the UN and all trade , contact etc banned until they stop this dreadful practice . Time to get tough with these morons .

[Melendwyr]

Yeah, I think it's no big deal. It's quicker, simpler, and easier than having a mole or wart removed. In adults? Certainly not. The only reason it's considered easier with infants is that they heal so much faster (and they can't complain of pain).

And considering that you're removing essentially the entire mucuous membrane of the penis... it seems clear that this is considered minor only because it's traditionally accepted.

[Melendwyr]

I don't want to sound like I'm adampantly pro-circumcision or anything, but I feel like there is not a lot of balance in this discussion. You mean you don't think there's adequate representation of the perspective you favor. "Balance" is meaningless, otherwise.

Circumcision is much less traumatic and much easier when performed on an infant than with an adult. But why should it be performed at all?

And geni, I'm not aware of anything indicating that a circumcised penis is less than completely functional. Uruk (see post #4) might argue the other way. Really? How much lubrication does a circumcised penis produce?

[jj]

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

Oh, say, melanoma of the foreskin? Phimosis (as mentioned above)? Infection? ...

[Art Vandelay]

You must distinguish between newborn male circumcision and female genital mutilation. You can't even call the latter "circumcision" because there is no "foreskin" to remove. The former is a controversial medical procedure. The latter isn't.It seems to me that the clitoral hood is somewhat analogous to the foreskin.

[brodski]

Oh, say, melanoma of the foreskin? Phimosis (as mentioned above)? Infection? ...
no one here is arguing against medically necessary circumcision, its routine and especially infant circumcision which I see as pretty much indefensible. there is an argument that a desire for unnecessary cosmetic surgery may be "irrational", but that is a different debate entirely.

[geni]

And geni, I'm not aware of anything indicating that a circumcised penis is less than completely functional.

30 seconds of googleing would have told you otherwise. Of course you may not accept that evidence but it does exist:

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann2/

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/lakshmanan/

[luchog]

Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.

As far as I'm aware, the only downside is the risk of complications, which are pretty rare and not usually serious. It is in no way comparable to female genital mutilation (which destroys a woman's capacity to ejoy sexual intercourse, or even endure it comfortably), nor to losing a limb.
According the American Cancer Society, you're wrong, and there's no statistically significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised population. The biggest significant risk is unprotected sexual activity (exposure to HPV).

Women are roughly 10 times more likely to get labial cancer than men are to get penile cancer. The risk of male breast cancer is significantly higher than penile cancer.

[Bikewer]

There is a fairly common birth defect (hypospadous) in which the foreskin is normally used as a tissue supply for reconstructing the urethra. I had this done back in the 50s, required a series of operations at the time. (They are probably more efficient now) Mine seems to work OK...

I suppose you could consider it to be a form of "body modification", akin to piercings or tatooing in the case of males. The religious component is irrational, of course, but it's fairly widespread even amongst primitive peoples.

The female version is more aptly referred to as "genital mutilation", and normally involvs removal of the entire clitoris, as well as in some cases essentially sewing the labia closed. A reprehensible practice amongst peoples who still see women as property.

[shalomsteph]

I am not a huge advocate of circumcision, HOWEVER, comparing it to female genital mutiliation is ridiculous, and shows how ignorant people are about the practice of FGM. It is usually performed on young girls to preteen age, without anesthesia, and involves removing the clitoris and the labia major, then sewing it shut. (Leaving a small hole for urination and mensturation) Women who undergo this RARELY experience pleasure from sex. I have never met a circumcised man (or had sex with one) who did not experience pleasure from sex.
If you want to debate whether or not circumcision should be performed, fine. But don't get ridiculous about it.

[Darat]

...snip...

The female version is more aptly referred to as "genital mutilation", and normally involvs removal of the entire clitoris, as well as in some cases essentially sewing the labia closed. A reprehensible practice amongst peoples who still see women as property.

Circumcision is genital mutilation, the fact it has it's own "acceptable" word just shows how embodied this assault is in many of our societies and cultures. Obviously and thankfully it is not mutilation to the same horrendous degree as what is inflicted on many women in other cultures that also allow physical mutilation to be carried out on non-consenting babies.

[geni]

I am not a huge advocate of circumcision, HOWEVER, comparing it to female genital mutiliation is ridiculous, and shows how ignorant people are about the practice of FGM. It is usually performed on young girls to preteen age, without anesthesia, and involves removing the clitoris and the labia major, then sewing it shut. (Leaving a small hole for urination and mensturation) Women who undergo this RARELY experience pleasure from sex.


That is only one form of FGM:

http://www.unfpa.org/gender/faq_fgc.htm#4

[Darat]

I am not a huge advocate of circumcision, HOWEVER, comparing it to female genital mutiliation is ridiculous, and shows how ignorant people are about the practice of FGM. It is usually performed on young girls to preteen age, without anesthesia, and involves removing the clitoris and the labia major, then sewing it shut. (Leaving a small hole for urination and mensturation) Women who undergo this RARELY experience pleasure from sex. I have never met a circumcised man (or had sex with one) who did not experience pleasure from sex.
If you want to debate whether or not circumcision should be performed, fine. But don't get ridiculous about it.

As I said above in degree it is different however it is still genital mutilation for no rational reason. Part of the reason I believe it is still carried out is because the mutilation part of it is hidden behind a socially acceptable word - circumcision.

If parents were asked "Do you want us to assault your baby and mutilate his genitals?" I am sure many who would answer yes to "Do you want you baby circumcised?" would answer no.

[Darat]

Thanks for the link Geni - it shows how right Orwell was...

".... Recently, some organizations have opted to use the more neutral term ‘Female Genital Cutting’. This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term ‘mutilation’ demeaning since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers. The use of judgmental terminology bears the risk of creating a backlash, thus possibly causing an alienation of communities that practice FGC or even causing an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGC. In this respect it should be noted that the Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices (ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights) recently called for tact and patience regarding FGC eradication activities and warned against the dangers of demonizing cultures under cover of condemning practices harmful to women and girls (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/14)."

Yep let’s rename it to something that doesn't offend! That's rubbish and is trying to use words to hide the real meaning - it is mutilation (whether practiced on men or women).

[Iacchus]

I consider circumcision (both male and female) to be abhorrent and barbaric.

Can any rational thinker consider it otherwise ?Maybe it has something to do with the snake in the Garden of Eden? You know, how serpents shed their skin? Isn't that kind of what the darn thing looks like anyway, the head of a snake? I also understand that in some cultures the serpent is revered, and considered a sign of immortality. Sound similar to the covenant God made with the children of Israel perhaps? Maybe the whole thing is there to serve as a reminder of the fall?

[Soapy Sam]

I'm with Darat et al. This is purely a fashionable custom, child mutilation considered socially acceptable in some societies including the USA-largely because it's practised on infants who cannot protest.
Leave it on. If they want to cut it off when they are adults, that's their business.
The HIV argument IS interesting, but came long after the fashion.
As for the hygiene argument, that's rank puritan hogwash. We don't cut a kid's ears off because he might not wash behind them.

[shecky]

Seems it can still be said that the penis remains fully functional after circumcision. Certainly not for the squeamish, but the comparison with FGM, or assertion that harm is done is over the top.

I don't really buy the notion that the foreskin is very useful as a protective sheath. I suspect as adolescence hits, any protection is nullified by frequent self stimulation. You'd think all that rubbing would destroy such a sensitive gland.

[Melendwyr]

Seems it can still be said that the penis remains fully functional after circumcision. What exactly would make it non-functional in your eyes?

[logical muse]

If it wasn't for my foreskin I'd have nothing to trip over on my way to the bathroom in the morning.

ETA: btw, I say let them do it as adults if they want, but not to poor babies and kids.

[bignickel]

What exactly would make it non-functional in your eyes?

Well, if males had done to them what females who experiance genital mutilation usually have done to them, then it would be non-functional in that most of it would be missing. Especially the tip ie anywhere that gives sexual pleasure.

[shalomsteph]

I haven't heard one circumcised man say he doesn't enjoy sex because he was circumcised. This whole argument is ridiculous. The only thing I can equate it with is little baby girls getting their ears pierced. No one has boards about that...

Oh, I hate to bring up the anti-Semitism thing, but if you made it illegal, that would be...ummm....

[Melendwyr]

Well, if males had done to them what females who experiance genital mutilation usually have done to them, then it would be non-functional in that most of it would be missing. Especially the tip ie anywhere that gives sexual pleasure. I hate to break it to you, but studies have confirmed that men are perfectly capable of sexual functioning without any genital stimulation or response whatsoever. Technically, amputation wouldn't make men "non-functional".

Yet somehow I don't think you'd accept that as a fully functional system. Am I wrong?

[Melendwyr]

The only thing I can equate it with is little baby girls getting their ears pierced. People often get their ears pierced as adults. People sometimes are circumcized as adults. Shall we compare the two?

[ImaginalDisc]

I haven't heard one circumcised man say he doesn't enjoy sex because he was circumcised. This whole argument is ridiculous. The only thing I can equate it with is little baby girls getting their ears pierced. No one has boards about that...

Oh, I hate to bring up the anti-Semitism thing, but if you made it illegal, that would be...ummm....

I know several men who say that they wish they hadn't have been circumcised as infants, and now think their penises are numb to some degree as a result.

[Melendwyr]

I know several men who say that they wish they hadn't have been circumcised as infants, and how think their penises are numb to some degree as a result. Sssh! Clearly they're anti-Semitic.

[Soapy Sam]

Actually, I think they are validly comparable.
I detest seeing little girls (do they do it to little boys too these days?) with pierced ears. Little kids aren't mini adults and shouldn't be required to look like them.
Making holes in people, or cutting bits off them, is not nice. Making holes in people who can't say no is bullying.

If adults want to make holes in themselves, that's up to them.

[bignickel]

I hate to break it to you, but studies have confirmed that men are perfectly capable of sexual functioning without any genital stimulation or response whatsoever. Technically, amputation wouldn't make men "non-functional".

Yet somehow I don't think you'd accept that as a fully functional system. Am I wrong?

I hate to break it to you, but just about any man who lost the most important part of Mr. Happy ie the part that gives SEXUAL PLEASURE, would consider it very non-functional, or at best, un-functional.

Unless the only function that you consider is involved in the production of babies, Melendwyr?

[Melendwyr]

They're not comparable, because small holes in ears grow closed if they're not kept open. Foreskins (and the associated nerves and membranes) do not regrow.

[Melendwyr]

I hate to break it to you, but just about any man who lost the most important part of Mr. Happy ie the part that gives SEXUAL PLEASURE, would consider it very non-functional, or at best, un-functional.

Unless the only function that you consider is involved in the production of babies, Melendwyr? Nope. I'm talking physical pleasure and orgasm. None of it actually requires a penis.

[Melendwyr]

I hate to break it to you, but just about any man who lost the most important part of Mr. Happy ie the part that gives SEXUAL PLEASURE, would consider it very non-functional, or at best, un-functional. I just realized something.

Are you circumcized, bignickel? Because men who aren't generally don't think the glans is the only part of the penis that gives pleasure. The most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum, is removed in circumcision.

[shalomsteph]

They're not comparable, because small holes in ears grow closed if they're not kept open. Foreskins (and the associated nerves and membranes) do not regrow.

Actually, there are ways for men to stretch out their foreskin so it is uncircumcised again. I saw it on Penn & Teller.

I am not defending either, but I think the whole debate is ridiculous, and comparing taking a tiny piece of skin from an infant to taking the entire genitalia and pleasure sensors off of a young girl is beyond ignorant.

As I said earlier, if I weren't Jewish, I wouldn't have gotten my son circumcised. I didn't want to do it...my non-Jewish husband was the one who wouldn't shut up about getting it done.

[Rasmus]

I hate to break it to you, but just about any man who lost the most important part of Mr. Happy ie the part that gives SEXUAL PLEASURE, would consider it very non-functional, or at best, un-functional.

Might that be because these men have a way of comparing the difference?

And because, I'd think, because the differecne would be a lot bigger than with just a missing foreskin?

I have no doubt that it would be a lot less pleasurable - but do these men usually stop having sex alltogether? (On grounds that they don't enjoy the experiance anymore, as compared to being ashamed or maybe experiencing pain, of course.)

Rasmus.

[Melendwyr]

Actually, there are ways for men to stretch out their foreskin so it is uncircumcised again. No. I've heard of methods that stretch the remaining shaft skin, but that no more reverses circumcision than getting a glass eye cures blindness - it's strictly cosmetic.

I am not defending either, but I think the whole debate is ridiculous, and comparing taking a tiny piece of skin from an infant to taking the entire genitalia and pleasure sensors off of a young girl is beyond ignorant. It's a quarter of the total penile skin, shalomsteph. How does that constitute "tiny"?

As I said earlier, if I weren't Jewish, I wouldn't have gotten my son circumcised. I didn't want to do it...my non-Jewish husband was the one who wouldn't shut up about getting it done. In regions where female genital mutilation is common, it's often the girls' mothers who arrange for it to be done.

[ysabella]

I don't think anybody here has suggested making it illegal. The OP was wondering about rational reasons to circumcise.

So far, we have a few reasons for it: possible slightly reduced susceptibility to HIV transmission according to some studies (and that implies unprotected sex anyway? I think?), potential avoidance of extremely rare cancer, and of course sometimes it's medically necessary.
I can think of a couple more: someone may think it looks nicer cut, or think that other people will find it more attractive that way. Also, some studies indicate that uncircumsized boys have slightly less UTIs (urinary tract infections).

I honestly think that neither the HIV nor cancer issues are statistically significant, when you stack them up against cutting off skin, with nerves in it, especially from a sensitive sexual organ. I could understand someone with an intense family history of that particular cancer choosing to circumcize at a certain age, though, the way some women have had prophylactic mastectomies.

Aestheticswise, I guess that's personal, or you might argue it's cultural. But if someone met enough females who seemed to dislike his rollneck penis, he might have it cut on that rational basis. It would surprise me that any guy (at least in my own culture) would choose something that makes his penis the slightest bit smaller, though.

The UTI thing isn't clearly proven, and in any case, males just don't get UTIs much. So it's not a very important point. Incidentally, when young boys do have a problem, sometimes that's due to forcible retraction - some parents think they have to clean under the foreskin when it's not retracted yet, but it's better to leave it alone. Unrinsed soap or dirty bathwater can cause irritation and problems. It's not exactly bad hygiene, it's overzealous hygiene.

I do think foreskin removal may be analagous to the removal of the hood of the clitoris, as somebody said - consulting my New Well Pregnancy Book diagrams on fetal genital development. There are some adult women who choose to modify their genitals for better direct stimulation, for aesthetics, or to accomodate piercings, though, so maybe it works as a comparison. So the level of FGM we would have to use as a parallel would be removing the hood of the clitoris - not full-on labiectomy and infibulation.

I find this discussion interesting, by the way, since I'm having a son in a few more months. I plan to leave him intact.

[kedo1981]

Three rational reasons for Male circumcision

1. Personal Hygene (maybe English chicks like smegma, but round here they don’t)
2. Medical studies suggest that “the cut” helps prevent the spread of cervical cancer
3. A circumcised tool is less prone to premature ejaculation (again; medical studies)

Female genital mutilation has very little in common with male circumcision (except it involves the “pee pee” perhaps it’s your ignorance of female anatomy that makes you rant so), it is more a form of sexual imprisonment in that the clitoris is cut away and the intent is to make the sex act non pleasurable and often painful.

[shalomsteph]

Might that be because these men have a way of comparing the difference?

And because, I'd think, because the differecne would be a lot bigger than with just a missing foreskin?

I have no doubt that it would be a lot less pleasurable - but do these men usually stop having sex alltogether? (On grounds that they don't enjoy the experiance anymore, as compared to being ashamed or maybe experiencing pain, of course.)

Rasmus.

I know a few guys who got circed as adults (one because of Jewish conversion--not required, but he wanted to--and another do to a medical condition) I asked them if there was any difference in sexual pleasure or performance, and they both said no. The one with the medical problem said it was better. I know, it's hardly scientific, but that's all I have to go on.

I KNOW that if I didn't have a clitoris, I would never get turned on or orgasm. Men who are circumcised do not have that problem...;)

[Rasmus]

Three rational reasons for Male circumcision
1. Personal Hygene (maybe English chicks like smegma, but round here they don’t)

Pssssssst......

we wash!

But don't let anyone know that I let that out to you, please.

[Bikewer]

Way back when I was in the army, (mid 60s) circumcision was one of the few "elective" surgies the army would do for you. I was a medic, and for some reason there was a surprising level of interest in having the procedure done. We referred several GIs who wanted to get "cut".

I did not have any opportunity to ask any of them "why?"

[Rasmus]

I KNOW that if I didn't have a clitoris, I would never get turned on or orgasm. Men who are circumcised do not have that problem...;)

I don't think it is anywhere near reasonale to compare the degree of cruelty behind the two procedures, and I doubt that the majority of men are met with severe difficultiues because of it.

I am somewhat suprised that one of your two examples didn't notice a difference. That a neccesary medical treatment would lead to betterement is less suprising, though.

Rasmus.

[ysabella]

This is just my opinion, and I know this is anecdotal. But I am someone who has had both kinds attached to partners.

-- TMI Warning --

The texture in the head skin gets kind of leathery-feeling without the foreskin; with the foreskin, it's more like lips. The intact penis is bumpier in coitally-strategic places. It is more sensitive as well, more easily stimulated.
These are different partners, though, not one guy uncut and then later cut, so differences between individuals have to be considered.

----

In summary, I personally prefer the rollnecks.

[UrsulaV]

As an artist, I gotta say, the circumcised ones are a heckuva lot easier to draw.

Since a lot of the arguments flying both for and against seem subjective as hell, I figure I might as well add that to the pile.

I suspect "Chop your wang for art!" probably will not be a good slogan for the pro-circumcision campaign, though.

[CplFerro]

I consider circumcision (both male and female) to be abhorrent and barbaric.

Can any rational thinker consider it otherwise ?

