There are two subjects that I know stir up a few dedicated commenters here: abortion and circumcision. Most articles, when they fall off the front page, fade away from continued discussion fairly rapidly. Abortion and circumcision proponents and opponents have endurance, though, and comments will continue dribbling along for months. So I hesitate to bring this up, but…
An infant died, slowly and unpleasantly, of an infection and septic shock after an ordinary circumcision.
I know this is a rare occurrence, but it’s the pointlessness of the death that jars. This poor kid died for a silly cosmetic procedure, and the poor parents … think how awful they must feel. Why are people doing this to their babies again?
I guess this counts as some kind of post-natal abortion, so maybe both (or rather, all four) of the most rabid and persistent contingents will be present for this thread.
Wow, I didn’t realize this until I read my previous comment again, but I really am bitter and tasteless, however contradictory those adjectives may sound.
This is one reason:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
According to BBC News: “Male circumcision significantly reduces the spread of the HIV virus to men, according to research.
In terms of infectious disease, Aids is the biggest killer in Africa, with HIV frequent in the sexually-active populations of many countries.
But the study, carried out by European and African researchers, found that uncircumcised men were at least three times more likely than circumcised men to contract the virus.”
New York Times: “A growing number of clinicians and policy makers in the region are pointing to a simple and possibly potent weapon against new infections: circumcision for men.
Armed with new studies suggesting that male circumcision can reduce the chance of H.I.V. infection in men, and perhaps in women, health workers in two southern African nations are pressing to make circumcisions broadly available to meet what they call a burgeoning demand.”
MSNBC: “Male circumcision reduces the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women by about 70 percent, according to a study reported in The Wall Street Journal.”
Bill Clinton “Prepare to tackle the cultural taboos surrounding circumcision yesterday if, as many expect, trials show that it protects men and the women they sleep with from Aids.”
Anecdotal cherry-picking is a cheap rhetorical stunt. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect from the local TV news station, but not pharyngula.
Ken, thank you for showing that there are valid arguments on both sides of issue.
OK so circumscision lowers risk of spreading AIDs. So why is it being done to babies?
Not to jump into the stereotype the fine Mr Myers mentioned but…..condoms work a hell of a lot better. In fact free condoms to the young and needle exchanges would vastly reduce the number of aids cases in the western world. In africa too, if they caould be convinced to all use them, condoms would do a far far better job than circumcision. If you were planning on having unprotected sex with an aids sufferer then, sure, removing part of your penis may make you less likely to catch aids. Perhaps you should just do the whole thing and be done with it.
It doesn’t matter if it reduces the chance of HIV. It’s completely irrelevant. You still should be wearing condoms and getting tested. I think the last paragraph in the link says it all:
I think my biggest complaint is that it is involuntary. I was circumcised as a child, and have suffered some (admittedly minor, but I would have been better off without it) psychological effects because of it. Who are you to determine something like that?
PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298.
I don’t feel like finding the citations for the other studies…but there’s been 3 randomized controlled trials on circumcision and HIV in Africa…and the protection ranges from 53-70%. It’s stupid and horrible, but it seems to work. There’s also a fair amount of evidence that it prevents urinary tract infections and has other benefits related to genital health. I can’t decide if i’ll do it to my kids or not…I certainly wouldn’t if it weren’t for these few studies, but it really does seem to work.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand. We’re talking about the US and Canada here, where we have full access to condoms, education about safer sex and risky behavior, and fewer taboos about condom use and protection than Africa.
In this country, if a male engages in penile to genital contact and doesn’t protect himself, then he accepts the risk of infection. He makes the choice. He can also make the choice, once he becomes sexually active, to get himself circumcised.
Protection from AIDS is no reason to circumcise an infant. They can’t consent, and they won’t be engaging in risky behavior until they’re old enough to consent.
My parents considered having that done to me. I’m glad they didn’t; I rather like my foreskin.
Ok, how about this. For all the uncircumcised males out there, I have a question. Would you consider getting circumcised because of the protection against HIV it provides?
Oran Taran:
No, I would not.
Oran,
No.
Oran: No
(May I vote more than once?)
Oran, there is 99.99% effective way to stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS, it’s called a condom.
@ factician
*frown* So infections only happen in backwards countries like Canada. The risk of actually contracting HIV through circumcision would only happen in Canada.
Not the state-of-the-art hospitals in Africa. They never have a problem with sterilization. Certainly not the spread of HIV within hospitals.
The HIV circumcision studies are idiotic games played by MDs and sociologists that want to pretend theyre ‘researchers’. Check out what comes up on a PubMed search of their names.
The whole ordeal is fantastically stupid.
Wear a goddamn condom.
Jesus.
Oran,
Nope. Much better methods to avoid AIDS.
A full penectomy would almost certainly prove even more effective than mere circumcision for preventing the spread of HIV. Any volunteers? (Or are we merely going to suggest the procedure for southern Africans?)
Fear is a handy tool.
I don’t exactly trust a report (link to PLoS site above) which starts with a pool of uncircumsized men, offers a portion of them circumcisions, and then bases their findings off of a comparison of that whole. HIV doesn’t always show up within a handy period of time- the circumsized group could easily have had more infections than they were aware of. And where were they? 120 infections out of 3400? That’s an infection rate from Africa, I’ll bet (the report was a bit long, thanks.) See also: behavior very few of US would exhibit.