No, they can't. It's completely unnecessary mutilation of an unconsenting person (a baby). All such genital mutilation of children should be banned. Religious Jews and other nuts can like it or lump it.

For those of age, the question of "doing as they please" gets trickier since there's the danger of sufficient immigration importing horrific practices like the FGM. Once enough such people arrive and form a ghetto, peer and parental pressure will assure the practise continues underground.

Adult males lacking a medical excuse who get circumcised strike me as slightly mentally unbalanced. How hard is it to keep your cock clean? Worried about HIV? Stay out of that part of town, mayhap.

[logical muse]

As an artist, I gotta say, the circumcised ones are a heckuva lot easier to draw.

Since a lot of the arguments flying both for and against seem subjective as hell, I figure I might as well add that to the pile.

I suspect "Chop your wang for art!" probably will not be a good slogan for the pro-circumcision campaign, though.
Apparently the photos of nude lady models for magazines such as playboy are retouched so as to remove 'unsightly' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy_%28magazine%29#Photo-editing) bits. Have we become so boring that everything we look at has to be aerodynamically sleek and teflon smooth?

At least in the playboy case the 'offending' bits are virtually, not surgically, removed.

[ysabella]

Three rational reasons for Male circumcision

1. Personal Hygene (maybe English chicks like smegma, but round here they don’t)
An unwashed cut penis is every bit as nasty as an unwashed uncut penis. Sweaty crotches are sweaty crotches.
2. Medical studies suggest that “the cut” helps prevent the spread of cervical cancer
This implies sharing one cut unprotected penis among several women is better than sharing one uncut unprotected penis among several women. So perhaps a guy who just plain refuses to wear a condom, but can find lots of women dumb enough to have unprotected sex with him, might have himself cut as a courtesy? Also, you haven't provided any indication as to whether it was statistically significant - if it's 4%...who cares?
3. A circumcised tool is less prone to premature ejaculation (again; medical studies)Can you provide some cites, please?

Female genital mutilation has very little in common with male circumcision (except it involves the “pee pee” perhaps it’s your ignorance of female anatomy that makes you rant so), it is more a form of sexual imprisonment in that the clitoris is cut away and the intent is to make the sex act non pleasurable and often painful.
Widespread infant circumcision in the United States may have started to try to prevent masturbation (http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm) and curtail sexual pleasure.

[kedo1981]

What is this washing you speak of?

[UrsulaV]

Have we become so boring that everything we look at has to be aerodynamically sleek and teflon smooth?

At least in the playboy case the 'offending' bits are virtually, not surgically, removed.

Tcha! Now we're making assumptions about what constitutes "easier to draw."

Now, I happen to like lumpy and textural things in general, and I paint a fair number of chunky fat deposits and concrete walls. I'd be happy to link to my gallery if you need examples, but modesty forbids such shameless plugging cold. I can assure you however, I do not generally spend a lot of time goin' crazy with the airbrush to get that nice inhuman sheen.

But if anything, it's the definition and specific, not-vague shape of the cut wang that's helpful! It's the lump at the end that makes it! My attempts to draw an uncircumcised penis mostly made me feel like I was drawing a flesh tube sock. It's a long blob without clear waypoints. Like spelling "banana," it can be hard to know when to stop.

The circumcised penis, on t'other hand, has a definite end point. You get to the end, there's the nice little mushroom shape, full stop, the pencil rests. It's like a exclamation point. The bump and the ridges and the weird texture is what makes it work! If anything, I'd say it's less streamlined, and it's that weird ridge and whatnot that gives the artful penis character!

...and that is way more enthusiastic than I EVER expected to wax on this topic, thank ya verra much.

Edit: Also, if you draw a lot of phallic rock formations, as I do, possessing a very juvenile sense of humor, they really gotta be circumcised, or everybody wonders what's up with all the giant tube worms.

[Art Vandelay]

I KNOW that if I didn't have a clitoris, I would never get turned on or orgasm. Men who are circumcised do not have that problem...;)I think I'd still get turned on if I didn't have a penis. If you didn't have a clitoral hood, what impact do you think that would have?

[ysabella]

No, they can't. It's completely unnecessary mutilation of an unconsenting person (a baby). All such genital mutilation of children should be banned. Religious Jews and other nuts can like it or lump it.
Heh. Okay, now someone has suggested outlawing it.:D

[ysabella]

Tcha! Now we're making assumptions about what constitutes "easier to draw."

Now, I happen to like lumpy and textural things in general, and I paint a fair number of chunky fat deposits and concrete walls. I'd be happy to link to my gallery if you need examples, but modesty forbids such shameless plugging cold. I can assure you however, I do not generally spend a lot of time goin' crazy with the airbrush to get that nice inhuman sheen.
Well, and airbrushed photos are too planar and two-dimensional. Trying to draw from a Playmate photo might be a pretty image, but it's not like trying to draw a naked human sitting in front of you.

...and that is way more enthusiastic than I EVER expected to wax on this topic, thank ya verra much.

Edit: Also, if you draw a lot of phallic rock formations, as I do, possessing a very juvenile sense of humor, they really gotta be circumcised, or everybody wonders what's up with all the giant tube worms.Heh.
There was a guy in one of my life drawing classes who would ignore the model and just draw penises in a vase. I mean...what's the point of life drawing if you aren't going to take the opportunity to draw the model?! But he was one of those people who figures "Van Gogh was a jerk, so if I act like a jerk I'm more arty!"
Now I'm trying to remember his drawings...I think they were all circumcised. :p

[Eos of the Eons]

My boys are different. The first got circ'd. I couldn't believe my eyes afterwards, and I had to take care of the wound with gauze and petroleum jelly. He cried when he peed until it healed over. Then there are the horror stories about the boys who were turned into girls accidently...why increase the risk of your newborn losing more than foreskin? My second is "intact". I couldn't do that to him.

[UrsulaV]

But he was one of those people who figures "Van Gogh was a jerk, so if I act like a jerk I'm more arty!"


A common phallus-y!


...I'm sorry. I did mention the juvenile sense of humor already, right?

[logical muse]

Tcha! Now we're making assumptions about what constitutes "easier to draw."

Now, I happen to like lumpy and textural things in general, and I paint a fair number of chunky fat deposits and concrete walls. I'd be happy to link to my gallery if you need examples, but modesty forbids such shameless plugging cold. I can assure you however, I do not generally spend a lot of time goin' crazy with the airbrush to get that nice inhuman sheen.

But if anything, it's the definition and specific, not-vague shape of the cut wang that's helpful! It's the lump at the end that makes it! My attempts to draw an uncircumcised penis mostly made me feel like I was drawing a flesh tube sock. It's a long blob without clear waypoints. Like spelling "banana," it can be hard to know when to stop.

The circumcised penis, on t'other hand, has a definite end point. You get to the end, there's the nice little mushroom shape, full stop, the pencil rests. It's like a exclamation point. The bump and the ridges and the weird texture is what makes it work! If anything, I'd say it's less streamlined, and it's that weird ridge and whatnot that gives the artful penis character!

...and that is way more enthusiastic than I EVER expected to wax on this topic, thank ya verra much.

Edit: Also, if you draw a lot of phallic rock formations, as I do, possessing a very juvenile sense of humor, they really gotta be circumcised, or everybody wonders what's up with all the giant tube worms.
Thanks for the details! :p

I wasn't trying to have a go at at the 'easier to draw' statement. It was the "chop yer bits for art" that got me thinking about how we already do that, virtually, in Playboy and that type of mag.

I also do life drawing, in fact, I think I may have posted one or two in some other thread a while back. I'd probably have to agree with you that the exposed knob is easier to draw. Well, quicker, at least. I struggle so much with drawing that it's all difficult.

[CurtC]

[about a circumcised penis being functional] Really? How much lubrication does a circumcised penis produce?I'd guess about the same amount that an intact penis produces. Do you have different data on that?

[shecky]

Why don't we ask the expert?
http://www.queer.de/publisher/pics/Ron%20Jeremy%20150.jpg

[kuroyume0161]

One has to remember that Ron Jeremy is WIDEly known, has a LONG career, and is a BIG star in the porno industry (don't ask me how I could possibly know that!)... ;)

[kuroyume0161]

All of this back and forth, but noone has really answered the question: What is so pressing that requires the foreskin to be removed at birth, without the individual's consent - well, ability to consent at all?

We've heard the arguments about possibly reduced infection and so on, but these arguments fail since the rates are so low (probably lower than in other organs and definitely lower than in cases where genetic propensities exist).

I'm sorry, the overriding reasons are tradition, religion, cultural norms. Unless you can provide a clinical medical document that states that foreskin removal reduces risk of A by 50%, that excuse is Penn&Teller!

Unlike several thousand years ago, hygiene in non-third-world countries is far beyond any hygienic reasons for this barbarity. And with that recent innovation - technology - we have things like condoms. Keep on justifying this practice.

[logical muse]

All of this back and forth, but noone has really answered the question: What is so pressing that requires the foreskin to be removed at birth, without the individual's consent - well, ability to consent at all?
There really is no good reason for the mass cutting off of foreskins of babies. None whatsoever.

[Jeff Corey]

So, did you hear the moyel retired?
Why?
He couldn't cut it anymore.
Why?
Because the tips were not so good..

[David Swidler]

Is circumcision right after birth still common practice in US hospitals?

[epepke]

I'd like to know how often infibulation is done on girls.

I saw a documentary on clitoridectomy in Arabic countries on teevee, and while it was certainly barbaric and horrible, there wasn't any infibulation and certainly no removal of the labia majora (which would make infibulation rather difficult anyway).

But if we're going to bring that up for shock effect, perhaps we should talk also about the places in Africa where they traditionally split the penis open along the urethra resulting in something that looks a bit like the fillet of a flat fish, or where they sew the foreskin closed.

[Soapy Sam]

Edit: Also, if you draw a lot of phallic rock formations, as I do, possessing a very juvenile sense of humor, they really gotta be circumcised, or everybody wonders what's up with all the giant tube worms.-UrsulaV
Phallic rock formations?
I guess I haven't been paying attention the last thirty years.
Examples?

[Darat]

I haven't heard one circumcised man say he doesn't enjoy sex because he was circumcised. This whole argument is ridiculous. The only thing I can equate it with is little baby girls getting their ears pierced. No one has boards about that...

Oh, I hate to bring up the anti-Semitism thing, but if you made it illegal, that would be...ummm....

I can't see how pointing out that one of the practices carried out under a "religious law" is in fact barbaric and irrational because it is genital mutilation can be in anyway described as anti-Semitic. (Especially given that the criticism is about a practice that other religions also have similar laws/customs about.)

Personally I think it should be illegal; it's rather irrational that it isn't actually illegal in countries like the UK or the USA where it is already illegal for parents to cause their child to be mutilated.

[Blue Bubble]

I can't see how pointing out that one of the practices carried out under a "religious law" is in fact barbaric and irrational because it is genital mutilation can be in anyway described as anti-Semitic. (Especially given that the criticism is about a practice that other religions also have similar laws/customs about.)

Personally I think it should be illegal; it's rather irrational that it isn't actually illegal in countries like the UK or the USA where it is already illegal for parents to cause their child to be mutilated.

I share Darat's view that it should be illegal.

It would be interesting to see what would actually happen if someone (A) were to take someone (B) to court for having B's infant circumcised. I suspect that here in the UK, B would have a good chance of being convicted.

[UrsulaV]

Edit: Also, if you draw a lot of phallic rock formations, as I do, possessing a very juvenile sense of humor, they really gotta be circumcised, or everybody wonders what's up with all the giant tube worms.-UrsulaV
Phallic rock formations?
I guess I haven't been paying attention the last thirty years.
Examples?

Well, if you twist my arm...

WARNING: Links goes to paintings featuring giant stone wang, horrified lizards, and at least one naked mole rat in a beret! Not Safe For Work, Minors, Delicate Sensitivities, or anyone who believes we need more modest rock formations! No guarantees of quality expressed or implied!

http://snipurl.com/lb5m
http://snipurl.com/lb5o

If you want photos of genuine rock formations of a suggestive nature, I know there are websites dedicated to them, but I'm gonna let somebody ELSE trip merrily down that google path...

[DrRyanScarsella]

People have been ignorant due to there own beliefs for thousands of years. Look at the tribe of american indians that flattened the head of there infants for cosmetic purposes, or the tribes of people who stretch their necks with brass rings, actually the necks dont stretch, but rather their scapulas and clavicles are displaced inferiorly. Some polynesians tatoo or scar up their bodies for beauty or manhood. Its like religion, how many people do something because that how its always been done, or thats how my family or community does it. The only responsible way now, knowing what we all know, is to weigh the pros and cons and decide from there what would be best for our children. It shouldnt be up to the dr. or society to judge. Situations call for different decisions as they arise, not really privy to the judgement of outsiders. The children, however, have to live with the decisions we make, and other children can be mean and rude.

[dissonance]

3. A circumcised tool is less prone to premature ejaculation (again; medical studies)

I'd be interested in cites on this one. When I was pregnant, my husband and I did some fairly half-assed research on circumcision, and I remember reading the exact opposite of this. Then we found out we were having a girl and didn't bother to pursue the issue further.

[Melendwyr]

The most obvious way circumcision could reduce the chance of premature ejaculation is to deaden the sensation of sex, rather like the effect of wearing multiple condoms to accomplish that purpose (warning: increases risk of breakage and STD transmission. Do not attempt at home if such issues are worrisome.).

It shouldnt be up to the dr. or society to judge. Situations call for different decisions as they arise, not really privy to the judgement of outsiders. So, DrRyanScarsella, do you think society should withhold judgement on the issue of female circumcision?

[casebro]

The only actual reasoning that made any sense to me was that parents don't want to clean the boy's part properly. I guess they think hygiene can be considered kinky? But I think that's probably the root reason, others are just cover stories.

[logical muse]

Well, if you twist my arm...

WARNING: Links goes to paintings featuring giant stone wang, horrified lizards, and at least one naked mole rat in a beret! Not Safe For Work, Minors, Delicate Sensitivities, or anyone who believes we need more modest rock formations! No guarantees of quality expressed or implied!

http://snipurl.com/lb5m
http://snipurl.com/lb5o

If you want photos of genuine rock formations of a suggestive nature, I know there are websites dedicated to them, but I'm gonna let somebody ELSE trip merrily down that google path...
Damn.. Smart and talented! Nice knobs, btw.

[Rovor]

My first post after lurking for a while - I couldn't resist clarifying the historical context of the origin of the term 'female circumcision'.

I read an article about this in a history journal a couple of years ago, so the details may be a bit off, but the term 'female circumcision' arose in the late 19th century. Female genital mutilation (not just the removal of the clitoris, but a rather more elaborate and traumatic procedure) was the norm in one of Britain's African colonies (Nigeria?). The local Presbyterian missionaries were not pleased, and they lobbied the colonial administration to try and ban the practise. Word about this procedure also made it back to the home country, where feminist and religious groups also lobbied the foreign office to create a ban.

The colonial administration did not want to compel the locals to stop the much beloved tradition (among the men at least - it was thought that the process enhanced male sexual pleasure etc. etc.) because their hold on power was tenuous. In the end, the (male) administrators and foreign office officials came up with a compromise. They banned (on paper) the traumatic form of mutilation that was traditional, while saying that a less groutesque (to them at least) form of 'circumcision' was acceptable. Essentially, they said it was okay to remove the clitoris, as long as the local tribespeople didn't do anything else.

And they invented the term 'female circumcision' to describe this process of cliterodectomy. This was more acceptable to the male missionaries and to the politicians back in Britain because the clitoris was seen as being largely non-functional (therefore equivalent to the foreskin) by some anatomists at the time (I think). Feminists were not happy, but because female sexual pleasure was a taboo subject there was no real way for them to object.

The problem was that a simple cliterodectomy (aka 'female circumcision') was never a traditional process for the locals themselves. They ignored the new law, and continued with the mutilation as they had done before and as many still do it.

Therefore, the term 'female circumcision' is inappropriate, because it was an invented term for a process that was seldom performed. It was created for political reasons, and had little meaning beyond its being a token way of appeasing Calvinists and feminists, and it had little success with the latter.

It is more correct to refer to the ongoing process that happens in many countries as 'female genital mutilation', because it is a procedure that goes beyond cliterodectomy, and it avoids the ridiculous doublespeak behind the use of 'circumcision'.

Whether male circumcision should also be classed as mutilation is another question (I certainly wouldn't want it done to me!) Just don't use the term female circumcision, as it is in many ways without meaning.

[Soapy Sam]

Well, if you twist my arm...

WARNING: Links goes to paintings featuring giant stone wang, horrified lizards, and at least one naked mole rat in a beret! Not Safe For Work, Minors, Delicate Sensitivities, or anyone who believes we need more modest rock formations! No guarantees of quality expressed or implied!

http://snipurl.com/lb5m
http://snipurl.com/lb5o

If you want photos of genuine rock formations of a suggestive nature, I know there are websites dedicated to them, but I'm gonna let somebody ELSE trip merrily down that google path...

I just spent an hour brousing. I love the sabre toothed mouse - and I think I saw a Skelt once. Wonderful work.

[Nancarrow]

Just put me down as another 'it should be banned' voter - more specifically, mutilation of ANY kind, done to minors, of either sex, should be made illegal, except in cases of clear medical necessity. And no, a slightly decreased risk of HIV infection does obviously NOT constitute such a case. I can see how phimosis WOULD be a deserving case if severe enough.

Don't cut up or stab kids! Just what part of this simple premise do defenders of mutilation not understand? The only reason I can think of, that this procedure is not viewed as barbaric, is tradition. Our modern Western civilization has not yet shed all of its primitive superstitious baggage. Otherwise rational people continue to imagine that it's ok to mutilate their kids, because it's in their religion. And religious beliefs, as we all know, are off limits to critical discussion. :mad:

[Nancarrow]

Oh heck I knew I'd forgotten a couple of bits to my rant. Firstly, in view of the way this thread developed at least on its first page, I should point out that what a consenting ADULT wishes to do to their body is their own business, mutilation is barbaric only when carried out forcibly (and as with other aspects of human life, I consider that minors are not legally capable of informed consent). If a sane adult wants to chop their own arm off, more power to 'em. Of course if they want someone else to do it for them (like a surgeon), that other person has to consent too!

Secondly I wanted to bring in a half-remembered thought from Arthur C Clarke on the matter. Since the cultural background of genital mutilation is religious, we ought to remind its defenders that "God created the human form. Circumcision is blasphemy!"

[shalomsteph]

Why don't we ask the expert?
http://www.queer.de/publisher/pics/Ron%20Jeremy%20150.jpg

Ron Jeremy is circumcised.
(Well, he's Jewish, so I am assuming....never seen him in the movies)

[UrsulaV]

I just spent an hour brousing. I love the sabre toothed mouse - and I think I saw a Skelt once. Wonderful work.

Aww, thank you, guys!

[ungoliant]

so, if the only piece of the body that should be removed at birth is the umbilical cord, and we eat that, and we also routinely lop off foreskins, should we eat them too? i mean, they have all that wonderful nerve tissue, right? gotta be good for something.

[UrsulaV]

so, if the only piece of the body that should be removed at birth is the umbilical cord, and we eat that

Who in the name of a merciful God EATS the umbilical cord?! I've heard of people occasionally eating the placenta, and that's weird enough...

[Melendwyr]

Most animals gnaw it off. Presumably humans would have done the same before developing edgy rocks to do it for them.

[kuroyume0161]

I was just about to explode in a rant requiring evidence, but I realize that you are talking about the umbilical cord, not foreskin - shoooo. ;)

[luchog]

Aww, thank you, guys!
So when's the next volume of Digger due out?

[UrsulaV]

Most animals gnaw it off. Presumably humans would have done the same before developing edgy rocks to do it for them.

Oh, well, that's something else again.

I was trying to figure out how people would prepare the umbilical cord, and all I could come up with was chopped into little rings and deep fried, and it was a disturbing image...

(Also, luchog, "Digger 2" is due out this summer some time...)

[luchog]

Oh, well, that's something else again.

I was trying to figure out how people would prepare the umbilical cord, and all I could come up with was chopped into little rings and deep fried, and it was a disturbing image...
I'm visualizing a sort of weird, calamari-looking thing. I think I'll just skip lunch today.

(Also, luchog, "Digger 2" is due out this summer some time...)
I don't want to wait that long. :(

[Dr. Fendetestas]

I was circumsised as an adult, so I've had both. I suffered from phimosis, which meant that the foreskin did not stretch all it should, resulting in some pain when I had an erection.

There's been comment on lack of sensitivity... maybe true. The first days after the operation (not good days, you have stitches all around) showering, the contact with your underwear... are all quite painful but then you stop noticing it. I guess that means the glans is less sensitive. But that doesn't mean my sexual experience is worse now... not at all. First, there's the obvious issue of the discomfort I had before. The loss of sensitivity is not a problem. Some people pointed out that you lose the frenulum, but the bit that was just under it remains as sensitive (which is quite sensitive indeed) so it's not a big loss.

On the whole, I've noticed no negative side effects at all and it has clearly improved my life. I even think it would be more comfortable, even if I hadn't had phimosis. This doesn't mean it's worth it if you don't have that problem. The convalecence is quite nasty. I don't approve of circumsision in babies.

[Soapy Sam]

it has clearly improved my life.-Dr.Fendetestas

In what way? Just the tight foreskin problem? So you would only advise it as treatment for this , or similar , problems?

[Dr. Fendetestas]

it has clearly improved my life.-Dr.Fendetestas

In what way? Just the tight foreskin problem? So you would only advise it as treatment for this , or similar , problems?

Yes, that's the only thing I meant.

I was answering to some people who have posted about 'loss of functionality', saying that I haven't experienced any. But of course the real debate is about circumsising people without these problems, in which case it shouldn't be done. My post was only to express my opinion that 'loss of functionality' was not the reason. You can find lots of better reasons: possible complications after the operation, a very painful couple of weeks... It's a surgical operation after all (although a very simple one, you are awake all the time and it doesn't last too long). And it's a part of the body, maybe it does something we don't know about.

[Beerina]

Hmmm... "newborn male circumcision" and "female genital mutilation". In what way is the male circumcision not genital mutilation ?

Exactly. My genitals were mutilated soon after birth because of ancient, archaic, ritualistic religious reasons.

Given, evidently, these are also sensitive parts, this should be banned immediately. Just as your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins, your religious rights end where my penis begins.

Perhaps a better way to attack this would be to sue doctors who perform it.

[Beerina]

Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.



And women without breasts suffer less breast cancer. What's your point again? Should women have their breasts removed at birth?

And let's not lie to ourselves: This was, and is done for religious reasons, and it has nothing to do with health matters. Those are Monday morning quarterbacking, grasping at straws to justify ancient religious rituals where people, in their usual manner of making up gods and things that gods want, had enormous hangups on sex and penises and virginities.

[EagleEye]

Circumcision of males is no big deal. On one hand, there are a few rare complications. On the other hand, circumcised males suffer less from urinary tract infections, the very rare penile cancer, and possibly HIV.

As far as I'm aware, the only downside is the risk of complications, which are pretty rare and not usually serious. It is in no way comparable to female genital mutilation (which destroys a woman's capacity to ejoy sexual intercourse, or even endure it comfortably), nor to losing a limb.

Please cite your sources for your assertion that circumcision causes fewer UTIs, and other problems you said... I believe that assertion is mistaken, and is a common one among those who don't know any better.

My two sons are not circumcised. I consider it to be an unnecessary surgery, and a violation of the Hippocratic oath of the doctors who do it.

Check out http://www.nocirc.org/ ... I know they have an agenda, but I have verified much of their information through independant sources such as WebMD, etc...

[Belz...]

As I said above in degree it is different however it is still genital mutilation for no rational reason. Part of the reason I believe it is still carried out is because the mutilation part of it is hidden behind a socially acceptable word - circumcision.

I was under the impression that circumcision reduced the risk of some forms of infection. That would explain why some early cultures practiced it. Of course, now it's a religious thing. Otherwise I don't have an opinion about it one way or another (except, of course, for medical reasons.) Obviously, as far as female "circumcision" goes, it's an entirely different discussion.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

Are people who get piercing rational ? How does reason factor into all this ?

And considering that you're removing essentially the entire mucuous membrane of the penis... it seems clear that this is considered minor only because it's traditionally accepted.

Well, I'd consider getting a nail removed "minor". Whether or not it's tradition.

[Darat]

I was under the impression that circumcision reduced the risk of some forms of infection. That would explain why some early cultures practiced it.

...snip...


I don't think it does provide the necessary evidence to suppose there was originally a "rational" reason for the practice. At best this difference in infection rates is minimal so given the rest of their environment I can't see how they could even have generated the evidence to be able to rationally assume a link between uncircumcised men and a very slightly lower infection rate among circumcised men.

[Belz...]

I don't think it does provide the necessary evidence to suppose there was originally a "rational" reason for the practice. At best this difference in infection rates is minimal so given the rest of their environment I can't see how they could even have generated the evidence to be able to rationally assume a link between uncircumcised men and a very slightly lower infection rate among circumcised men.

Allright. Anyway, barring medical reasons, the "owner" of the foreskin should have final say. All I said was, maybe the belief that it reduced risks of infection was the original reason for that tradition. Then again, maybe not.

[ImaginalDisc]

Allright. Anyway, barring medical reasons, the "owner" of the foreskin should have final say. All I said was, maybe the belief that it reduced risks of infection was the original reason for that tradition. Then again, maybe not.

How would a people who lived thousands of years before the germ theory of disease even make this intuative leap, assuming there was even any discernable evidence?

[Z]

Well, I know when I was a child, it was a common belief (wherever it was that my parents had me... Arizona, I think) that foreskins were more prone to infections than those without. My parents had me circumcised using some heat method - apparently, a photo of my willy has appeared in a medical journal - and other than an unusual ring of darker skin (like a circumferential freckle), I have absolutely no complaints. My Mr. Happy is every bit as pleasurable as I could possibly want it - sometimes more so than I need - and every bit as sensitive as I'd like and then some. Plenty large - perhaps too large, actually - and has never, EVER given me a spot of problems. Plenty of lubrication involved as well. So I'm in no way upset over the loss of such an apparently unimportant and possibly bothersome bit of skin, just as I'm not at all upset over losing my wisdom teeth.

Those were removed by the military, who decided that wisdom teeth are too hard to clean and maintain, and are a bother; so they wanted them out. Mine were perfect - absolutely perfect - but they asked me to have them removed anyway, and I agreed. I don't miss them, either.

If I could get someone to remove my tonsils or my appendix or any other unnecessary bit before they become a problem, I wouldn't mind that at all, either.

Of our children, though, only part of them are circumcised. My wife and I both were under the same belief about cleanliness and infections, so we had our earlier children circumcised; our 3-year-old ended up getting a medical circumcision at age 1 1/2, due to his unusual skin problems; and my baby boy remains uncircumcised at the behest of his mother, who has personal/psychological reasons for not wanting the child cut.

Our experience with our circumcised boys is that they are generally happier and cleaner than our uncircumcised boys (which includes the two stepchildren) regarding their wriggle worms. The procedure was, apparently, not at all uncomfortable or painful, except for a brief period for our three-year-old right after it happened - but, he was already suffering from inflamed skin all around his genitals, so I can't rule that out as a cause of discomfort.

At this stage of my life, as I've learned to be more pro-active with what I believe and now, I'm not personally invested in the idea of circumcision. I haven't seen sufficient evidence for OR against the idea that an uncut penis is more prone to infection and disease, or harder to clean. I do, however, maintain a personal preference for the cut organ, and I admit it is for purely psychological and personal reasons - the uncut critter looks remarkably bestial in appearance, and the only people I knew (before my own kids) with uncut penises were NOT the cleanest people on earth anyway, and I can only imagine the funk that would arise from an exposed ripple of fore-flesh on those guys... ugh!

Female genital mutilation is a horrible practice, and there is absolutely no good reason to ruin a young girl's sex life. Circumcision doesn't ruin anyone's sex life, unless you're some kind of sick fore-phile... :D

As for childhood ear piercings, I'm all for it. Most piercings, after all, close up (in the lobe, anyway) if left alone, so they still can have that choice after they've matured anyway.

Childhood BODY piercings are a different matter, since a few of those locations don't quite heal normally if left alone.

Childhood tattoos I am against, at least until someone comes up with a foolproof, inexpensive, and safe way to remove tattoos. Can you imagine a future with people getting tattooed for a while? I might get one, then.

I remember reading, at some point in the past, an article attempting to relate the hymen of a girl to the foreskin of a boy... I wish I could remember where I read it, or how long ago, but I'd swear the article was either an attempt to make circumcision seem wrong, or an attempt to promote a standard procedure of early childhood deflowering, for some health-related reason. I also remember reading some reader reaction to the article, and was struck - even then! - by how much cultural fashion and taboo held sway. Of course, most everyone was against the idea, but not because it was 'an unnecessary practice' - rather, opinion swayed heavily into the camp of 'the hymen represents youth, chastity, and purity; its removal should be the gateway to womanhood'.... yada yada yada. (I largely agree, but it just struck me as odd).

*shrug* Eh... I'm not afor cutting pricks, nor agin it... but don't try to claim that 'cut men can't function right anymore'.

[EagleEye]

I haven't heard one circumcised man say he doesn't enjoy sex because he was circumcised. This whole argument is ridiculous. The only thing I can equate it with is little baby girls getting their ears pierced. No one has boards about that...


Could it be because circumcised men don't know any difference? After all, they never experienced anything MORE or different!

It's like saying a person blind since birth doesn't miss sight.

[EagleEye]

Three rational reasons for Male circumcision

1. Personal Hygene (maybe English chicks like smegma, but round here they don’t)

As people have said already... it's a big secret that us men just don't want you to know about, but we DO wash our genitals every so often!

2. Medical studies suggest that “the cut” helps prevent the spread of cervical cancer

Okay, they SUGGEST... I've heard a lot of commercials for new medications where they say weasely things like "Clinical Studies SUGGEST"... that's not proof, that's a hypothesis.

3. A circumcised tool is less prone to premature ejaculation (again; medical studies)

Okay, that's interesting... people are saying there's no significant loss of stimulation or pleasure... But it helps prevent premature ejaculation? Isn't premature ejaculation prevented by LESSENING the stimulus, and thus the pleasure?

Female genital mutilation has very little in common with male circumcision (except it involves the “pee pee” perhaps it’s your ignorance of female anatomy that makes you rant so), it is more a form of sexual imprisonment in that the clitoris is cut away and the intent is to make the sex act non pleasurable and often painful.

Okay, so removing the clitoral hood, thus exposing the clit more is similar? I think not!

The labia minor and labia major both cover the clit when not in coitus. The clit is tripple protected... removing the inner-most protection doesn't really cause it to be overstimulated by things like clothing and such.

Now the penis on the other hand... Removing the ONLY protective covering from the most sensitive part, and exposing it to being stimulated at all times... and removing the skin that is also highly sensitive (as opposed to the hood of the clit, which isn't very sensitive... at least, not comparable to the male foreskin). The two procedures are not at all alike! As far as I can tell, the woman losing the clitoral hood would allow for MORE sexual stimulation during sex, while the opposte is true for the man who loses his foreskin.

Now, completely CUTTING OUT the clitorus is beyond barbaric. It's horrible child abuse. It's analagous to cutting off the entire penis. Might as well just fit a guy with a catheter and give him electric anal shocks to force ejaculation. While we're at it, let's just harvest sperm and keep it in sperm banks so sex isn't even necessary.

Let's face it, the whole circumcision thing is a relgious fundamentalist thing SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make sex less enjoyable, and less of a temptation. It's a method used to CONTROL the huddled masses, and to keep them from "SINNING".

Mr. Kellogg of breakfast cereal fame was a major anti-masturbation mover and shaker (pun intended)... I heard that he actually sold Corn Flakes as a food to help "reduce the desire to masturbate"... He was a huge supporter of male circumcision, because he felt it would lead to reduced sensitivity, and thus prevent the desire to masturbate.

It's all a bunch of crap, and I'm shocked the good people on this site are even debating the merits of it. To me, it's akin to arguing whether Jon of God is performing valid surgery!

[UrsulaV]

He was a huge supporter of male circumcision, because he felt it would lead to reduced sensitivity, and thus prevent the desire to masturbate.

*scratch head* Look, there are perfectly good arguments against circumcision, but is the erroneous belief of a corn-flake fancier really one of them?

I mean, people used to use leeches to expel the evil humors, but the fact that they were completely wrong about how things worked and did a lot more harm than good, does not constitute a valid rational argument against the use of medical leeches today.

A number of good concerns about the effects of the tradition of circumcision have been brought up, but the generalized leap to "Circumcision is a tool of the religious/fundie/cornflake magnates to control the masses!" strikes me as bein' just a taaaaad over the top. Can you prove that this is some kind of conscious conspiracy to control the masses, as opposed to a vague traditional observance we've just inherited? Otherwise...I dunno.

'Course, I'm left with the mental image of Mr. Kellog cackling maniacally and screaming "I will show you fear in a handful of cornflakes!" and that's almost worth it right there.

[Belz...]

How would a people who lived thousands of years before the germ theory of disease even make this intuative leap, assuming there was even any discernable evidence?

Come on, ID, they didn't need to know about how diseases work. Just that they exist.

[ImaginalDisc]

Come on, ID, they didn't need to know about how diseases work. Just that they exist.

They need to connect dirty conditions to infection.

[Darat]

They need to connect dirty conditions to infection.

And a lot more then that especially given that the rate of infections after the mutilation must have been much higher then todays given that hygiene* was not a prime concern.

So for it to be a rationally arrived at decision they must have known disease rates during later life, severity of those infections compared to increase infections at a younger age from the mutilation itself (even today there are serious complications and infections after the surgery).

I wonder if its origins were more about testing who was fit to live (which is a source for many initiation rights)? After all if your son died soon afterwards then it was a sign from God. Indeed that reason even seems consistent with the given biblical explanation for the reason circumcision should be carried out.


(* Hygiene as we now understand it thanks to germ theory of disease.)

[LW]

I wonder if its origins were more about testing who was fit to live (which is a source for many initiation rights)?

One possible explanation for origins of circumcision notes that all societies where it arose lived in or near deserts and didn't have underwear in the sense that we have. It is then claimed that the combination of loose sand, foreskin, and lack of running water for washing is rather uncomfortable. I haven't tested the veracity of this claim and I don't intend to.

[Belz...]

And a lot more then that especially given that the rate of infections after the mutilation must have been much higher then todays given that hygiene* was not a prime concern.

Hadn't thought about that one. Barbarians it is.

[Darat]

Hadn't thought about that one. Barbarians it is.

But to be fair they must have got quite good at doing the mutilation in a way that didn't kill off too many sons or cause too much harm else it wouldn't have been continued for so long. Mind you I do wonder if there is any correlation (which could indicate a link) between the rate of growth and/or success of the cultures that undertook the practice and those that didn't?

[NeilC]

This from a history of circumcision:

"The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E). In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth. This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection. In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead."

Now that is gross - sucking the blood from babies' penises. That clearly has nothing to do with reducing infection.

[Melendwyr]

It also provided a clear distinction between people "of the faith" and those not, because no one in the region practiced it.

[pgwenthold]

Please cite your sources for your assertion that circumcision causes fewer UTIs, and other problems you said... I believe that assertion is mistaken, and is a common one among those who don't know any better.


Besides, even if it reduced the risk by 50%, that means that one in 750 men will have a UTI in their lives as opposed to 1 in 1000. Is that really worth it?

It would be one thing if it reduced the UTI rate in women, where it is actually a real problem for many if not most. But men?

[Belz...]

It also provided a clear distinction between people "of the faith" and those not, because no one in the region practiced it.

Though they should have thought about a more visible, less permanent sign... say tattoo, body paint or holy amulet or something.