Circumsision should be an option for adults, not a forced procedure on infants.
If people started doing body modifications and piercings to their infants, they’d lose them in a second to CPS.
I’m really blown away at the cavalier attitude towards people’s feelings on this: if you don’t care about it, instead of posting “I don’t see what’s wrong with it,”, possibly consider posting “Perhaps we should consider the feelings of the dick owner.”- because the first statement just reinforces the status quo, and we’ve already got plenty of that.
My roommate makes a complete and total mess around the toilet when he goes for a wee. I yell at him, and he blames it on not being circumcised. This may or may not be the case – any of you other uncut people have something to say about that? Because I’m about to perform the operation on him myself with a Guillotine Cigar Cutter.
That said, my car has seatbelts and airbags. I prefer having both methods of protection instead of just one. I’m glad I was cut when I couldn’t remember it, so thumbs up to circumcision.
And finally, I’ve never gotten a funny look from a woman when she’s handling my donkeyrope. My roommate didn’t get laid once because it freaked her out too much that he wasn’t cut. Why chance it? I take getting laid VERY seriously.
– Matt
Oran,
Not no, but hell no. But it’s really irrelevant, because the issue I have a problem with is forcing this procedure on infants against their will, and I think it should be outlawed for those under 18.
No. Comment 17 is self-obvious.
No. Comment 17 is self-obvious.
Should have been “self-evident”, I think.
He obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
A strange place the USA are.
Should have been “self-evident”, I think.
He obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
A strange place the USA are.
If we are to justify surgery on infants on potentially preventing an otherwise preventable illness during adulthood, why stop at circumcision? We can prevent any number of medical conditions by performing neo-natal surgeries.
Why, imagine the drop in breast cancer if we were to remove all breast tissue from girls as soon as they are born. We wouldn’t be just preventing, we’d be preempting an otherwise hard to prevent medical condition. Sure, some of them will never reach adulthood since they’ll die from the surgery, but it’s a small price to pay — and besides, bringing this up is really cherry picking the data since most won’t die but merely disfigured.
Now, many women may end up resentful as adults because they may decide that they’d look more attractive with breasts and they’d also be able to breast feed their infants. But we can patiently explain to them that this was done for their own good, for perfectly legitimate health reasons. Worrying about how they look is so immature when they can avoid a dreaded disease — and besides they can always get implants; in terms of breastfeeding, who needs it with our hectic, busy lifestyles? Formula is cheap and available, so be thankful your parents made sure you won’t get breast cancer. So what if they didn’t actually ask you what you wanted?
I can certainly think of other examples, but this one ought to suffice in illustrating the foolishness of removing healthy, functional tissue from infants who have no say in the matter in the hope that their disfigurement is benign since it may reduce their risk of getting a disease.
___________________________
Yeah, I’m circumcised cause my parents are Jewish, which I’m not anymore. When I told her we wouldn’t snip our son, she pointed to the Africa studies. I told her that first of all, they’re not even recommending circumcising babies there, but sexually active men, and that if our son was having unprotected sex in sub-saharan Africa (or at all, really), we’d have already failed him.
My wife wanted him snipped because it looks prettier. I told her that that would be a valid reason for him to do it when he’s older, and if I thought that tattoos or body piercings were pretty, but tried to do it to a 2-day old baby, I’d be rightfully put in jail.
I was under the impression that there were more than a few hygiene-related positives in favor of circumcision. I don’t think this bit of skin is doing much otherwise, is it?
I don’t think you can automatically assume because circumcision reduces aids infection in Africa it will do so in a country like Canada. There is a great difference between the two countries in terms of availability of fresh water and soap for hygiene. The study would have to be reproduced in a different environment to be sure.
In any case the only kind of aids transmission it would work for would be sexual, in which case they can choose for themselves when they are adults. However, I suspect if you ask the average teenager whether he would prefer: to get a bit of his dick cut off or use a condom I know which he would choose.
Then there is another disadvantage to circumcision if people think being circumcised gives them protection, they may be less liable to use condoms and end up at higher risk.
Mutilation for religious purposes is idiotic.
Good news is that the circumcision rate is dropping apparently:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_re_us/circumcision_decline_6
It was done to me, but not to my son. I’ve heard it can reduce sensitivity to pleasure, no real health benefits and why would I want to do that to my child?
…darth
ERV,
You misunderstand me. I do not advocate for circumcision. I do not advocate against it. What bothers me is when people pretend it’s an issue that only has one side. There are medical benefits to the procedure. And clearly there are costs (as PZ is pointing out).
This is a classic case where a cost/benefit analysis would be useful. What are the odds of an infection? What are the odds of HIV? What is the benefit? What is the cost? How many would get HIV through infection during the procedure? How many would be prevented from getting HIV by having the procedure? Which is the larger number?
It’s all well and good for us to say, “Well, they should wear a condom.” That’s true. They should. But people don’t. When we argue like that, we risk being like the folks who argue for abstinence-only. People should be abstinent. That would protect them from HIV. But people have troubles refraining from sex (and really, why should they?). And people have troubles refraining from condomless sex. So what should we do about it? Encourage people to be faithful. Encourage people to use condoms. Circumcise? I dunno, but it’s worth talking about. (see cost/benefit above). Develop a vaccine. Develop a cure. Let’s not wed ourselves to simply one or two anti-HIV strategies. Let’s come out with guns blazing and use as many as possible.
Oran – No. Of course not. If i was planning to sleep with a crack whore then i’d wear a condom.
Matt K – your roommate is clearly a lazy arsehole. A foreskin is no barrier to decent urination and, unless his is unfeasibly huge, it should be no barrier to him cleaning up after himself. Perhaps his idleness and dirtiness were the real reason this chick you cite wouldn’t do him.
I see a double standard here.
Christian family organizations have been howling about the recent HPV vaccine. They fear that giving little girls this vaccine will “endorse” teen sex in some way.
But the quoted study that shows circumcision reduces the spread of HIV is not mentioned by Christians as a reason to avoid circumcision because it “endorses” teen sex.
You would think that the HIV study would have Focus on the Family members up on their soapboxes to denounce circumcision as promoting sexual promiscuity.
Absolutely not – it’s full of sensation and it prevents the glans becoming hard and insensitive. I think circumcision, male or female, is barbaric and not appropriate in modern society.
He may have a point. Think of the foreskin as a flow speed regulator – you’re going from a small aperture to a large one. It’s the same principle as the water saver disc in my shower head.
Defending circumcision with the HIV-story is rather an ad hoc argument. People were doing it before there was HIV and they would do it even if HIV is eradicated. It basically has nothing to do with that. I mean, do any of you people who have had or will have your kids circumcised seriously use the HIV argument as the primary one? It’s religious tradition turned semi-secular (at least in the US).
Oops, misread – I thought your roommate *was* circumcised. I reckon it’s easier to be accurate with a foreskin, for the reason I mentioned above – it slows down the stream.
It’s sad, but so what? Unfortunately people die from sepsis during surgical procedures at a certain statistical frequency. Circumcision is a routine and usually harmless practice. I’m personally glad I was circumcized as an infant. I don’t understand the correlation between atheism and hatred of circumcision. I’m an atheist, and I have no problem with it. What’s the big deal?
Factician,
This is bullshit. The procedure can be done when you are an adult. So there is absolutely NO reason to subject kids to it.
Oran: No. Absolutely not.
MattK: No, your room mate is just a slop who can’t be bothered to get a bit of skin out of the way (it’s just one of those things, like making sure you’ve taken off your pants before you try to pee.
DaveX: Hygiene only comes into play for people who don’t shower or wash. And no, it isn’t just a useless bit of skin. Sure, your tongue would toughen up too if you dragged it along the ground for a few years.
If someone chooses to do so for religious reasons, that’s fine, but not before you are an adult. Cutting off a child’s foreskin, like other forms of genital mutilation, is child abuse. What’s the rationale…if we desensitise it, he won’t play with himself? Seems pretty disgusting to me.
Chuck, me too. But the big deal it is an entirely unnecessary procedure based on religious rites with risks and very few obvious benefits. You are a survivor, most of us are. This kid was not. Would you now go through an unnecessary procedure? If not why subject a baby to one.
sailor #37,
That’s certainly worth discussing, whether to wait until they are adults to do it. However, if your reason to do it is going to be prevention of a sexually transmitted disease, I would suggest it is important to do it before sex (much like the HPV vaccine). Do most Americans wait until they are 18 to have sex?
Well, uncut guys can continue answering my question, but I think everyone gets the point. Most adults, given the choice, would NOT opt to be circumcised for the benefits against HIV.
However, even if everyone but one person had said “yes”, it would still not justify circumcision. It is each person’s choice whether they want to be cut or uncut, not their parents.
Circumcising your child is like religious people indoctrinating children or trying to impose their belief systems on other people.
Two things:
1) My brother left my nephew intact. At about two, the doctor said,”The foreskin isn’t elastic enough, it is restricting the growth of the penis”. My brother said,”Cut it off”. It was so sad to see my nephew in pain saying,”My pee-pee, my pee-pee”.
2) Everything I’ve read about disease prevention and circumcision says that washing the uncircumcised penis regularly is just as good as circumcision, just like brushing your teeth. Now, ask your dentist how good people are at regularly brushing their teeth.
I think circumcision, male or female, is barbaric and not appropriate in modern society.
Yes, but it’s really only MALE cicumcision that anyone cares about. Who can find the clit anyway?
I think this pretty much sums up why we perform this unnecessary surgery almost exclusively on infants – because we can pretend it doesn’t hurt if they can’t tell us about it. If it upset you that your nephew had to go through that amount of pain because of a specific health problem, why would you wish it on millions of babies that are perfectly fine as they are?
Cappy:
1. With regards to the first issue, yes, some people have a problem with foreskins that are too inelastic. I also know someone who had a child born with an inelastic oesophagus. There are times when surgery is needed to correct birth defects. That doesn’t mean we all need to get our oesophagus lengthened.