[Z]

At least more visible... like the subdermal beads or other VISIBLE bodily decorations on various African tribesmen. I mean, who wants to pull down their pants to prove they're Jewish??

[Melendwyr]

Though they should have thought about a more visible, less permanent sign... say tattoo, body paint or holy amulet or something. Easier to fake, less likely to put off people who aren't of the tribe. Remember, the ideal tribal mark should not only be umambiguous, but should irrevocably distinguish and separate in-tribe from out-tribe. Same deal with the prohibitions on food preparation.

[Ohmer]

This from a history of circumcision:

"The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E). In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth. This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection. In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead."

Now that is gross - sucking the blood from babies' penises. That clearly has nothing to do with reducing infection.

Ewwww.
Rare Circumcision Ritual Carries Herpes Risk (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/91/101352)
Rabbi probed for circumcised infants' herpes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/from/RL.3/)

[David Swidler]

I don't think the "clear distinction" applies here, unless it's specifically for the individual to come to that realization about himself; as Belz points out, it's not readily visible to the next guy.

[Belz...]

Easier to fake, less likely to put off people who aren't of the tribe. Remember, the ideal tribal mark should not only be umambiguous, but should irrevocably distinguish and separate in-tribe from out-tribe. Same deal with the prohibitions on food preparation.

Maybe. But wouldn't something that didn't require them to get naked in front of other people be more appropriate ?

[Blue Bubble]

*Bump* to give the derailed thread in "Stop Robert Lancaster, Slanderer of Sylvia Browne" somewhere else to discuss circumcision.

[Roadtoad]

Double bump, for the same reason.

Thanks, BB.

[Caius Textor]

I hope people take the time to read everything. Repeting the same arguments will be quite ridiculous.

The way I see it, we have the following situation:

The practice has POSSiBLE, YET TO BE PROVEN advantages. It seems people are just looking for evidence to support their traditional practices instead of basing the practices on evidence. Sounds familiar?

The practice has possible, and some very likely, chance to go amiss, and it cannot be reverted. If the person decides against it in later life, his loss (literally).

So, in any OTHER situation, a possible disadvantage would prevent us from doing something with possible advantage. Why doesn´t this apply in this case?

[Moochie]

My position is the same as Fran's, as expressed in the other thread, that adults don't have the right to mutilate their children.

M.

[Roadtoad]

Which is why I didn't. Thanks, Mooch. The reminder, unfortunately, is painfully necessary.

[fls]

So, in any OTHER situation, a possible disadvantage would prevent us from doing something with possible advantage. Why doesn´t this apply in this case?

I don't think that's really the case. We choose things all the time for our kids (vaccinations, braces, tonsillectomies) that have a small potential for harm, but a larger potential for benefit. The research (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686) demonstrates that the advantages to circumcision outweigh the disadvantages. However, the advantage did not seem strong enough to me to overcome my bias, so I did not have my sons circumcized. It seems to me that both sides use their personal preferences to justify their decision.

Linda

[Morrigan]

It is more correct to refer to the ongoing process that happens in many countries as 'female genital mutilation', because it is a procedure that goes beyond cliterodectomy, and it avoids the ridiculous doublespeak behind the use of 'circumcision'.
Are you suggesting that a "simple cliterodectomy" is not genital mutilation, then?

Even if there is a worse procedure than simply removing the clitoris, doesn't make it horribly barbaric. :rolleyes:

[eir_de_scania]

I dare say it has a lot to do with different cultures, and I don't mean religion...I didn't even know circumcision was so common in the US until I read a heated debate on LiveJournal (don't ask). In Sweden it's only done as a last resort for medical reasons, as a result I have during my thirty years as a nurse never seen a cut man. :)

And I have seen more male members than I want to think about...

[Miss Anthrope]

Since this thread has been necromanced I thought I'd put my two cents in.

First cent: Per the thread title, as a rational person I can defend my son's circumcision. He was born with severe phimosis. This means his foreskin could not retract. In his case, it would barely budge at all. If he had not been circumcized as an infant, he would most definitely have had to face this painful procedure later in life. This was confirmed by two doctors (The pediatrician and a urologist) I'd rather he did it as an infant without specific memory than face it near puberty.

Second cent: From the wikipedia article on this topic

On March 28, 2007, the World Health Organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organisation) and UNAIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNAIDS) issued joint recommendations concerning male circumcision and HIV/AIDS.[107] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#_note-WHOpr0307) These recommendations are:
Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#_note-WHOrec0307)That argument does move me.

I see the validity in arguments against circumcision. But the HIV angle gives much to consider. When my son was born I was firmly on the fence of this issue. With his medical condition I felt circumcision was the best choice for him. I do not know which argument would have swayed me had this factor not come into play.

[skeptigirl]

You know it was only Feb-Mar that we discussed this at length.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75534

[Dorian Gray]

That society 'accepts' something is not a logical argument. And hygiene is no argument either - we're born that way, and it's natural, and we've propagated. Obviously there is no evolutionary downside to foreskin.

Consider a parallel example - body piercings. How many times have you heard people of both genders freak out over an eyebrow, lip, nose or nipple piercing, all the while sitting there smugly with their pierced ears? That's how sheepish people are.

There is no justification for or rational argument for circumcision. Both male and female circumcision were originally done for religious reasons, which should be your first clue! The female version is considered barbaric by us Westerners because it's not a Judeo-Christian thing. It's also more brutal because it's done by laymen with questionable instruments. If it were done in the finest hospitals, and had been for decades or centuries, no one would think anything about it.

Let this be a lesson to you: anytime a question like this comes up, ask yourself if there is a rational and genuinely logical reason for it, or if you only think it's okay 'because that's how we've always done it.'

[Dorian Gray]

Miss Anthrope, you show me any evidence that men who contract AIDS are overwhelmingly men who have not been circumcised, and you may rest with a clear conscience. Otherwise, you have no reason.

[Ivor the Engineer]

An argument I've heard from quite a few men circumcised as infants is that they prefer being circumcised and would be circumcised now if they had not been as a child.

I find that argument fascinating.

What I conclude from it is that parents should be allowed to do anything to their children that (a) is not likely to seriously harm them in the long term and (b) they can convince the child/adult that it was done out of "love" for them, before or after the fact.

If the person is happy about with what has been done to them (with or without their consent) then what does it matter if it's viewed as right or wrong by anybody else?

E.g., would rape be wrong if a drug was available that altered the victim's perception such that they enjoyed the attack or the memory of it?

[my_wan]

Perhaps some words from an uncircumcised American.

My mother informed me at a very early age that hygiene was important with every bath. Later in my teens my uncircumcised uncle told me about when he was a teen how his got infected and had to be forced open. Don't have numbers on infections rates etc. but with basic hygiene I never had any issues . I suspect that in early societies this was the motivation for it. I can see that without basic hygiene it could be a vector for a range of diseases and infections. Simple solution is cleanliness and a shower together afterwords can be fun also.

I don't really buy the notion that the foreskin is very useful as a protective sheath. I suspect as adolescence hits, any protection is nullified by frequent self stimulation. You'd think all that rubbing would destroy such a sensitive gland.

Personally I can't imagine having to deal with the irritation of cloths if I got circumcised today. I think I would rather break an arm (for a 5th time). Such activities do not nullify the protection, though it seems to make such activities easier.

I'm undecided on the value of the practice on boys. I don't think it is of much value without immediate cause. On girls it is a horrifying crime.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I never really thought much of it until I learned that it was a cultural thing, mostly for Americans and related nations. And yes, I remember that one of the founders of the practice believed it would reduce masturbation. I only really see justification in doing so when it is absolutely medically necessary(As in Miss Anthrope). The hygiene argument is stupid, men can clean down there.

The HIV angle is just silly. "Well, we can give a mediocre reduction in risk in spreading HIV if we slice of the protecting covering for the glans, which contains a large portion of his body's nerve endings." Or you could just tell him to WEAR A CONDOM. That would protect him from all the STIs and even from paying for a baby. And it wouldn't reduce his pleasure, and lob off a piece of him without consent and with out anesthetic.

And how would asking men who have been cut all their lives tell us anything? They don't know what they're missing. A man who was recently circumcised said that he felt less pleasure in sex.

We find anything done to a female unthinkable, but for males we don't even give it a second thought (This is from an white, Christian, American POV). Culturally accepted practices that are just stupid are still just stupid.

[ShowerComic]

Yep let’s rename it to something that doesn't offend! That's rubbish and is trying to use words to hide the real meaning - it is mutilation (whether practiced on men or women).

That FGM/FGC is performed without anesthesia doesn't mean it has to be. If it were performed under general anesthesia would that make it Ok?

As to the comparison between the two, if FGC is performed on infant girls just after birth, would it be more acceptable?

Both FGM/FGC and MGM/Circ. have a cultural basis. Do Hasidic Jews have the right to bite off the foreskin with their bare teeth? See below:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=123832

recently called for tact and patience regarding FGC eradication activities and warned against the dangers of demonizing cultures under cover of condemning practices harmful to women and girls

Had to quote again: Hey let's all obey the prime directive, and practice non-interference. -- So the infants born to Hasidic Jews pick up syphilis, in the name of cultural preservation.

[ShowerComic]

An argument I've heard from quite a few men circumcised as infants is that they prefer being circumcised and would be circumcised now if they had not been as a child.

As one who was born to Jewish parents, and circumcised as an infant (though not w/ the ritual Briss) I can say that I have nothing to compare it to. However having gone through puberty with it as I remember it, I have no desire to add to it. -- (see a Penn and Teller ********! episode - I hear it's possible)

However interestingly I did not know what the foreskin looked like until around 9th grade biology. That is I was brought up in a culture where most infants, Jewish, or Christian or anything else were circumcised. Therefore at the very least it wasn't one of the many things I was teased about in high school.

[Meadmaker]

I remember seeing one kid in gym class that had a very unusual penis and I thought something was wrong with it. I later realized he was the only uncirumcised kid in the school.

We decided not to have our son circumcised, partly on the strength of a friend's testimony who was uncircumcised and said that the part cut off was the part that felt the best. Partly, I just figured it wouldn't be there if it weren't a good idea.

Later, I've had cause to question my decision. I've heard horror stories of men who got infections and had to be circumcised as adults. I've also had it pointed out by a nurse that if you were ever in a position where you weren't able to clean yourself, there's no way you could count on a nurse to do it for you, and infection would be almost inevitable.

I hope I haven't stuck my kid with a real burden on him.

We also made the decision before we decided to send the kid to a Jewish school. That one could be a problem!:jaw-dropp

[Complexity]

To the OP: Yes.

[Schneibster]

This (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm) seems to be a pretty dispassionate overview. Apparently there are good arguments on both sides.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've also had it pointed out by a nurse that if you were ever in a position where you weren't able to clean yourself, there's no way you could count on a nurse to do it for you, and infection would be almost inevitable.

Is there actually any clinical evidence that infection is almost inevitable if a man does not wash under their foreskin regularly?

Are infections almost inevitable if people do not wash their mouths, noses, vaginas, anuses or other similar areas with more or less exposed mucous membranes? My uneducated guess would be that infections were more likely but not almost inevitable.

It sounds like the kind of thing people woud make up to embroider the existing story that circumcision is justified for hygienic reasons.

I've certainly never heard of infected foreskins being a major killer amongst the bedridden.

[SomeGuy]

The short answer is "Yes." The subject is still highly controversial within the pediatrics community, with substantial opinion on both sides. Rather than state all the arguments, go to the American Academy of Pediatrics (they won't let me post the URL) and search for "circumcision." Very enlightening. Right or wrong, it's definitely controversial.

You must distinguish between newborn male circumcision and female genital mutilation. You can't even call the latter "circumcision" because there is no "foreskin" to remove. The former is a controversial medical procedure. The latter isn't.

BZ MD

You're cultural bias is showing. We only consider the former a controversial medical procedure because it happens in our culture.

I think that in cultures where neither happens, both would seem equally cruel.

Especially since in not all cultures where they "circumsize" the labia, do they remove the ability for the women to enjoy sex.

[Ivor the Engineer]

All surgical procedures are barbaric. So long as an individual is happy with what's been done to them, why should anyone care?

One of the perks of being a parent is the chance to form your child's world view to be similar to your own. It's every parents right isn't it?

Being a parent is the closest thing to being God many people get; the opportunity of getting another not only to bend to your will, but want to. It must be very satisfying.

[Megalodon]

Well, the percentage of circumcised men is very low in Portugal (and most of Europe, I think), and we are definitly not dropping like flies due to infections.

Face it, all the excuses for circumcision are just that, excuses. If 70% of all males in the world are uncut, I guess the medical angle for circumcision goes down the drain. It's a barbaric cultural practice, probably started as one more way for "holy men" to enforce their power over the population. It's depressing that in the 21st century, when we can do things that would put the ancient gods to shame, learned people stand to defend a ritual that should have been left in the Dark Ages.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Well, the percentage of circumcised men is very low in Portugal (and most of Europe, I think), and we are definitly not dropping like flies due to infections.

It's very low (~20%) in the rest of the developed world, outside of the USA. The vast majority of men on the planet are not circumcised.

[athon]

The evidence for it being of some benefit is at best limited, at worst non existent. The truth is that by not getting it done until later, you're not putting your child under any realistic risk of ill health or impoverished well being.

Therefore I disagree with removing something from my kid where they should have that right to make a decision later. I wouldn't get my kid's ears pierced until they could choose, and these heal should they not want! Removing skin that won't ever grow back, IMO, is fairly arrogant and authoritarian.

If my child feels that the alleged benefits are worth it, I'm sure they can do it later in life. The very fact that few uncircumcised blokes go for the snipjob later shows that the evidence for it being a good thing can't be all that convincing.

Athon

[fls]

The evidence for it being of some benefit is at best limited, at worst non existent. The truth is that by not getting it done until later, you're not putting your child under any realistic risk of ill health or impoverished well being.

On what basis do you consider it reasonable to dismiss the results of numerous studies that show a marked and consistent benefit - for example, the 50 to 60 percent reduction in the transmission of HIV, a 4-fold (or more) decrease in UTI's in neonates, a 3-fold or more decrease in cancer of the penis - some of which (UTI's and penile cancer) are benefits conferred by neonatal circumcision, but not by circumcision later in life?

I understand that there is an emotional reaction to the idea of removing this particular piece of skin, and that depending upon the population you are part of plus other risk factors, the absolute benefit may be moderate to tiny. But is it really necessary to characterize those parents who don't have a strong emotional reaction against the idea, or who consider the benefit sufficient in their particular situation, as narcissistic, child mutilators with a god complex?

I am always amazed by how objectivity seems to fly out the window on this issue.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

The evidence for it being of some benefit is at best limited, at worst non existent. The truth is that by not getting it done until later, you're not putting your child under any realistic risk of ill health or impoverished well being.

Therefore I disagree with removing something from my kid where they should have that right to make a decision later. I wouldn't get my kid's ears pierced until they could choose, and these heal should they not want! Removing skin that won't ever grow back, IMO, is fairly arrogant and authoritarian.

If my child feels that the alleged benefits are worth it, I'm sure they can do it later in life. The very fact that few uncircumcised blokes go for the snipjob later shows that the evidence for it being a good thing can't be all that convincing.

Athon

But humans appear to prefer to be whatever they are. So long as they are happy about it, what does it matter how they ended up that way?

To put it another way: why do we put such a high value on "free" choice or informed consent, when the vast majority of men who have been circumcised as infants and those that were not prefer the way they are?

[Ivor the Engineer]

On what basis do you consider it reasonable to dismiss the results of numerous studies that show a marked and consistent benefit - for example, the 50 to 60 percent reduction in the transmission of HIV, a 4-fold (or more) decrease in UTI's in neonates, a 3-fold or more decrease in cancer of the penis - some of which (UTI's and penile cancer) are benefits conferred by neonatal circumcision, but not by circumcision later in life?

I understand that there is an emotional reaction to the idea of removing this particular piece of skin, and that depending upon the population you are part of plus other risk factors, the absolute benefit may be moderate to tiny. But is it really necessary to characterize those parents who don't have a strong emotional reaction against the idea, or who consider the benefit sufficient in their particular situation, as narcissistic, child mutilators with a god complex?

I am always amazed by how objectivity seems to fly out the window on this issue.

Linda

I'dunno Linda. Perhaps some people bought into the whole Rights of the Child idea the UN came up with.

[fls]

I'dunno Linda. Perhaps some people bought into the whole Rights of the Child idea the UN came up with.

How is that relevant? Or more specifically, how is that not redundant?

Linda

[BlackKat]

Well...

When I was born a large majority of (non-Jewish) American children were circumcised (for "health" reasons). Regardless of the medical aspect (right or not) I am extremely glad I was.

Frankly, a penis, already pretty funny looking, is 1000000 times uglier with the foreskin. Look at all the circumcised male porn stars? See much porn with non-curcumcised men? Doubt you could find much.

I'm sure there are other good reasons for the procedure as well, beyond vanity.

But in essence, the foreskin, like other evolutionary holdovers, is not necessary. It's like when people are born with tails, webbing, etc. Clothing makes having a foreskin superfluous.

Combining circumcision with female genital mutilation (as in the OP) is kind of silly. The two procedures are so far removed from each other. This post should be split asunder as each subject should have it's own post.

[Megalodon]

On what basis do you consider it reasonable to dismiss the results of numerous studies that show a marked and consistent benefit - for example, the 50 to 60 percent reduction in the transmission of HIV, a 4-fold (or more) decrease in UTI's in neonates, a 3-fold or more decrease in cancer of the penis - some of which (UTI's and penile cancer) are benefits conferred by neonatal circumcision, but not by circumcision later in life?

Maybe because all of those are just post-hoc justifications (and iffy ones, at that) for a barbarian practice that's been around for millenia...

I understand that there is an emotional reaction to the idea of removing this particular piece of skin, and that depending upon the population you are part of plus other risk factors, the absolute benefit may be moderate to tiny.

Let me tell you a secret. Decrying the religious mutilation of infants is not an emotional response, it's a social obligation by any rational person. Grasping at straws to justify continuing a primitive ritual is an emotional reaction.