2. The comparison isn’t with “brushing your teeth properly”…it’s with washing your face or armpits. How many people skip that when they shower? In addition, the fact that people don’t brush their teeth properly isn’t used as a reason for pulling out all your teeth.
“So I hesitate to bring this up, but…”
Oh surrrrrre you do.
Let’s say that it was found out that having a pinky finger cut off provided some protection from all forms of cancer. Now, the majority of people don’t get cancer anyway, and it turns out that some people who had pinky removal still get cancer, but people are three times less likely to get cancer after the pinkyectomy. Adults who have had their pinkys removed seem to have no problems resulting from the operation, by and large – grasping objects isn’t inhibited, typing just requires an adapted way of learning. Sure, there are some musical instruments that are off-limits, but that’s minor compared to the reduction in the chance of getting cancer. So, if that were the case, should everyone pre-emptively have their pinky fingers cut off at birth?
If it upset you that your nephew had to go through that amount of pain because of a specific health problem, why would you wish it on millions of babies that are perfectly fine as they are?
Millions of babies that won’t remember it anymore than I do. My childhood memories seem to go back further than most, but not THAT far. And it is still under debate whether or not they are perfectly fine as they are.
As for my roommate, yeah, I’m thinking he is a slob too. Thanks for the input, you uncut people you.
With the ratio of 1 death in millions of circumcisions, I would have this performed on any future children. Shrug.
Oh, and yeah, not for religious reasons – Atheist here as well.
– Matt K
The studies showing that male circumcision helps to reduce the spread of HIV is proof of Intelligent Design. Here me out here. Big Sky Daddy in his infinite knowledge and wisdom knew that thousands of years in the future, the HIV virus would appear. So to protect His followers, He dictated that all of His male followers should be circumcised so that when that virus appeared, His followers would have some protection. Circumcision is a sign of Big Sky Daddy’s divine mercy.
Or it could be an attempt to retrofit an ancient religious custom to a more scientific age.
Yes, the issue of involuntary circumcision of children is something to consider. But what interests me here is the whole circumcision-denial bit: “It has no medical benefit! Its advocates are just religious nuts! The studies shouldn’t be trusted — they’re part of a socialist plot carried out by French doctors working for the U.N.!”
I wonder whether circumcision-deniers tend, on average, to be global-warming deniers too: people who argue backwards from their political beliefs to the scientific evidence.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
Unfortunately people die from sepsis during surgical procedures at a certain statistical frequency.
So then, clearly, reducing the number of unnecessary surgical procedures would reduce sepsis deaths.
Hence, it’s an argument against circumcision, which is unnecessary.
I’m an atheist, and I have no problem with it. What’s the big deal?
Why would people do it if it wasn’t a religious tradition in our culture? And since people are dying from it occasionally, that means it’s just one more area where religion kills people.
It just doesn’t seem necessary to cut off a piece of a baby, a piece full of nerve endings, with no anesthesia. People talk about their babies “coming back sleeping” from the procedure; I guess the doctors don’t tell them that’s probably catatonic shock from the pain.
Based on religious rites? Maybe in ancient Judea. My parents are agnostics who haven’t been to a church since their childhoods in the 1950s, and yet they circumcized me. I don’t think religion had anything to do with their decision. And again, sorry, but I’m glad I don’t have to experience circumcision as an adult. But frankly, this is an issue I couldn’t care less about.
“And finally, I’ve never gotten a funny look from a woman when she’s handling my donkeyrope. My roommate didn’t get laid once because it freaked her out too much that he wasn’t cut. Why chance it? I take getting laid VERY seriously.”
I can’t believe nobody has pointed out that the exact opposite of this happened in 3001.
Well, as a brit, I have to say I have NEVER seen a circumcised penis. And I play three sports, so have seen a few penises in my time. (Showers people! Showers!)
When it comes to directing the pee, I find my foreskin to be a bonus, not a detriment. In cicrumstances where I wish to be particularly precise (name writing in snow for example), the foreskin can be grasped and used to direct the pee more preisely than the course movements allowed by penile manipulation alone
I wonder whether circumcision-deniers tend, on average, to be global-warming deniers too: people who argue backwards from their political beliefs to the scientific evidence.
I can’t answer for anybody else, but I:
1) Think circumcision is never necessary, that the scant medical benefits don’t outweigh the costs of the procedure, and that what studies there are suffer from various methodological issues and, in general, are mostly attempts by religionists to buoy religious dogma; and would never allow the procedure to be performed on any of my children;
2) Believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for a recent, anomalous warming trend in the Earth’s climate, commensurate with the scientific consensus on this issue.
I’m an evolutionist, too. I don’t know what that does to your model but people here are leveling pretty good objections to the pro-circumcision evidence. I’d consider rebutting those arguments before you advanced a grand model that equated non-circumcisers with creationists and climate change deniers.
As a male who was circumcised shortly after birth, my opinion of foreskins is roughly equivalent to my opinion of thick, luxuriant back-hair – I don’t have either, so removing either is not in the realm of possibility. As another similarity between the two physical attributes, there are apparently (weak) arguments for removal of each in individuals that do have them.
I don’t see a strong benefit to infant circumcision that approaches equal weight to the obvious costs merely associated with inherent risks of surgery and of an infant’s inability to provide consent. As for the cited costs of reduced sensitivity of the penis / parts thereof, I wonder where those data come from – there must be so much ‘noise’ in that system that finding an appropriate control group is impossible. You can’t circumcise adults and then ask them about their sex lives – the adult surgery could have had an effect. I can’t imagine a sham surgery that would constitute a placebo. And cultural, age, and other inter-individual differences will swamp your dataset unless the signal is really clear – and I certainly have no complaints about the sensations I get from my ‘donkeyrope’ (new favourite term, thanks Matt). Is there a large population of circumcised men I have not heard from that consistently have trouble achieving orgasm?
So, short version: no obvious benefit to infant circumcision, some costs, therefore why bother? I don’t regret the loss of my foreskin, since I was too young to remember it. But that’s a neutral fact, not an argument in favour at all.
#24: A strange place the USA are.
Indeed, for more than just this reason. As for female preference, I’ve met women from several countries that have expressed preference for one or the other. I have no real data, but my subjective impression is that among women that care (I gather it’s not a big deal to many), the split is close to 50-50. Sadly, very few of these conversations have been in the context of my own performance.
Matt K, you would mutilate your kid because your room mate was slob?
It’s a matter of custom as much or more than religion. We had our son circumcised for two reasons: our doctor said there were medical benefits and we wanted our son to look like his father. That was 17 years ago. I think I’d do more research now.
I don’t think I’ve seen an uncircumcised one myself. I say “think” because there were a few years in the 70’s that are a little fuzzy.
If I had a son I wouldn’t do it to him and I know that my husband wouldn’t either. It is unnecessary and really doesn’t make the penis more attractive, IMO it kind of detracts from it. I have also never seen a problem with hygiene but they guys that I have been with knew how to use soap and water. Personal question about the bathroom issue though guys: doesn’t the foreskin get pulled back for that? Besides, isn’t the problem with the toilet seats mostly due to splashing the water in the bowl? As for the roommate, tell him that there are these neat new things called “cleaning products” that he may want to look into. Whatever the cause is, it isn’t right for him to leave it for others to deal with.
Dr. Dean Edell on KGO radio out of San Francisco is dead set against circumcision and has been very critical of the supposed anti-HIV benefits of the practice. He’s very good about following research rather than anecdotes and has raised concerns that HIV infection rates are not actually lower among circumcised African males because they take more risks (“I protected by my circumcision so I can do what I want!”). He doesn’t doubt the validity of the reports that — all other things being equal — circumcision reduces HIV infection rates, but he gravely doubts the actual efficacy of expanding circumcision in Africa.
If I find a reference, I’ll post it.
ERV: “The HIV circumcision studies are idiotic games played by MDs and sociologists that want to pretend theyre ‘researchers’.”
Off topic: I don’t see why you’re bringing sociologists into it, except perhaps because you don’t understand what they do. Every discipline has its nut jobs, and I’d even admit that sociology has more than its share thanks to an unfortunate brush with postmodernism in the early 1990s. But I think if you look at the discipline as it’s practiced in top 25 departments, you’d discover that the research is as rigorous as any in a discipline where the questions aren’t typically conducive to random assignation and controlled lab experiments.
On topic: In the early 1990s, some sociologists at the University of Chicago conducted a survey of sexual practices using a random sample of men in the US age 18-59 (n=1,410). In an article published in JAMA in 1997, they report that circumcised men are slightly (and not significantly) more likely to have an STD. Circumcised men also engage in a wider variety of sexual practices. The researchers speculate this could be an effect of the stigma of growing up uncircumcised at a time when circumcision was even more common than it is today.
See http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/970403/circumcision.shtml for the original press release.
I’m not cut, and I have HEP C, which I am positive I got because of my condition. The foreskin constantly has little stretch breaks that are open.
We had our son circumcised for two reasons: our doctor said there were medical benefits and we wanted our son to look like his father.
Why on Earth are your son and his father comparing penises? Who are you married to, James Dobson?
Where condoms and education are readily available, it seems reasonable to allow men (and babies that will become men) to keep their foreskins.
If they decide as adults that they really hate the hassle of monogamy and condoms, they should be allowed elective circumcisions. Which should prevent some of them and some of their partners from getting HIV. Though it’ll do nothing to prevent other STDs and pregnancies.
Hmm. Seems like promoting monogamy and condom use might be a better use of everyone’s time and money.
Actually, dying of such infections it’s NOT such a rare occurrence. Not in Africa. Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book “Infidel”. Well, maybe the excision she describes is not the same as circumcision, but that’s really just a matter of degree.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Sailor –
No, it was a circumcision question. I would mutilate my roommate if I thought it would make a difference for the now yellow bathrugs.
I am circumcised. I don’t see it as a ‘mutilation’. Nice way to up the ante with your rhetoric though. It’s not a medical procedure, cosmetic or otherwise, it is mutilation. I can’t take people like you seriously.
Mutilation. You fucking twit. This is the part where we idiot liberals begin to turn on each other for something so insignificant it is hardly worthy of debate. We draw the line, argue until anyone who would disagree with us is the enemy, and guess what… now we’re acting like a bunch of religious conservatives. Congrats. The more I live in this world the more I realize that everyone is the enemy. Just need to speak with a person long enough to find out why.