And BTW, since breast cancer is more prevalent than penile cancer, do you defend mastectomies for every teenager? The absolute benefit would be much greater than the "moderate to tiny".

But is it really necessary to characterize those parents who don't have a strong emotional reaction against the idea, or who consider the benefit sufficient in their particular situation, as narcissistic, child mutilators with a god complex?

Unfortunatelly, I think it is (at least for the child mutilators thingy). It has to do with the fact that tit is an accurate description of what they are. You know, you mutilate your child, you're a child mutilator... comes with the territory.

I am always amazed by how objectivity seems to fly out the window on this issue.

Yeah, I know... it's a bummer. Why can't all those people advocating the physical integrity of children just STFU with all those facts...

[athon]

On what basis do you consider it reasonable to dismiss the results of numerous studies that show a marked and consistent benefit - for example, the 50 to 60 percent reduction in the transmission of HIV, a 4-fold (or more) decrease in UTI's in neonates, a 3-fold or more decrease in cancer of the penis - some of which (UTI's and penile cancer) are benefits conferred by neonatal circumcision, but not by circumcision later in life?

HIV? Well, show me the rates of decrease in HIV transmission in children having sex. Otherwise, I'd wait until my child is of an age that we could discuss that so they can choose to have it done to themselves. Perhaps in their teenage years (not to mention that plain old condoms do a far better job in new sexual relationships).

I'm seriously dubious of a 4 fold decrease in UTI's in neonate males. Can you link the full study? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Even so, what numbers are we looking at here? Does it still balance removing that decision from the child?

I understand that there is an emotional reaction to the idea of removing this particular piece of skin, and that depending upon the population you are part of plus other risk factors, the absolute benefit may be moderate to tiny. But is it really necessary to characterize those parents who don't have a strong emotional reaction against the idea, or who consider the benefit sufficient in their particular situation, as narcissistic, child mutilators with a god complex?

I'm not saying there's zero benefit. I just don't see the figures as that convincing that I would take away that decision from my kid. Sure, it's 'just a bit of skin'. Let them make that choice.

I am always amazed by how objectivity seems to fly out the window on this issue.

Linda

How is it not objective? You're suggesting that there is an appreciable risk of my hypothetical son getting a UTI, or worse, penis cancer, if they're not snipped. I disagree that the slight possible risk outweighs my kid's right to make that choice himself. That's simply respecting one's rights to make their own decisions on such things.

But humans appear to prefer to be whatever they are. So long as they are happy about it, what does it matter how they ended up that way?

This argument could suit any sort of irreversible body modification on a minor. I could tattoo my kid and you're suggesting that they'd still be happy with it. Perhaps, but it still doesn't make it right.

I'm not suggesting my son would cry foul on being cut. Chances are he really wouldn't care. That's not my point. My point is that it's up to them to decide what stays and what goes on their body.

To put it another way: why do we put such a high value on "free" choice or informed consent, when the vast majority of men who have been circumcised as infants and those that were not prefer the way they are?

Good question. A lot of people disagree with me, and feel quite happy to pierce their kids ears or have them circumcised. If avoiding doing such a thing was going to seriously make their life harder later (such as in the case of drastic cosmetic surgery for something like hair-lip, for instance) I'd have to make that call. But this isn't. It's removing a bit of skin essentially for what amounts to tradition. I feel that's morally wrong.

If and when I have kids, I will bring them up not to be reflections of me and my traditions, but rather instil in them the best skills, knowledge and education possible for them to become their own person. While minor, that includes not modifying their bodies until they're comfortable with that choice.

Athon

[athon]

Frankly, a penis, already pretty funny looking, is 1000000 times uglier with the foreskin. Look at all the circumcised male porn stars? See much porn with non-curcumcised men? Doubt you could find much.

Let's face it, if the penis was an animal, you'd stomp on it.

It's not there to be looked at.

I'm sure there are other good reasons for the procedure as well, beyond vanity.

And here's my point; there is a desire for aesthetic and traditional purposes for people to remove it. And then there is a subseqential search for additional reasons to justify it, seeking out some subtle medical obscurities which lean in that favour.

If it is an aesthetic thing, leave it to the individual to decide that it's ugly and they wish to lop it off. If they don't want to, I guess it's not exactly that hideous it needs to be removed.

Combining circumcision with female genital mutilation (as in the OP) is kind of silly. The two procedures are so far removed from each other. This post should be split asunder as each subject should have it's own post.

I agree.

Athon

[Ivor the Engineer]

How is that relevant? Or more specifically, how is that not redundant?

Linda

Because it states the child should be included in the decision to have something done to it at an appropriate level with respect to its cognitive abilities.

As Athon has said, neo-natal circumcision has minimal if not insignificant benefits (by the standards of most rational people) for the child up to an age when it could start to be involved in the decision making process.

Preventative medical intervention is almost always held off until the risk it is reducing or eliminating is significant or will be in the near future.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>
If and when I have kids, I will bring them up not to be reflections of me and my traditions, but rather instil in them the best skills, knowledge and education possible for them to become their own person. While minor, that includes not modifying their bodies until they're comfortable with that choice.

Athon

So you won't be disciplining them then?;)

[athon]

So you won't be disciplining them then?;)

Yes, but they get to choose their own whips and paddles. :)

Athon

[fls]

Maybe because all of those are just post-hoc justifications (and iffy ones, at that) for a barbarian practice that's been around for millenia...

Let me tell you a secret. Decrying the religious mutilation of infants is not an emotional response, it's a social obligation by any rational person. Grasping at straws to justify continuing a primitive ritual is an emotional reaction.

And BTW, since breast cancer is more prevalent than penile cancer, do you defend mastectomies for every teenager? The absolute benefit would be much greater than the "moderate to tiny".

Unfortunatelly, I think it is (at least for the child mutilators thingy). It has to do with the fact that tit is an accurate description of what they are. You know, you mutilate your child, you're a child mutilator... comes with the territory.

Yeah, I know... it's a bummer. Why can't all those people advocating the physical integrity of children just STFU with all those facts...

See, this is exactly what I mean. I personally advocate for the physical integrity of children. However, that does not make me dismiss the available research as "post hoc", "iffy", "grasping at straws", etc. I don't find it necessary to dismiss objective information simply because it does not say what I hoped it would say. I, like the AAP consider it insufficient to overcome my bias toward physical integrity.

And exactly what "facts" did you think you provided? All I saw was continued vilification and name-calling plus the presentation of a straw man argument.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

See, this is exactly what I mean. I personally advocate for the physical integrity of children. However, that does not make me dismiss the available research as "post hoc", "iffy", "grasping at straws", etc. I don't find it necessary to dismiss objective information simply because it does not say what I hoped it would say. I, like the AAP consider it insufficient to overcome my bias toward physical integrity.

And exactly what "facts" did you think you provided? All I saw was continued vilification and name-calling plus the presentation of a straw man argument.

Linda

But don't most of the risks neo-natal circumcision reduces have alternative or better treatments available for them?

[fls]

HIV? Well, show me the rates of decrease in HIV transmission in children having sex. Otherwise, I'd wait until my child is of an age that we could discuss that so they can choose to have it done to themselves. Perhaps in their teenage years (not to mention that plain old condoms do a far better job in new sexual relationships).

I specifically made a distinction between benefits seen with neonatal circumcision and that seen with circumcision generally.

I'm seriously dubious of a 4 fold decrease in UTI's in neonate males. Can you link the full study? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Even so, what numbers are we looking at here? Does it still balance removing that decision from the child?

I provided a link earlier to the AAP position paper (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686)which includes all the references with links to full text.

Does it balance removing that decision from the child? I'd say no.

I'm not saying there's zero benefit. I just don't see the figures as that convincing that I would take away that decision from my kid. Sure, it's 'just a bit of skin'. Let them make that choice.

How is it not objective? You're suggesting that there is an appreciable risk of my hypothetical son getting a UTI, or worse, penis cancer, if they're not snipped. I disagree that the slight possible risk outweighs my kid's right to make that choice himself. That's simply respecting one's rights to make their own decisions on such things.

The not objective part was disparaging the research and denigrating parents who would make a different decision from yours.

The parents are acting as advocates for the child - what would the child decide if he was capable of making the decision? The argument for not waiting is that some of the benefits occur before the child can make that decision. And if the older child would decide to have circumcision anyway, the procedure is simpler when done on a neonate. I also agree that the absolute benefit for my children does not outweigh their right to make their own decision.

Linda

[SomeGuy]

See, this is exactly what I mean. I personally advocate for the physical integrity of children. However, that does not make me dismiss the available research as "post hoc", "iffy", "grasping at straws", etc. I don't find it necessary to dismiss objective information simply because it does not say what I hoped it would say. I, like the AAP consider it insufficient to overcome my bias toward physical integrity.

And exactly what "facts" did you think you provided? All I saw was continued vilification and name-calling plus the presentation of a straw man argument.

Linda

The argumentation is naturally post-hoc, because the things stated were never the reason for the circumsision.

More importantly though, your "facts" aren't as clear cut.

http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm (biased site against circumsision)

[fls]

Because it states the child should be included in the decision to have something done to it at an appropriate level with respect to its cognitive abilities.

So preface everything I said with "Taking into consideration the rights of the child". The argument makes so sense unless that is assumed, anyway.

As Athon has said, neo-natal circumcision has minimal if not insignificant benefits (by the standards of most rational people) for the child up to an age when it could start to be involved in the decision making process.

Athon has already indicated that he/she is not conversant with research demonstrating the benefit, so how do you know that it does not fulfill the "standards of most rational people"?

Linda

[fls]

But don't most of the risks neo-natal circumcision reduces have alternative or better treatments available for them?

No.

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

Maybe because all of those are just post-hoc justifications (and iffy ones, at that) for a barbarian practice that's been around for millenia...

So your claim has changed? It is now that there was no medical evidence that it had benefit when it started?



Let me tell you a secret. Decrying the religious mutilation of infants is not an emotional response, it's a social obligation by any rational person. Grasping at straws to justify continuing a primitive ritual is an emotional reaction.

Wrong you are making an emotional argument, this is seen by how readily you dismiss evidence.

And BTW, since breast cancer is more prevalent than penile cancer, do you defend mastectomies for every teenager? The absolute benefit would be much greater than the "moderate to tiny".
But breast feeding offers a great medical benefit to a child.

[SomeGuy]

Well the penial cancer is a ridiculous thing to take into consideration, it's the rarest of cancers.

1 in 100,000 males with intact foreskin get penial cancer, this is 5 times lower than the chance for a non-smoker(even when he gets no second hand smoke) to develop lung-cancer.

More importantly, soon there may very well be a HPV-vaccination(it's in the final test stages), and then penial cancer rates will drop even lower.

[Z]

I'dunno Linda. Perhaps some people bought into the whole Rights of the Child idea the UN came up with.

Yet WHO, which is, I believe, the health branch of the U.N. (or similarly related), strongly recommends circumcision as a way to limit the spread of HIV and other diseases...

[SomeGuy]

Yet WHO, which is, I believe, the health branch of the U.N. (or similarly related), strongly recommends circumcision as a way to limit the spread of HIV and other diseases...

Don't forget though that this is the same branch that advocates acknowledging homeopathy as a legitimate treatment method.

Yeah yeah... I know that's ad homimin (sp?)

But I like to counter one fallacy (appeal to authority) with another.

:blush:

[fls]

The argumentation is naturally post-hoc, because the things stated were never the reason for the circumsision.

Did someone claim that they were?

More importantly though, your "facts" aren't as clear cut.

http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm (biased site against circumsision)

I provided a link to the original source of my "facts" so that anyone who was interested could look at them directly. 'Tis true that the fog created with misleading and misrepresentative layers of information can make anything less clear.

Linda

[Z]

Well the penial cancer is a ridiculous thing to take into consideration, it's the rarest of cancers.

1 in 100,000 males with intact foreskin get penial cancer, this is 5 times lower than the chance for a non-smoker(even when he gets no second hand smoke) to develop lung-cancer.

More importantly, soon there may very well be a HPV-vaccination(it's in the final test stages), and then penial cancer rates will drop even lower.

So just because a disease is rare, we shouldn't bother taking steps to reduce our chances of getting it - or, more importantly, our children's chances?

The biggest reason I support neonatal circumcision, is that most men WON'T elect to get it done as an adult - for no other reason than fear and obsessiveness about their todger. Even if they have a dozen infections and are highly at risk, adult men would rather suffer anything than clip their sausage. Much better to snip them before they develop their obsessions and fears, and be done with it.

Of course, my opinions on the subject should be taken with a tremendous grain of salt, considering I'm also for the genetic manipulation of embryos and the removal of aggressive behaviors through gene therapy, etc. Personal rights aren't worth squat, IMO, compared to health, social, and cosmetic benefits. Thus making me a fascist control freak with a serious GOD complex. And I make absolutely no apologies for that.

In fact, if it were up to me, I'd just go in and change the genetic code so that circumcision was simply no longer necessary. Oh, and so that every man could have between five to seven inches, instead of the vast variation men currently suffer.

Then I'd work on improving the genetics so that the male brain could actually function on lower testosterone levels...

[fls]

Well the penial cancer is a ridiculous thing to take into consideration, it's the rarest of cancers.

The only benefit that seems sufficient to me on purely medical grounds is the reduction in HIV transmission in high prevalence areas.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

No.

Linda

Could you be a bit more verbose;)

Surely antibiotics are generally considered a better way to treat infections than removing the infected tissue?

The incidence of tight foreskin requiring circumcision in infants is probably overstated in the US because of the willingness of doctors to perform circumcision for no medical reason at all. Is there research from other regions of the world showing how common this "problem" is there and other methods of treating it?

E.g., ingrown toenails on the NHS were routinely completely removed, while there exists a technique that removes just the sides that are causing the problem.

[Ivor the Engineer]

The only benefit that seems sufficient to me on purely medical grounds is the reduction in HIV transmission in high prevalence areas.

Linda

I'd agree.

(bet you didn't see that coming:p )

[fls]

Could you be a bit more verbose;)

Surely antibiotics are generally considered a better way to treat infections than removing the infected tissue?

It's more of an issue of prevention than treatment.

The incidence of tight foreskin requiring circumcision in infants is probably overstated in the US because of the willingness of doctors to perform circumcision for no medical reason at all. Is there research from other regions of the world showing how common this "problem" is there and other methods of treating it?

This information provided in the review (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686#B16) I have now referenced three times came from New Zealand and Denmark.

You could consider reading it. ;)

Linda

[Megalodon]

See, this is exactly what I mean. I personally advocate for the physical integrity of children. However, that does not make me dismiss the available research as "post hoc", "iffy", "grasping at straws", etc.

From your link "...scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision...".

Having browsed through the sources, I can tell you that using the results of those studies to justify circumcision is "grasping at straws". Even considering mutilating an infant (or any other surgical procedure for that matter) to reduce a risk of a minor infection from 0.7% to 0.2% is deranged.

It is also iffy, because in the case of penile cancer, if the relative risks for not being circumcised, for smoking and for having a history of genital warts are 3.2, 2.8 and 5.9, and the researcher concludes that "These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potential resulting complications are associated with penile cancer", than something is wrong. And this related to an extremely rare cancer.

It is a post-hoc justification, because the research was done much after the establishment of the tradition.

I don't find it necessary to dismiss objective information simply because it does not say what I hoped it would say. I, like the AAP consider it insufficient to overcome my bias toward physical integrity.

I do not dismiss the information, I evaluate it. Maybe therein lies the difference.

And exactly what "facts" did you think you provided? All I saw was continued vilification and name-calling plus the presentation of a straw man argument.

I don't think I provided any facts, except for calling of attention to 70% of men in the globe not being circumcised. I surely provided my opinion, which is fundamented. I also provided some definitions, but they seem to have been interpreted by you as "name-calling". You might not like reality, but that would be your problem.

You seem to think that the advantages exist, altough not significant enough to justify circumcision. I contend that the advantages do not exist, and are used to justify a primitive practice, since it's embraced by a significant part of your population.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Well...
Frankly, a penis, already pretty funny looking, is 1000000 times uglier with the foreskin. Look at all the circumcised male porn stars? See much porn with non-curcumcised men? Doubt you could find much.


Listen, stop dissing my penis, all right? I see this argument from time to time, and it's frankly getting old having to listen to how horrible I look. You simply don't know.

And yes, issues of whether porn actors are the pinnacles of beauty (or even normality) we should all aspire to emulate aside, it's possible to find plenty of porn with uncircumcised actors. Mostly the stuff that's not from major American producers (gasp - who'd've thought), which also has the neat side effect of not featuring women with the silicone enhanced (and thoroughly bizarre) 'porn star look'.

Also, in the erect penis, circumcised or not isn't that different in appearance.

So just because a disease is rare, we shouldn't bother taking steps to reduce our chances of getting it - or, more importantly, our children's chances?

Not if the risks are small enough and the steps taken are detrimental to the later sexual development of the child. You have to do a cost / benefit analysis on these things, otherwise you'd end up indiscriminately doing appendectomies on newborn babies as well (might as well get it over with), a dangerous procedure that would scar them for life. But hey, appendicitis is a potentially lethal condition!


Of course, my opinions on the subject should be taken with a tremendous grain of salt, considering I'm also for the genetic manipulation of embryos and the removal of aggressive behaviors through gene therapy, etc. Personal rights aren't worth squat, IMO, compared to health, social, and cosmetic benefits. Thus making me a fascist control freak with a serious GOD complex. And I make absolutely no apologies for that.


Fair enough, and thanks for letting us know where you stand on this. I can't agree with much of what you say, but it seems consistent.

I just want to comment on the one about cosmetic benefits. As far as I'm concerned, cosmetic reasons for surgery are whimsical and change over time. It's fashion, and as such, if permanent body modifications for cosmetic reasons are to be done at all, it should be the person in questions own informed choice. To be frank, the choice to have breast enlargements (pec injections for males) or labial reduction leaves me puzzled. What's wrong with small breasts or a vulva with visible inner labia? Those are not problems to be eradicated, they're sexy! It's called personality!

To each their own, and I don't dispute people's right to have it done. But you can't decide stuff like this for someone else, parent or not.

[Megalodon]

So your claim has changed? It is now that there was no medical evidence that it had benefit when it started?

What are you talking about? I claim that the evidence, as it's being presented, is iffy. The relative risks are small, if you consider the incidence of infections and the potential socio-cultural differences between groups. The significance is quite good in some of the abstracts (although I would like to see how they controled for inter-group differences) but not mentioned in some of the others.

I also claim that it is a barbaric ritual probably designed to increase the "holy men" power and income. Do you have a problem with that speculation?

And I claim that people that mutilate children are "child mutilators". Is that incorrect?

Wrong you are making an emotional argument, this is seen by how readily you dismiss evidence.

What evidence did I dismiss? That you didn't bother to check the sources?

But breast feeding offers a great medical benefit to a child.

Irrelevant if the mother died of breast cancer before becoming pregnant.
The point being that it is not good medical practice to snip human parts for putative benefits, the weak evidence for which appeared much after the practice begun...

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's more of an issue of prevention than treatment.

In the old medical text books you collect I'm sure there are many examples of preventative interventions that you would never consider performing now because a newer treatment is easier on the patient.

This information provided in the review (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686#B16) I have now referenced three times came from New Zealand and Denmark.

You could consider reading it. ;)

Linda

So if the New Zealand study is taken at face value, then circumcising an infant actually increases penile problems for infants, while providing reduction in problems for older children.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/81/4/537?ijkey=d83c727913a1cd837baadadf107f37db00d0c6aa

Based on this it still seems to me that it's a lifestyle choice issue. I.e. it should be left up to the individual when they are able to choose for themselves, not by parents.

[Meadmaker]

To each their own, and I don't dispute people's right to have it done. But you can't decide stuff like this for someone else, parent or not.

The argument of "let them decide for themselves" doesn't make much sense to me. The issue is that if the procedure is done as an adult, it is intensely painful for days, at least. If done as an infant, it doesn't appear to be as painful, although who can tell because they're crying all the time anyway.

Ironic thought for the day: Orthodox Judaism forbids or discourages pierced ears, tatoos, or other forms of body alteration on the grounds that you aren't supposed to modify God's creation. I've heard Jews say that before and thought, "Hmm. Ok. Makes sense." I never realized the irony before.

[fls]

From your link "...scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision...".

Having browsed through the sources, I can tell you that using the results of those studies to justify circumcision is "grasping at straws". Even considering mutilating an infant (or any other surgical procedure for that matter) to reduce a risk of a minor infection from 0.7% to 0.2% is deranged.

If someone was using the results of those particular studies as the reason to justify circumcision, I would agree that they were "grasping at straws". However, since I haven't seen anybody do so, I don't understand who exactly you are talking about that is grasping at straws.

It is also iffy, because in the case of penile cancer, if the relative risks for not being circumcised, for smoking and for having a history of genital warts are 3.2, 2.8 and 5.9, and the researcher concludes that "These results suggest that the absence of neonatal circumcision and potential resulting complications are associated with penile cancer", than something is wrong. And this related to an extremely rare cancer.

I don't understand what you think is wrong with that conclusion.

It is a post-hoc justification, because the research was done much after the establishment of the tradition.

It is my impression that the research was done to evaluate the effects of the procedure.

I do not dismiss the information, I evaluate it. Maybe therein lies the difference.

I was looking for some indication that you had done so.

I don't think I provided any facts, except for calling of attention to 70% of men in the globe not being circumcised. I surely provided my opinion, which is fundamented. I also provided some definitions, but they seem to have been interpreted by you as "name-calling". You might not like reality, but that would be your problem.

You seem to have chosen words specifically to invoke emotional reactions, such a mutilator/mutilated, barbarian, primitive, etc. and then insisted that they accurately convey how we should think of anyone who has their child circumcised. It is simply my observation that circumcision is one of those topics that seems to bring out this behaviour, and that I don't see the necessity for the negative characterizations.

You seem to think that the advantages exist, altough not significant enough to justify circumcision. I contend that the advantages do not exist, and are used to justify a primitive practice, since it's embraced by a significant part of your population.

My population? I think you are quite mistaken.

I do not understand how your statement that the advantages do not exist can be anything but a dismissal of the research I mentioned earlier, since the research demonstrates various advantages and you did not provide any specific reasons that the results would be invalid.

Linda

[fls]

In the old medical text books you collect I'm sure there are many examples of preventative interventions that you would never consider performing now because a newer treatment is easier on the patient.

That's pretty lame. ;)

Of course things can and will change over time. I could make up a scenario where having been circumcised saves millions of men from certain death during an alien invasion in the year 2026.

So if the New Zealand study is taken at face value, then circumcising an infant actually increases penile problems for infants, while providing reduction in problems for older children.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/81/4/537?ijkey=d83c727913a1cd837baadadf107f37db00d0c6aa

Based on this it still seems to me that it's a lifestyle choice issue. I.e. it should be left up to the individual when they are able to choose for themselves, not by parents.

Yes, you've made that clear.

Linda

[monoman]

Well...

When I was born a large majority of (non-Jewish) American children were circumcised (for "health" reasons). Regardless of the medical aspect (right or not) I am extremely glad I was.

Frankly, a penis, already pretty funny looking, is 1000000 times uglier with the foreskin. Look at all the circumcised male porn stars? See much porn with non-curcumcised men? Doubt you could find much.

I'm sure there are other good reasons for the procedure as well, beyond vanity.

But in essence, the foreskin, like other evolutionary holdovers, is not necessary. It's like when people are born with tails, webbing, etc. Clothing makes having a foreskin superfluous.

Combining circumcision with female genital mutilation (as in the OP) is kind of silly. The two procedures are so far removed from each other. This post should be split asunder as each subject should have it's own post.

An erect uncircumcised penis looks like a circumcised penis. You don't see many porn stars with a flop-on so how can you tell if they've been done?

Even though they look the same, the benefit of the foreskin is still there during intercourse as it moves up and down over the bell end. Since you're having a go at us un's, I'll raise the stakes and say the only reason your dad had you circumcised is because he didn't want you to go through his red-faced shame of ejaculating 5 seconds after entry :D

ETA: Can someone have a Dig at me for that last comment. I see on my profile I have 404 posts and not a single Dig yet.

[ThatSoundAgain]

The argument of "let them decide for themselves" doesn't make much sense to me. The issue is that if the procedure is done as an adult, it is intensely painful for days, at least. If done as an infant, it doesn't appear to be as painful, although who can tell because they're crying all the time anyway.

Yes, but my position is that a potential few days of pain is easily worth the choice to have your body modified or not. That some would want to be circumcised as adults does not justify doing the procedure to all infants. That relatively few choose to have the procedure done as adults speaks volumes, IMHO.

Ironic thought for the day: Orthodox Judaism forbids or discourages pierced ears, tatoos, or other forms of body alteration on the grounds that you aren't supposed to modify God's creation. I've heard Jews say that before and thought, "Hmm. Ok. Makes sense." I never realized the irony before.

Heh, hadn't thought of that. I'd just filed it under weird religious tradition, like married jewish women wearing wigs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_wig) to cover their hair.

[Z]

Not if the risks are small enough and the steps taken are detrimental to the later sexual development of the child.

...Which circumcision is not. Circumcision is in no way detrimental to the later sexual development of the child, if performed correctly. Period.

[ilikefrogs]

I know several men who say that they wish they hadn't have been circumcised as infants, and now think their penises are numb to some degree as a result.

If they were circumcised as a baby, they have no basis for comparison. How do they know that not all penises are "numb to some degree"?

[ilikefrogs]

They're not comparable, because small holes in ears grow closed if they're not kept open. Foreskins (and the associated nerves and membranes) do not regrow.

Not true. My sister had her ears pierced as a child. When she went to college, she stopped wearing earings for several years. The holes never grew over.

[BlackKat]

An erect uncircumcised penis looks like a circumcised penis. You don't see many porn stars with a flop-on so how can you tell if they've been done?

Even though they look the same, the benefit of the foreskin is still there during intercourse as it moves up and down over the bell end. Since you're having a go at us un's, I'll raise the stakes and say the only reason your dad had you circumcised is because he didn't want you to go through his red-faced shame of ejaculating 5 seconds after entry :D

ETA: Can someone have a Dig at me for that last comment. I see on my profile I have 404 posts and not a single Dig yet.

Actually (and I'm no expert on this but from what observational experience I do have...) most of the time in porn movies the male "actors" are at best barely erect.

But in any case if I made people without circumcisions feel I was poking fun at them it was not intended that way. Just meant to say that NO penis looks not silly (foreskin or not) and that I thought that the ones with a foreskin look a lot more silly.

The point I was trying to make ultimately is that the foreskin, unlike the female clitoris, is completely vestigal. A throwback. Probably eventually humans will almost never have them at all on birth. It comes from a time when one ran around with nothing but fur and you needed a place to keep your dangly bits safe and warm. But now we have underpants. You might at well keep a long part of the umbilical cord attached to you. The foreskin is just as useful.

Here, in the US, almost every male is circumcised. Whether this has any actual health benefit or not is inconclusive, although most studies have pointed to some benefit. The part removed is as important to have as a tail.

Thus I object to the OP lumping circumcision with female genital mutilation.

Circumcision = Removing a functionless, vestigal, unattractive body part
Mutilation = Removing a functioning, important body part.

[ThatSoundAgain]

...Which circumcision is not. Circumcision is in no way detrimental to the later sexual development of the child, if performed correctly. Period.

Assert this a strongly as you wish, it remains a controversial point.

[pgwenthold]

From your link "...scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision...".

Having browsed through the sources, I can tell you that using the results of those studies to justify circumcision is "grasping at straws". Even considering mutilating an infant (or any other surgical procedure for that matter) to reduce a risk of a minor infection from 0.7% to 0.2% is deranged.


We should add the following:

The rate of infections due to circumcision is INFINITELY GREATER in circumcised children than non-circumcised children.

The rate of infant deaths due to circumcision is INFINITELY GREATER for circumcised infants than for non-circumsized infants.

So the question is, what is the tradeoff between a 4 four increase in penile cancer vs an infinite-fold increase in deaths?

Yes, these types of complications are rare, but then, as Z says, "So just because a disease is rare, we shouldn't bother taking steps to reduce our chances of getting it - or, more importantly, our children's chances?"

[Miss Anthrope]

Miss Anthrope, you show me any evidence that men who contract AIDS are overwhelmingly men who have not been circumcised, and you may rest with a clear conscience. Otherwise, you have no reason.

Pardon me?

I said my son was circumcised because of severe phimosis. I have an absolutely clear conscience based on the fact that his foreskin could not be retracted and both the pediatrician and urologist said it wasn't going to fix itself, and would indeed cause many problems for him. I have a clear conscience because I feel that his having this done at a month old rather than at age seven at the latest was much better for him. Or are you saying I should let him suffer through painful erections as a pubescent and decide when he's 18 that he would like a functioning penis?

I said I saw the validity in the arguments against circumcision. I said the HIV issue gave me pause. I said I didn't know what decision I would have arrived at because I never had to make the decision. The decision was made for me because my son was born with severe phimosis. His father had it, and personally said he was grateful the circumcision was done as an infant rather than at a point where he would remember it.

The HIV issue is interesting. I offered it as a point of discussion, and something that I was considering in my decision before my son was born. I did not make an absolute statement. Your response to me is inappropriate.

Your whole moral authority about where my conscience should be seems to be a blind spot in your intellectual honesty. It certainly warrants the question: Who the heck do you think you are?

[dissonance]

Miss Antrope, I defer to your doctors, but I am wondering - why were they expecting a month-olds foreskin to be retractable? Most boys can't retract thier foreskin until they are several years old, and that's perfectly normal.

[Miss Anthrope]

Miss Antrope, I defer to your doctors, but I am wondering - why were they expecting a month-olds foreskin to be retractable? Most boys can't retract thier foreskin until they are several years old, and that's perfectly normal.

It had to do with where the skin connected. Basically instead of a tube like situation, we had the most of the foreskin (the top region) connected to skin in the middle of scrotum.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The argument of "let them decide for themselves" doesn't make much sense to me. The issue is that if the procedure is done as an adult, it is intensely painful for days, at least. If done as an infant, it doesn't appear to be as painful, although who can tell because they're crying all the time anyway.

:rolleyes:

"The evidence that neonates feel pain and suffer as much or more than do older children and adults is conclusive and generally accepted today."

Source (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/#n17)

Ironic thought for the day: Orthodox Judaism forbids or discourages pierced ears, tatoos, or other forms of body alteration on the grounds that you aren't supposed to modify God's creation. I've heard Jews say that before and thought, "Hmm. Ok. Makes sense." I never realized the irony before.

He he, that's pretty funny. I'll have to remember that :) .

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually (and I'm no expert on this but from what observational experience I do have...) most of the time in porn movies the male "actors" are at best barely erect.

But in any case if I made people without circumcisions feel I was poking fun at them it was not intended that way. Just meant to say that NO penis looks not silly (foreskin or not) and that I thought that the ones with a foreskin look a lot more silly.

The point I was trying to make ultimately is that the foreskin, unlike the female clitoris, is completely vestigal. A throwback. Probably eventually humans will almost never have them at all on birth. It comes from a time when one ran around with nothing but fur and you needed a place to keep your dangly bits safe and warm. But now we have underpants. You might at well keep a long part of the umbilical cord attached to you. The foreskin is just as useful.

Here, in the US, almost every male is circumcised. Whether this has any actual health benefit or not is inconclusive, although most studies have pointed to some benefit. The part removed is as important to have as a tail.

Thus I object to the OP lumping circumcision with female genital mutilation.

Circumcision = Removing a functionless, vestigal, unattractive body part
Mutilation = Removing a functioning, important body part.

Please, Functions of the Foreskin (http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html) (The last ones are pretty funny).

The foreskin is just as functional as female parts. And your "unattractive" comment just reveals more cultural bias.

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's pretty lame. ;)

Of course things can and will change over time.

Including what parts an individual might want left on his body:)

I could make up a scenario where having been circumcised saves millions of men from certain death during an alien invasion in the year 2026.

You could, but it would not address the point I made, which was doctors in the past have been quicker to cut bits off than they generally are now. Why has the rate of circumcision remained so high in certain areas of the world?

The target rate for neonatal circumcisions in the UK has been recommended to be 0.6% by this paper:

Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ 2000;321:792-3.

Here's the PDF (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/321/7264/792?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Towards+evidence+based+circumcision+of+En glish+boys&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

which is ~1/20th of the rate in the US. Clearly someone has got it very wrong.

This studentBMJ (http://student.bmj.com/issues/06/07/letters/304b.php) article has more references.

Yes, you've made that clear.

Linda

Where do you think parents rights stop with respect to their child's body?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, but my position is that a potential few days of pain is easily worth the choice to have your body modified or not. That some would want to be circumcised as adults does not justify doing the procedure to all infants. That relatively few choose to have the procedure done as adults speaks volumes, IMHO.


The issue is how many would wish that they had had it done as infants, not those who get it done as adults.

From everything I can tell there are marginal costs and benefits on both sides, and it is just that the anti circ side makes massive appeals to emotion and often refuses to look at science since this is not about real risks and benefits but a PRINCIPLE.

So for everyone who argues that there are huge costs, well then think this, if you reversed the costs vs benefits of the procedure would it make sense to make everyone uncircumcised?(if the procedure produced an uncircumcised state), if people argue yes then they simply do not seem have an evidence based decision.

[ponderingturtle]

Assert this a strongly as you wish, it remains a controversial point.

Evidence on the side of having a significant impact on sexual effect?

When I have looked into it the general sexual aproval rateing of circumcision in adult men was positive. So do you have any studies to back up your claim?

[ponderingturtle]

Double Post

[robinson]

I'm impressed that this conversation is still so civil. I can remember some huge flame war/conflicts over this issue, a decade ago or more.

That the question is framed as "defend it", rather than "support it with evidence", a small point perhaps, but one that illustrates the way the conversation can go.

[fls]

Including what parts an individual might want left on his body:)

Of course. Fashions change. It's just that it turns out that we don't do a very good job of predicting this stuff in advance.

You could, but it would not address the point I made, which was doctors in the past have been quicker to cut bits off than they generally are now.

Ah, I thought you wanted me to guess at advances in medicine.

Why has the rate of circumcision remained so high in certain areas of the world?

My guess is that it's mostly cultural. I don't think it's driven by medicine, although it may reflect the degree to which there is a systematic effort by physicians to discourage the practice.

Where do you think parents rights stop with respect to their child's body?

I don't think this practice pushes the limits, if that's what you're asking - i.e. that I can justify interference in what is otherwise a private matter.

Linda

[BlackKat]

Please, "Functions of the Foreskin" (The last ones are pretty funny).

The foreskin is just as functional as female parts. And your "unattractive" comment just reveals more cultural bias.

I find the vast majority of the "functions" to be either wrongly attributing functions to the foreskin performed instead by other parts of the penis or in some cases the functions to be just plain silly.
Just take for instance:


7 Stores and releases natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

This is incorrect. Pre-ejaculatory fluid exits the penis from the ureathra. And Smegma is the term the website's author wanted and Smegma is disgusting. Try washing your penis please.


3 Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

I think this one is a little odd. It's usually in women only and occurs BEFORE intercourse so how a foreskin is involved I dunno...


OF course my favorite is this one:

16 Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

AGAIN! That's why we have underwear now. If you're stupid enough to go to the ends of the earth without a good pair of thermals you deserve what you get. Next we'll be told not to wear hats but to stop cutting our hair. In fact one cause of impotence amongst men is their testicles are made too hot by clothing and they aren't producing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Of course. Fashions change. It's just that it turns out that we don't do a very good job of predicting this stuff in advance.

Which is more reason not to do something years in advance of any medical indication that it is required.

Ah, I thought you wanted me to guess at advances in medicine.