– Matt K
Sorry for being so harsh, fact :) You know I like you, I just really really really hate those ‘studies’. Its not the circumcision that pisses me off– its the idiotic ‘science’.
Ok, how about this. For all the uncircumcised males out there, I have a question. Would you consider getting circumcised because of the protection against HIV it provides?
Not for that, or any other reason.
This may or may not be the case – any of you other uncut people have something to say about that?
He needs to pull back the foreskin before he wees. If he can’t do that, he may have an adhesion between his foreskin and corona, a problem which will also give him some difficulty when he has sex, but which can be cured quickly with a blunt probe in a doctor’s office.
Oh, and since other women are chiming in with their own experiences, I’ll point out that I’ve never seen an uncut (adult) penis, but that my (cut) husband and I decided to leave our three sons intact. I wouldn’t listen to a US doctor’s opinion on my son’s penis unless the child was experiencing pain or some problem was visible to me.
Shall we compare the complication/mortality rate of other cosmetic surgeries?
Source – http://www.liposuctionanswers.org/deathrates.html
Source: http://www.dryoho.com/dr-yoho/clinical/surgeryrisks.cfm
Source: http://www.breastimplants4you.com/breast_feeding_complications.htm
Between 1940 and 1990 there were an estimated 65,863,000 neo-natal circumcisions with an estimated 2,744 deaths resulting (US only).
Source: http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm
I thought that, here at least, anecdotal evidence wasn’t regarded as reliable.
This will surely be called out at as a strawman, but: For those of you that are OUTRAGED by neonatal circumcision, perhaps you should look at the horrible mutilation of beautiful young hyper-conscious girls during elective cosmetic surgery procedures. These useless mutilations, perpetrated at terrific profit by so-called doctors, are causing so much more misery than neonatal circumcision that it begs the question – Do you really have the welfare of youngsters in mind or are you just gratuitously attacking religion?
My daughter doesn’t look like me… maybe i should have had her undergo a transgender operation when she was born.
As for those talking about memory… what on earth does that have to do with anything? Should parents be able to amputate a babies arm or leg under the justification of “he wont remember it”? Of course not, because the issue is not about memory, it’s about the rights of an (admittedly small) individual and the responsibly of parents to protect those rights.
Matt K
When I said that I was bantering. But come to think of it your room mate might be the best reason to circumcise your son. I mean you can move away from your room mate, but your son you will be stuck with for at least 16 years.
But if it not your room mate what do you mean by:
No, it was a circumcision question.
What do you perceive are the advantages and disadvantages?
I was circumsized, I have seen no particular disadvantage to it, but that does not mean I force it onto someone else, even my own kid.
Whats the rate of HIV infection in circumcised women ? Obviously if there is a slight statistical difference then we can start promoting this as a ‘healthy option’ to be performed for all baby girls too.
Actually you lot in the USA are lucky you live in a place where most men are circumcised since this has obviously meant you have avoided HIV infection in your population unlike places like Japan where almost nobody is circumcised (male, or female).
This will surely be called out at as a strawman, but: For those of you that are OUTRAGED by neonatal circumcision, perhaps you should look at the horrible mutilation of beautiful young hyper-conscious girls during elective cosmetic surgery procedures.
Duh! I forgot two wrongs make a right! I feel so stupid!
HPLC_Sean, parents do not make their children undergo breast implants and liposuction. Your post is irrelevant.
Do you really have the welfare of youngsters in mind or are you just gratuitously attacking religion?
No. I fundamentally, absolutely oppose liposuction, facelifts, and breast augmentations performed on unconsenting infants, as well.
As much as I’m in favor of what is natural in terms of the human body (anti-piercings, anti-tatoos, don’t like women who wear much makeup), I did have my son circumcised. Frankly it was a cosmetic decision made by myself and my wife. Around here (Chicago area), being circumcised is the norm. I’ve had female friends who have said that they are grossed out by an uncircumcised penis and they won’t go down on a guy who is uncut. That was a big factor in my viewpoint (being a typical guy as I am!) plus my wife didn’t want our son to look like a freak (in her estimation). I guess it’s a cultural thing that varies but I totally understand that this contradicts other stances we have. I just wanted to share our perspective about how we made our decision. We also thought it would be alot easier now when he’d have no memory of the pain rather than later when it would be worse to have done.
Nearly all of my female friends are the same way (and some male friends too), but of course this is only a matter of what they are used to and consider “normal” versus what they have probably never seen in person. I used to be a little freaked out by uncircumcised penises myself, until I started dating a guy who was uncut. He was convinced I would be grossed out, after spending a lot of his childhood getting made fun of by other guys and hearing about girls’ bad opinions, but I got over it pretty quick and now definitely prefer it. It just strikes me as a bit superficial to do it for reasons like this, I wouldn’t do it if I had a child, and in general I just think it’s best to avoid unnecessary surgical procedures – I think most parents probably don’t realize that they are as dangerous as they are.