No.

My guess is that it's mostly cultural. I don't think it's driven by medicine, although it may reflect the degree to which there is a systematic effort by physicians to discourage the practice.

I find your phrasing unusual; Isn't it more strange that a procedure that has such marginal benefits in the developed world has been supported for so long by physicians?

I don't think this practice pushes the limits, if that's what you're asking - i.e. that I can justify interference in what is otherwise a private matter.

Linda

What I'm trying to understand is where your limit is. What act performed towards a child leads you to conclude that it should not be tolerated?

E.g., is a Jehovah's witness withholding blood from their child a private matter? Or ritual practices that do not result in significant long term harm to a child, such as performed by some followers of particular religions? What about removing the toenails of infants to avoid ingrown toenails?

NB: I'm not trying to argue that these are equivalent to circumcision, just putting them forward to try to understand where your limit is. Give another example if you think these are inappropriate.

My position is that circumcision should only be performed to a child when it is medically indicated, with very few exceptions (such as regions of the world where there is a high incidence of HIV). I am not anti-circumcision - it has its place. I think it is fortunate that the vast majority of men who were circumcised as infants are happy (if not down right enthusiastic!) about their state.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Evidence on the side of having a significant impact on sexual effect?

When I have looked into it the general sexual aproval rateing of circumcision in adult men was positive. So do you have any studies to back up your claim?

Here are some studies, but see my two caveats below:

There's this Korean one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17155977&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum),

Then there's this American one (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11956453), showing slight decrease in erectile function, and increased overall satisfaction.

Chinese survey (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt=Abstract%7C) indicating decreased erectile function, and

American again (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/), from an anti-circumcision site and somewhat tangential, but for once, the full article.

Caveat 1: This is a pretty difficult area of study, seeing as the obvious solution, surveying adults before and after circumcision is going to net you a sample with an overrepresentation of medical conditions (phimosis etc.), and of course getting these corrected is going to lead to an increase in wellbeing. People who were circumcised as infants (or not) simply won't know the difference. BUT, that the foreskin contains nerve endings and is part mucous membrane indicates, in my common-sense opinion, that it is functional in some way.

Caveat 2: To be honest, discussing this is a bit of a mine field. It's hard to get to the meat of the actual data, not having access to the paper journals and research databases. With this topic, you have heavily biased sources on each side of the debate, and I'm sure parts of both sides are guilty of overstating their cases. I'm sure my (almost non-existant) statistical and medical expertise is not enough to separate the chaff from the wheat.

Thus my response that simple assertions that this is an uncontroversial issue aren't going to cut it. It is controversial in that we have surveys and studies that indicate increased erectile dysfunction in circumcised males, and some that show a dip in sexual satisfaction. So, regardless of how this data stacks up against the other side, it simply is a controversial issue.

And in my opinion, this uncertainty alone is enough to rethink routine circumcision in infants. Plus, and here my (European) cultural bias is really showing, the idea of performing routine surgery on a newborn is just absurd - why would you risk it?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I find the vast majority of the "functions" to be either wrongly attributing functions to the foreskin performed instead by other parts of the penis or in some cases the functions to be just plain silly.
Just take for instance:


7 Stores and releases natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid)

This is incorrect. Pre-ejaculatory fluid exits the penis from the ureathra. And Smegma is the term the website's author wanted and Smegma is disgusting. Try washing your penis please.


3 Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse)

I think this one is a little odd. It's usually in women only and occurs BEFORE intercourse so how a foreskin is involved I dunno...


OF course my favorite is this one:

16 Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite, as Sir Ranulph Fiennes found on his epic transpolar walk.

AGAIN! That's why we have underwear now. If you're stupid enough to go to the ends of the earth without a good pair of thermals you deserve what you get. Next we'll be told not to wear hats but to stop cutting our hair. In fact one cause of impotence amongst men is their testicles are made too hot by clothing and they aren't producing.

As I said, they get pretty funny. But that does not discount that there are functions for the foreskin, you know, like those other ones on the list.

[ThatSoundAgain]

The issue is how many would wish that they had had it done as infants, not those who get it done as adults.


True, but I'm arguing that this is inconsequiential, seeing as one state (uncircumcised) is 100% reversible and the other is not. So, the (my guess) relatively few adults that wish they'd had it done as infants can still get it done at the expense of some discomfort, while the already circumcised adults who wish they weren't can never get full functionality back.

From everything I can tell there are marginal costs and benefits on both sides, and it is just that the anti circ side makes massive appeals to emotion and often refuses to look at science since this is not about real risks and benefits but a PRINCIPLE.


I see the appeals to emotion on both sides. And yes, principle, the one about being allowed to choose, plays a part in my stance on this, but there's also the very pragmatic wish to err on the side of caution - in the case of my (hypothetical) newborn son, he'll hopefully have much better data in 18 years, and can make a more informed decision.


So for everyone who argues that there are huge costs, well then think this, if you reversed the costs vs benefits of the procedure would it make sense to make everyone uncircumcised?(if the procedure produced an uncircumcised state), if people argue yes then they simply do not seem have an evidence based decision.

I don't quite follow this. But I think I can try for a more clear statement of my own position:

- If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
- If you want to fix it, despite the data being unclear, the benefits of doing so small, the drawbacks of doing so not well examined, the procedure a risk (albeit small), be sure it's your own foreskin you fix, not someone else's.

[fls]

I find your phrasing unusual; Isn't it more strange that a procedure that has such marginal benefits in the developed world has been supported for so long by physicians?

I guess it depends upon how strongly physicians feel about their role in shaping cultural traditions? Or maybe it reflects the fact that we all tend to be products of our environment? The idea that physicians can refuse requests for treatment is relatively recent. I'm trying to think of something relatively equivalent....maybe growth hormone supplementation?

What I'm trying to understand is where your limit is. What act performed towards a child leads you to conclude that it should not be tolerated?

Why is this of interest to you? My personal threshold is quite low, but my public threshold is much higher. I tend to be someone that is reluctant to impose my opinions onto others, so I usually require a moderately strong reason to do so. Plus my ethical consideration of others is strongly influenced by medical ethics, which promotes more of a hands-off, self-autonomy attitude than is usually acceptable to the general public.

E.g., is a Jehovah's witness withholding blood from their child a private matter?

Not if it's life or seriously health-threatening.

Or ritual practices that do not result in significant long term harm to a child, such as performed by some followers of particular religions?

Maybe. It really depends upon the nature of the harm. I use a hierarchy of death, disability, disease, discomfort, dissatisfaction. I think that in most cases, I would find the first three adequate reasons to interfere. The last two would depend upon the details.

What about removing the toenails of infants to avoid ingrown toenails?

If this were a general practice, there should be research performed to look at the overall benefit (i.e. advantages and disadvantages).

NB: I'm not trying to argue that these are equivalent to circumcision, just putting them forward to try to understand where your limit is. Give another example if you think these are inappropriate.

I don't know why you'd be interested in my limit except to show that it's unreasonable. I'm perfectly willing to concede that you think I'm unreasonable to save you the trouble.

My position is that circumcision should only be performed to a child when it is medically indicated, with very few exceptions (such as regions of the world where there is a high incidence of HIV). I am not anti-circumcision - it has its place. I think it is fortunate that the vast majority of men who were circumcised as infants are happy (if not down right enthusiastic!) about their state.

So the state should intervene? Or at the very least, we should be able to brand the parents with a scarlet M (for Mutilator)?

Linda

[skeptigirl]

We should add the following:

The rate of infections due to circumcision is INFINITELY GREATER in circumcised children than non-circumcised children.

The rate of infant deaths due to circumcision is INFINITELY GREATER for circumcised infants than for non-circumsized infants.

So the question is, what is the tradeoff between a 4 four increase in penile cancer vs an infinite-fold increase in deaths?

Yes, these types of complications are rare, but then, as Z says, "So just because a disease is rare, we shouldn't bother taking steps to reduce our chances of getting it - or, more importantly, our children's chances?"Thought I'd check in to see where this discussion was going and I find no one challenging these claims. You cannot support those false claims. I looked at volumes of research on this. It happens to be the second thread in this forum and we had a similar discussion on Skepchick. Circumcision decreases the rate of urinary tract infections though it is not by a great amount. UTIs are much more frequent and risky in uncircumcised boys than complications from circumcisions, though both are rare. It has been evaluated in terms of risk benefit by numerous researchers.

The rate by which infection is decreased in a healthy child in a low risk country is equivocal regarding whether evidence based medicine should recommend circumcision in a Western country. Technically, it is slightly better medically to circumcise. But given the cultural influences, it isn't a strong enough reason medically to recommend going against cultural beliefs in a low HIV risk situation.

Given high rates of HIV there is a strong evidence based medical recommendation to circumcise infants. And that again is what the medical research shows.

I'll repost the literature sources I posted in the other threads.

The state should not intervene in any case. It seems inappropriate considering the nature of the decision. However in countries facing high rates of HIV every effort to educate parents to the benefit of circumcision should be made. (Though it appears Linda is looking at the opposite intervention.)

[skeptigirl]

Miss Anthrope, you show me any evidence that men who contract AIDS are overwhelmingly men who have not been circumcised, and you may rest with a clear conscience. Otherwise, you have no reason.
I'm assuming this has been addressed. But in case it hasn't, the evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of HIV is unequivocal, meaning it has been shown without a doubt to decrease the rate of HIV infection, including the mechanism which the foreskin increases the risk of acquiring HIV. There are HIV receptor cells in the foreskin.

The question is which infants (and/or adults) have a great enough risk of HIV to warrant recommending circumcision.

[skeptigirl]

...
The HIV angle is just silly. "Well, we can give a mediocre reduction in risk in spreading HIV if we slice of the protecting covering for the glans, which contains a large portion of his body's nerve endings." Or you could just tell him to WEAR A CONDOM. That would protect him from all the STIs and even from paying for a baby. And it wouldn't reduce his pleasure, and lob off a piece of him without consent and with out anesthetic. This is incorrect. You either haven't read the research or you have added some misinformation to it.
...We find anything done to a female unthinkable, but for males we don't even give it a second thought (This is from an white, Christian, American POV). Culturally accepted practices that are just stupid are still just stupid.Show me the research any surgical intervention regarding the clitoris is medically beneficial and I'll look at it. Otherwise your analogy and assumptions here are false.

[skeptigirl]

This (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm) seems to be a pretty dispassionate overview. Apparently there are good arguments on both sides.
This citation is out of date. It cites the In 1975 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." And in 1983 the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position.That indicates the conclusions are also out of date.Circumcision -- Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance

* Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
* Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
* Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
* Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
* Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
* Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
* Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
* There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.
I do believe all the "may result"s are now confirmed though I'll have to recheck on the cancer risk. The last statement, "there is no absolute medical indication", is flat wrong.

[skeptigirl]

You're cultural bias is showing. We only consider the former a controversial medical procedure because it happens in our culture.

I think that in cultures where neither happens, both would seem equally cruel.

Especially since in not all cultures where they "circumsize" the labia, do they remove the ability for the women to enjoy sex.I'm going to admit to a cultural bias and say in this case it is appropriate. There is no reason culturally to inflict any surgical procedure on any infant from circumcision to ear piercing. If OTOH, there is a medical reason like preventing HIV in a culture where HIV is devastating the population, then there is a reason.

[skeptigirl]

...Being a parent is the closest thing to being God many people get; the opportunity of getting another not only to bend to your will, but want to. It must be very satisfying.I am God! And I am satisfied! :D

[Gurdur]

Skeptigirl, you really should learn how to use the Multiquote feature.

[skeptigirl]

Well, the percentage of circumcised men is very low in Portugal (and most of Europe, I think), and we are definitly not dropping like flies due to infections.

Face it, all the excuses for circumcision are just that, excuses. If 70% of all males in the world are uncut, I guess the medical angle for circumcision goes down the drain. It's a barbaric cultural practice, probably started as one more way for "holy men" to enforce their power over the population. It's depressing that in the 21st century, when we can do things that would put the ancient gods to shame, learned people stand to defend a ritual that should have been left in the Dark Ages.Are you that oblivious to the plight of the nations experiencing the full force of the HIV pandemic?

[skeptigirl]

The evidence for it being of some benefit is at best limited, at worst non existent. The truth is that by not getting it done until later, you're not putting your child under any realistic risk of ill health or impoverished well being.

AthonYour facts are wrong. Apparently you haven't kept up on the research.

[skeptigirl]

...
I am always amazed by how objectivity seems to fly out the window on this issue.

LindaAs am I.

These are the same people who pride themselves on being grounded in an evidence based world. But when the evidence doesn't fit their world view, be it politics or something like circumcision, then you see the same behaviors as woo believers, evidence be damned, I believe!

[Gurdur]

I guess that means you don't want to.

[skeptigirl]

Well...Frankly, a penis, already pretty funny looking, is 1000000 times uglier with the foreskin.And a number of we females prefer a circumcised penis. I have no excuses, citations or explanations, I like them bald. Wrinkly skins are just not attractive. It's purely aesthetic, and not the least bit scientific. If a beautiful (inside) man were not circumcised however, it would never be a deal breaker.

Combining circumcision with female genital mutilation (as in the OP) is kind of silly. The two procedures are so far removed from each other. This post should be split asunder as each subject should have it's own post.It is easy to see why an emotional appeal finds an analogy. but medically, there is none.

[skeptigirl]

... BTW, since breast cancer is more prevalent than penile cancer, do you defend mastectomies for every teenager? The absolute benefit would be much greater than the "moderate to tiny"....These are false analogies. They may sound good to a non-skeptic, but a good skeptic can see right through them.

Here's my analogy: You are comparing trimming fingernails to a finger amputation.

[skeptigirl]

HIV? Well, show me the rates of decrease in HIV transmission in children having sex. Otherwise, I'd wait until my child is of an age that we could discuss that so they can choose to have it done to themselves. Perhaps in their teenage years (not to mention that plain old condoms do a far better job in new sexual relationships).

I'm seriously dubious of a 4 fold decrease in UTI's in neonate males. Can you link the full study? It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Even so, what numbers are we looking at here? Does it still balance removing that decision from the child? ...

I'm not saying there's zero benefit. I just don't see the figures as that convincing that I would take away that decision from my kid. ...
AthonIn just the USA, your argument about waiting until the child has a chance to influence the decision would not necessarily be wrong.

But if you stop being so egocentric and take a seriously hard look at countries with high rates of HIV, as a parent, it would be negligent not to make this decision for your child before the child was old enough to actually be ready to make an informed decision. Consider asking your teenager to choose if they wanted to be vaccinated when they hated shots. Are they mature enough to choose that shot? Some yes, some not. Are they old enough to be sexually active? About 80% before high school graduation are if you go by the stats. So in a country with a high risk of HIV, and even in a population at high risk of HIV, the parent who would wait until the child was mature enough to decide for himself would be failing to do everything reasonably possible to protect that child from HIV.

[skeptigirl]

But don't most of the risks neo-natal circumcision reduces have alternative or better treatments available for them?No.

[skeptigirl]

Don't forget though that this is the same branch [WHO] that advocates acknowledging homeopathy as a legitimate treatment method.

Yeah yeah... I know that's ad homimin (sp?)

But I like to counter one fallacy (appeal to authority) with another.

:blush:Could you cite a source for that claim? I find it hard to believe that the WHO supports homeopathy.

[skeptigirl]

Pardon me?

I said my son was circumcised because of severe phimosis. I have an absolutely clear conscience based on the fact that his foreskin could not be retracted and both the pediatrician and urologist said it wasn't going to fix itself, and would indeed cause many problems for him. I have a clear conscience because I feel that his having this done at a month old rather than at age seven at the latest was much better for him...And my son was circumcised because I thought it was better according to the medical evidence, and I've not met a circumcised man that wasn't sexually satisfied and I have no moral qualms whatsoever about my decision. As it turns out, I had not heard of this controversy before I made that decision. However, after an extremely thorough review of the medical literature, I have no regrets about my decision.

[skeptigirl]

:rolleyes:

"The evidence that neonates feel pain and suffer as much or more than do older children and adults is conclusive and generally accepted today."....I have little doubt infants experience pain. After having assisted in many an unanesthetized circumcision, I would never suggest a baby be circumcised without an anesthetic.

[skeptigirl]

Please, Functions of the Foreskin (http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html) (The last ones are pretty funny).

The foreskin is just as functional as female parts. And your "unattractive" comment just reveals more cultural bias.I admit to the cultural bias and as I said, it would never be a deal breaker.

Re the other benefits of the foreskin on your link, a lot of them were close enough to redundancy to be redundant. But as far as these go:Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal

In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, (and UTIs?)

Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans

Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc.Provides skin for grafts to burnt eyelids, reconstructive surgery, etc.Show me the evidence of pheromones and lysosomes and evidence those chemicals are not produced elsewhere in the body. The protection against UTIs is contradicted by the evidence. The source of eyelid replacement is interesting. But it couldn't possibly be more important than HIV prevention in areas with high rates of HIV.

[Ivor the Engineer]

No.

[to alternative treatments]

How can you seriously say that there are no alternatives to circumcision for the risks it reduces?

The relatively tiny amount of men circumcised in the UK and Europe are evidence that the medical professions here have figured out ways to deal with these problems effectively.

[skeptigirl]

Here are my posts from the last thread we had on this discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75534) which had sources cited in them. Many of the people posting here have already addresses these posts. Go to the original thread to see those replies and my subsequent replies. And, I did not edit my replies in these so they are likely to not be following the direction of this thread. The posts are to provide sources for the above statements.

Post #137

CDC: Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm)After adjusting for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in high-risk men, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.
In an ideal world you would have never had this pandemic in the first place. We can't even educate the population in this country that evolution theory is not in doubt and you would solve the HIV pandemic by adding more resources to addressing education access? Do you not think this is also being addressed? Think if all the resources available were put into other measures then circs wouldn't need to be added to the repertoire? You'd be wrong. To take from kelly's posts, "the world just doesn't work that way".


Post #138

Well, I started off looking at the meatal stenosis issue from kelly's posts. I'm not one to defend a position when the evidence supports otherwise, (about the complication rate, not about the recommendation to circ boys in high HIV-AIDS prevalence areas which has clear support.) The Emed link from kellyb had the following supporting citations. Keep in mind, the Emed article was for meatal stenosis, not circumcision in general.

Incidence of meatal stenosis following neonatal circumcision in a primary care setting; Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2006 (http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16429216?src=emed_ckb_ref_0)The diagnosis was made in 24 of 329 circumcised boys who were Tanner I development and older than 3 years of age (7.29%, 95%CI=4.48-10.10%). Nearly all required meatotomy to resolve their symptoms. All of the boys with meatal stenosis were circumcised neonatally (exact OR=3.54, 95%CI=0.62-infinity). The ratio of circumcised boys to noncircumcised boys in this study provided 80% power to demonstrate a 21.4% difference in the incidence of meatal stenosis between circumcised and noncircumcised Tanner I boys 3 years and older. Meatal stenosis may be the most common complication following neonatal circumcision. The frequency of this complication and the need for surgical correction need to be disclosed as part of the informed consent for neonatal circumcision. A careful meatal examination is indicted in any circumcised boy with abdominal or urinary complaints.
Circumcision for phimosis: a follow-up study; Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1986 (http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/3749823?src=emed_ckb_ref_0)It is concluded that circumcision for phimosis in young boys is complicated by meatal stenosis in a certain frequency (13/117) but not loaded with serious complications. There seems to be no reason to fear psychological disturbances due to circumcision.
Both of those articles have pretty small sample sizes. It isn't clear but it looks like the populations are self selected in both cases since that's typical for a small sample and no mention of randomization is made which is normally mentioned in the abstract when it is done. And the CDC data differed so I soldiered on looking for more data.

Risks Associated with Male Circumcision from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf) Reported complication rates depend on the type of study (e.g., chart review vs. prospective study), setting (medical vs. nonmedical facility), person operating (traditional vs. medical practitioner), patient age (infant vs. adult), and surgical technique or instrument used. The most common complications are minor bleeding and local infection. In large studies of infant circumcision in the U.S., complications rates range from 0.2 to 2.0% [2]. In the recently completed South African study of adult circumcision by general medical practitioners in their surgical offices, the overall complication rate was 3.8%. The most commonly reported complications were pain (0.8%), followed by swelling or hematoma, bleeding, and problems with appearance (each 0.6%). Damage to the penis (0.3%), infection (0.2%), and delayed wound healing (0.1%) were uncommon. There were no reported deaths or problems with urination [10].

[2]Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.

[10]Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298.
That wasn't sufficient so I looked for the source of the figures and found Report of the Task Force on Circumcision; American Academy of Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/84/2/388?ijkey=f7094c37248f4fcc0f4b32db5fe469d944f40ce7 )The exact incidence of postoperative complications is unknown,(50) but large series indicate that the rate is low, approximately 0.2% to 0.6%.(44,45,51,52) The most common complications are local infection and bleeding. Deaths attributable to newborn circumcision are rare; there were no deaths in 500 000 circumcisions in New York City (52) or in 175,000 circumcisions in US Army hospitals.(51) A communication published in 1979 reported one death in the United States due to circumcision in 1973, and the authors’ review of the literature during the previous 25 years documented two previous deaths due to this procedure.(53)

Complications due to local anesthesia are rare and consist mainly of hematomas and local skin necrosis.(41,46-49,54) However, even a small dose of lidocaine can result in blood levels high enough to produce measurable systemic responses in neonates.(55,56) Local anesthesia adds an element of risk and data regarding its use have not been reported in large numbers of cases. Circumferential anesthesia may be hazardous. It would be prudent to
obtain more data from large controlled series before advocating local anesthesia as an integral part of newborn circumcision. When considering circumcision of their infant son, parents should be fully informed of the possible benefits and potential risks of newborn circumcision, both with and without local anesthesia.
But that wasn't full of original data either and the citations didn't offer a lot so I went looking for more. So now I have to admit maybe I was wrong. ;) Circs for HIV prevention benefit might be worthwhile in areas with low HIV-AIDS prevalence after all. And, they should be considered as well to prevent cancer and serious complications from urinary tract infections.

Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Edgar J Schoen (http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/77/3/258)When properly done, newborn circumcision is a quick, simple procedure with a low complication rate. Morbidity and costs of circumcision are much lower for newborns than they are for older patients.6,7

Moreover, about 70 million circumcised US males currently attest to the lack of effect of circumcision on either emotional health or sexual performance, and no objective studies indicate otherwise. As a matter of fact, evidence indicates that women in Middle America have a sexual preference for circumcised men, mainly from the standpoint of aesthetics and hygiene.33

The multiple benefits of newborn circumcision are additive over a lifetime and include prevention of cancer of the penis, of balanoposthitis, and protection against the effects of phimosis and poor hygiene as well as prevention of UTI and STD, particularly of HIV. Protection against these diseases constitutes a substantial public health advantage and provides a strong argument in favour of instituting universal newborn circumcision in Europe. With AIDS spreading rapidly in developed Western countries in persons who practice heterosexual behaviour as well as in men who practice homosexual behaviour, implementation of universal circumcision beginning with Europe is prudent and timely.There are scores of additional citations including this very large study, Risks From Circumcision During the First Month of Life Compared With Those for Uncircumcised Boys; Thomas E. Wiswell MC, USA1 and Dietrich W. Geschke MC, USA1; 1 The Medical Research Fellowship, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/1011?ijkey=27ccdba2c2ca33be30918861d2a2cbf1db14138 3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)The records of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985 were reviewed for indexed complications related to circumcision status during the first month of life. For 100,157 circumcised boys, there were 193 complications (0.19%). These included 62 local infections, eight cases of bacteremia, 83 incidences of hemorrhage (31 requiring ligature and three requiring transfusion), 25 instances of surgical trauma, and 20 urinary tract infections. There were no deaths or reported losses of the glans or entire penis. By contrast, the complications in the 35,929 uncircumcised infants were all related to urinary tract infections. Of the 88 boys with such infections (0.24%), 32 had concomitant bacteremia, three had meningitis, two had renal failure, and two died. The frequencies of urinary tract infection (P < .0001) and bacteremia (P < .0002) were significantly higher in the uncircumcised boys. Serious complications from routine prepuce removal are rare and relatively minor. Circumcision may be beneficial in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections and their associated sequelae.
So while there were 3 deaths possibly (we don't have the information to decide) related to circs in 25 years, there were none resulting from circs and 2 clearly associated with not getting circs in 5 years in the very large study here. And penile cancer is an additional risk not included in the time frame of the study.

You have to wonder why there are so few male physicians writing about the loss of sexual sensation and almost no mention of the complication in the research. With the expected number of men physicians and researchers, it is very curious. I'm beginning to think the evidence for this loss of pleasure is slimmer than one would think given the activism surrounding the issue.

Prepuce presence portends prevalence of potentially perilous periurethral pathogens. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=1386390&dopt=Abstract)This link is to a MetaAnalysis with no abstract, PubMed. I just posted it for the cute name.

And this one was in the bib. of the Shoen article. I didn't look for a link but I couldn't resist:
33. Williamson ML, Williamson PS. Women's preferences for penile circumcision in sexual partners. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 1988 Fall/Winter;14(2):9-12.

Sorry boys, what can I say.


Post #143

In answer to your question, Ivor, how can I say condoms, education and drugs are not enough when only 1 in 5 has access to them, well access is a funny thing. It would be nice if you could just put those condoms with instructions on a boat and ship 'em where needed. But it isn't that simple.

Just look at the countries where access to these things are actually not too difficult to gage if the problem would be solved if only they had access:

The 25 states that track HIV cases are reporting an increase in new diagnoses, a striking change from the 1990s when the number of new infections remained stable at about 40,000 a year. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/02/12/hiv.rates/index.html)

The HIV infection rate has doubled among blacks in the United States over a decade (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7032358/)

A story in the Toronto Star reports that rates of new HIV infections in Candian young women have soared since 1996. (http://aids.about.com/b/a/235757.htm)

Then you can look at the real vs the ideal world beyond Western countries:

Global HIV rates at record high (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3236200.stm)Quote:
Around 14,000 people are infected with HIV every day
A record number of people were infected with HIV around the world this year, a report says.

Figures from UNAids and the World Health Organization put the number of new infections at five million.

The report also estimates that three million people died from the disease this year.

But it warns that the figures could rise sharply in the years ahead, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia on the verge of epidemics.

Africa hit hardest

The report, which is published ahead of World Aids Day on 1 December, estimates 40 million people around the world are infected with HIV/Aids. Of these, 2.5 million are children.

Russia's Aids timebomb
Around 14,000 people are infected with the disease every day.

Officials say the figures are more reliable than previous year's estimates, following improvements in the way the data is collected.

People living in sub-Saharan Africa continue to be most at risk. About 26.6m people are living with HIV/Aids are in this part of the world.

South Africa, alone, is home to 5.3 million people with HIV - more than any other country in the world. In Botswana, 39% of the population is HIV positive, the report says.

As to your assumptions about why circumcision is now going to be recommended, just who do you mean by "the US"? I'm curious who you think it is that has this power. Perhaps you envision some committee designated to come up with the cheapest way to treat HIV-AIDS in Africa. When you figure it out, let me know. I'd love to lobby them about the misguided ideas of the morality police.

The US donates like everyone else to the Global AIDS fund. Other countries and NGOs have done what they could to minimize the impact of the US AIDS fund donations since we have attached so many rules to the money. Particularly bad are the gag rules. If you take the money they want to see a ban on any discussion of anything to do with abortion. Because of that a couple of countries have even turned down US aid. It was earmarked for programs they felt were ineffective anyway.

So if you want to blame the US, you need to place the blame where it belongs, with the right wing Evangelicals who interfere with HIV-AIDS prevention programs to meet their own needs first.

I suggest you travel more if you get the chance. You might be surprised to know the US is not in control of the rest of the world in quite the way it seems you have pictured. It isn't up to the US to tell the countries on the African Continent how they should lower their HIV-AIDS risk. And for the moment, that's a good thing since we have those pesky church people in our government telling everyone sex is a sin and they should abstain or just suffer God's wrath.

You are correct in that money is an issue and we have enough of it we really should share more. The US pressures governments not to produce low cost anti-retrovirals that aren't off patents. That's another one of those dilemmas. If you wipe out drug company profits, you will have to find other ways to fund research. My assessment of the situation is the profits are currently obscene and the companies could stand to give up some in order to help so many desperate people.

So put pressure on the drug companies. They actually respond if they get enough pressure. When they smell the regulators coming or the frustrated third world governments threaten to make the drugs themselves, the drug companies start donating free drugs to poor countries. Write letters, send emails, make phone calls wherever you think some action might be useful. Don't just gripe about it. (Maybe you are an activist?) You can even donate time and money.

Keep something else in mind. If we spent a fraction of the money that's needed for HIV-AIDS just providing potable drinking water and basic vaccines to the third world, we be saving many more people than HIV will kill. Not that I suggest we only fund one of those, but if you think this whole circumcision thing is just about a cheaper treatment, you are quite misguided.

Hey, when those replaceable parts are ready to go, I'll be the first in line. I have no qualms taking advantage of the incredible medical discoveries we should be seeing in the next few decades.


Post #254

This evidence has a glaring problem, there is no comparison with women in a more sexually permissive society to establish if the "the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse" is sufficient to detect a difference between "cut and uncut" women in the study.

Here's the actual abstract:

The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed)
Quote:
POPULATION: 1836 healthy premenopausal women [attending family planning and antenatal clinics at three hospitals in Edo State, South-south Nigeria.]

RESULTS:Forty-five percent were circumcised and 71% had type 1, while 24% had type 2 female genital cutting. No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse.

In contrast, cut women were 1.25 times more likely to get pregnant at a given age than uncut women. Uncut women were significantly more likely to report that the clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of their body (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47), while cut women were more likely to report that their breasts are their most sexually sensitive body parts (OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.51-2.42).

CONCLUSION: Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings
You have no mention of what percentage of women reported orgasm at all. You have women with complete removal of the clitoris stating their breasts were the site of most sexual stimulation.

If the claim is being made here that women can achieve orgasm equally from nipple stimulation as from clitoral stimulation I'd say that's doubtful. This study certainly doesn't provide evidence of that fact without some documentation of how many of the women in the sample achieve orgasm, cut or not. Many adult women have not experienced orgasm at all. In sexually repressive societies, who knows what the experience of women commonly is. Perhaps there is additional research on the matter.

Diagram from Wiki showing type 1 & 2 cutting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FGC_Types.jpg)

I did a brief search for rates of female orgasm by age and culture but it looks like it will take more time to find appropriate research addressing the question I posed. I did find the following but as an abstract the sources cited supporting the conclusions aren't available.

Medical dangers of female circumcision (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12336839&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Quote:
Psychosexual complications [of fgm] include a feeling of reduced feminity; diminished desire for coitus; diminished coital frequency; dyspareunia, apareunia or vaginismus; lack of orgasm; anal intercourse; depression and psychotic states; and, social problems.
-

[skeptigirl]

[to alternative treatments]

How can you seriously say that there are no alternatives to circumcision for the risks it reduces?

The relatively tiny amount of men circumcised in the UK and Europe are evidence that the medical professions here have figured out ways to deal with these problems effectively.Without data, "effectively" becomes relative. I'm sure in the UK, it is reasonable to recommend to a parent who is opposed to circumcision that they use alternative measures and indeed they should have a similar result as with a circumcised child.

But this is the problem. It is common to assume all parents are equal, capable and willing. It is easy to assume all kids have the same health and all environments those children will be living are similar. It's the same assumptions those judgmental parents who believe we should teach abstinence only to every child make. It's the same assumption many people in this thread are making about the means of preventing HIV. It's an egocentric view.

So while there are alternatives available to some children, it would be stupid to think those alternatives are realistic in every child's situation.

[athon]

I'm wondering if the risk-benefit for appendix removal these days is of similar scale to that of circumcision. Keyhole surgery today is much less risky, and balanced against the chances of serious effects from ruptured appendices seems to be a good thing.

Why don't those who circumcise their boys - who claim its inspired on the grounds of health reasons also get their sons' appendices removed?

Athon

[skeptigirl]

I'm wondering if the risk-benefit for appendix removal these days is of similar scale to that of circumcision. Keyhole surgery today is much less risky, and balanced against the chances of serious effects from ruptured appendices seems to be a good thing.

Why don't those who circumcise their boys - who claim its inspired on the grounds of health reasons also get their sons' appendices removed?

AthonBecause the risk benefit analysis is not the same.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Circumcision is much less traumatic and much easier when performed on an infant than with an adult.

Er, the infant shrieks in agony - a much higher pitched sound than a normal cry for attention - and then subsides, not because they have 'settled down' but because they have gone into shock!

Far from being less traumatic, infant tissue is considerably more sensitive to pain than adult tissue. Just because a new born baby can't regale you with endless stories about how much it hurt doesn't mean it didn't.

I also understand that any studies showing medical benefit from circumcision (eg less chance of urinary infection) have been rather questionable and that international medical organisations have found no conclusive evidence.

I'm astonished that the practice is so widespread in America...

[athon]

Because the risk benefit analysis is not the same.

How's that? There is a slightly increased risk of penile cancer (extremely rare to begin with) and UTI (hardly life threatening, but still unpleasant) matched with a slight risk of complications and pain from the circumcision.

With appendectomy, the risk of complications is slightly higher, but so is the relative risk of appendicitus (matched against the much lower risk of penile cancer).

HIV risk doesn't count here as that's something the child can determine for themselves when they reach an age of sexual maturity (which by then they should have learned how to use a damn condom).

Therefore, if the parents are really worried about their child's health so they remove a 'useless' bit of skin, they might as well match the greater odds of getting appendicitus by having the appendix removed as well.

Athon

[SomeGuy]

This citation is out of date. It cites the That indicates the conclusions are also out of date.I do believe all the "may result"s are now confirmed though I'll have to recheck on the cancer risk. The last statement, "there is no absolute medical indication", is flat wrong.

You also make a lot of false statements.

Not all the may results have been confirmed.

Also the HIV-prevention is not as clear cut as you and other make it out to be.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/ is an update-to-date and seemingly unbiased report on the research done on HIV and circumcision.

While indeed all studies in Africa between circumsized and uncircumsized men show a positive correlation between circumcision and preventing HIV infection, the research done in Europe and America has been THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

STDs and HIV in the western world are more prevalent amongst circumsized men than uncircumsized men.

America is the western country where circumcision is most common, it's also the western country with the highest HIV-infection rate. However correlation is not causation (if that makes sense, not native speaker, sorry). Still it gives some indication that mass circumcision is not really a solution.

Something that has been shown BOTH in Africa and in the western studies is the fact that HIV-transfer for male-to-female is higher for circumsized men.

Something that's also often ignored is that circumcision in Africa is a cultural thing, those different cultures may also have distinctly different sexual morale etc.. All in all there is simply not enough evidence to say circumcision prevents HIV-transfer, in fact, the opposite seems to be the case in those countries with a high degree of personal hygiene. But there's also not enough evidence to state the latter with a degree of certainty.

-=-=-=-
Back to the point of wether it's relevant that the conclusions about circumcision and health benefits are post-hoc.

Yes it's very important, the difference are extremely small, and if you look generally for effects, you're datamining.

This means that you will always find something, you should NEVER draw conclusions from that, this kind of research is only useful for determining what to test.

As far as I can tell the penial cancer claims have not been followed up by actual research TESTING the effect.

It's much the same with the other claims...

Hey here we find UTI rates are down... let's claim that as an advantage...

Here the penial cancer is down, let's claim that as an advantage etc...

These are at best starting points, at worst the effects dissappear completely when all the tests are added up...

[robinson]

I remember Howard Stern going off against circumcision. With him being Jewish, it was interesting radio. His own Dad was on the air ranting at him about it.

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/stern.htm

It is about religion, nothing else. Circumcision is woo. I can't imagine anyone with a clue defending such a barbaric ritual.