Did Ian (#38) just say that his unit is so big it drags on the ground? LOL LOL LOL
My son is uncut and his pediatrician tried every trick in the book to get me to have it done at every annual check-up. He was constantly scheduling us appointments with urologists that we never kept. When my boy was 6-years-old, he had us wait 2 hours in the office because the boy supposedly had traces of blood in his urine and we needed to wait for tests. No, he didn’t have an infection, of course, but the doc came in and said to prevent this from happening again, he really should get circumcised. I had been waiting for that response and had 2 hours to prepare.
“I think the best way to keep this from happening again is to find a doctor who isn’t so damn obsessed with circumcision.” We never went back.
Frankly it was a cosmetic decision made by myself and my wife. Around here (Chicago area), being circumcised is the norm.
Did it occur to you that making this into a fashion choice wasn’t exactly the best strategy, particularly when it’s the fashion in 17 years from now that’s going to affect him, but you made your decision on what was the fashion now?
Your decision is akin to my parents, when I was born, having surgeries performed that would make me look good in legwarmers and a headband. (And maybe one of those Benetton shirts that gets tied up down at the corner.) Pretty frickin’ stupid, in other words. Christ, why didn’t you just tattoo a picture of a Swatch on his wrist?
Andrew:
I was gonna get to that!
In that otherwise rather unremarkable novel, I did find one memorable phrase: “God designed us — circumcision is blasphemy!”
Chet, you are being unfair there.
They said they did not want their kid to feel a freak, and judging by some of the other letters here, they had a point, it seems that males that are not circumsized get teased and sometimes have difficulty with girlfriends. On balence given the times it may have made their kids life easier, so to call is fashion is not right.
Anyone have any ideas what the evolutionary function of the foreskin is, and how it gives males an advantage?
Would not have circumcision performed on myself. Would not have it performed on anyone else at my command.
Women that are scared of a toque (read, foreskin) need to get around :P. The health benefits have been contested even within the last decade based on studies with selection bias in sampling.
Circumcision is like brushing your teeth – but saying that you can’t have cavities when you don’t have teeth is not a good endorsement for not having teeth.
Leave the cutting to capable, informed adults and leave this pseudo-religious sadism out of it. Kthxbai.
Oran Taran writes:
Would you consider getting circumcised because of the protection against HIV it provides?
No.
It’s unethical to cut off a functional part of a baby’s body because of possible future benefits when it can be delayed until the child is better able to understand the pros and cons. We don’t amputate breast tissue from newborn girls to prevent future breast cancer, do we?
DaveX writes:
I don’t think this bit of skin is doing much otherwise, is it?
Obviously you don’t have one.
sailor writes:
They said they did not want their kid to feel a freak, and judging by some of the other letters here, they had a point, it seems that males that are not circumsized get teased and sometimes have difficulty with girlfriends.
So the fact that some shallow females don’t like the look of foreskin is a good reason to have it cut off, rather than letting the kid make that decision later?
To Chet:
No, they don’t and didn’t compare penises. But my husband would take him into the men’s room so both could relieve themselves. And when our son was a toddler, my husband would take him into the shower with him, rather than give him a bath. Little kids will sometimes catch glimpses of their parents naked. It’s part of life. Please don’t read anything creepy into this!
Absolutely not – it’s full of sensation and it prevents the glans becoming hard and insensitive. I think circumcision, male or female, is barbaric and not appropriate in modern society.
Orpheus
Amen to that. How would your tongue, or your gums do if your lips were cut off?
Another woman here. I’ve had sex with both cut and uncut men (in safe circumstances). I, at least, have no doubts about it: an uncut penis provides more pleasure. I suspect that women who prefer circumcised men do so from an aesthetic point of view, but since this is a cultural matter, I don’t think it is that immutable or general.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that I’d reject a circumcised long-time partner, but I’d mourn a little for the lost bit of flesh.
The arguments about consent have already been made. I can’t see why an infant should routinely undergo this procedure.
When those ancient daddies and mommies hacked away at their little son’s penis, they must have been expecting some result which made it worth the risk in those days of no asepsis, if that’s the word I want.
They didn’t do it on a whim. Now think about their ideas about sexual behaviour, and think about what results they might have expected.
Ahh, so you want to play nasty? It’s funny really…we have an ancient cultic practice (male genital mutilation) that has become mainstream in the US (but not the rest of the Western world…go figure). A couple studies come out which say that, in a very limited set of circumstances, this ancient cultic practice is useful in fighting a disease. Can anyone say “confirmation bias”? But those of us who don’t see See The Light are denialists? And then there’s this from ERV:
Nuff said. As is almost always the case, once ERV has spoken.
That just weirds me out, big time. Who compares their penis with their father’s? Ewww.
@chet and @sailor
Around here (here being defined as Minnesota) – it was the “thing you did” when you had a male kid. Not a lot of discussion or thought was put into it by the parents. You can chalk that up as a cultural thing if you want. All four of my nephews are cut – even after I questioned the purpose of it. It was important enough for my brothers for their kids to be more like them than anything.
Also – lets gain some perspective here – this isn’t cutting off a kids arm (i mean really – how can you suggest that?!?).
And being gay I’ve seen my share of penises (and I am not using the shower excused mentioned earlier) and prefer cut thank you very much.
Wow. Of course it’s genital mutilation. Sure, some people are equally offended at at the term “female genital mutilation”, but the difference between the two procedures is a matter of degree, not a matter of absolutes. I’m not offended when people choose to sanitise the language and call it a “medical procedure”. I’m rather shocked that someone here is so narrow minded that they call someone a “fucking twit” and an “enemy” for failing to use the approved terminology. Have we suddenly been transported to FreeRepublic or LGF?
Another issue is similar arguments can be made against vaccinations– how many kids are going to get whooping cough. In this case, the individual risk for side effects from the vaccine are higher than the individual benefits, but the benefits come from the group behavior.
I know that circumcision is not as effective as preventing disease as vaccination, but I just wanted to throw out analogous situation. I’m cut, but probably wouldn’t cut a future son, but I wouuld probably pay for it if he wanted it as a teen.
Actually, this has been kind of a thing in the US for a while among doctors that stopped pushing circumcision. When my brother was born, in 1989, my parents were both ambivalent, and they were advised by their doctor that it might be best to just have him match his dad, since then he wouldn’t think he was abnormal. In this case, that meant no circumcision.
It seems to me that the medical benefits of circumcision are exaggerated. In Europe, where routine circumcision is almost unknown, there don’t seem to be any raging sexually transmitted epidemics. Indeed, AIDS rates as a whole are lower in Europe than in North America. It would seem that education and cultural practices have more to do with the spread of HIV/AIDS than circumcision.
As for a loss of sensitivity in circumcised men, I would suspect that the removal of any erogenous tissue would lead to a decrease in sensitivity. A recent study using a touch sensitivity test can be read here:
BJU
Regarding ‘fitting in’; a friend of mine who traveled Europe (and managed o get a bit of action) remarked that a few ladies were put off by his bare member. Although anecdotal, I imagine that since the cultural norm in Europe is the reverse of the US, circumcised penises may be considered less attractive to European women.
As for female genital mutilation; I would wager that it receives less press because EVERYONE in the civilized world understands that it is wrong.
Never happened to me, but maybe that’s because I only dated nice liberal girls.
If a potential sexual partner can’t get over your foreskin or lack thereof, I think that’s a good indicator that they’re not worth your time. It’s the same as if you’re a woman, and your potential lover is grossed out because your labia are too big. Twelve-year-old boys are supposed to react that way, but they’re also supposed to grow out of it eventually.
I agree with Chuck. I had both of my sons circumcised after reading up on the benefits (even though one of the doctors was against it). It was not religious but scientific on my part. I read studies that stated health benefits and saw that it was a safe procedure.
I do have one question though: I realize that people die from medical procedures, is this common enough for circumcision that we should outlaw it? I see the knee-jerk reaction the same as saying a bear killed a baby, thus all bears should be shot.
Todd
TheBrummell, http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html
“For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision–all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.”
Why use a lame standard like, “Was it as good after?”, when more direct measures are possible. But, even then, there are plenty of cases of couples where the man chose to become circumcised later on, where ***both*** partners said it negatively impacted their sex lives. The only reason the majority of women find it odd looking or bizzare is “solely” because its so common that in most cases its going to be damn rare for them to “ever” run across someone that has one, and its probably going to scare off most of them, so they will never know the difference. The ones that have, invariably state that they don’t like sex as much with those that have been circumcised. One comment I heard on the subject was along the lines of, “Its like the difference between a well oiled piston and trying to hump a stick.”
As for medical issues. Like most of this kind of crap, the majority of studies are often invariably funded by people trying to defend the practice, so one has to question the validity of them. And, in point of fact, a few small number of studies, which are not conducted often enough, involving infants seemed to imply that foreskins **decreased** the chances of urinary infections, the theory being that, for infants, as long as kept clean, the foreskin actually provides an additional barrier *against* feces and other things from getting into the penis. But as I said, its real hard to find valid data on it, if all the studies are being funded, for the most part, by groups trying to prove the opposite.
And frankly, I have way less problem with the people claiming that circumcision has some valid purpose, since at least they are making an argument, how ever one sided, vaguely useful or marginally meaningful. The fence sitters that go, “Well, I don’t know any better, so don’t have an opinion.”, can kiss my ass. Better yet, go join the fence sitters for religion too. They have the same fracking stupid argument: “Well, it never hurt me, and I know it sometimes maybe hurt other people, but I hear it often has some benefits, so I just figure its OK one way or the other.” No, it *can* maybe help everyone that has it, if they do things that make the benefits worth the costs, but it **does** hurt everyone, including the people around them in verifiable ways, and its not real clear in either case that there is such a **huge** benefit that its worth the loses. If we found a way to defeat AIDS tomorrow that also did well at targeting a wide number of other similar diseases, like herpes BTW, then what? Keep doing it because there ***might*** one day be some disease that its still beneficial for? Meanwhile, you have generations of people with poorer sex lives, as well as other risks, ranging from the surgery itself to possible increases of early infections *because* of removal, plus the social stigma and problems from it being perceived as “natural”. And the later, as people even here point out, is actually harder to overcome in a generation, if the presumed need for the procedure went away, than curing the fracking diseases people think we should keep doing it for.
No, only a fool fence sits on either issue, and only a bigger fool ignores reality and tries to claim that the reason for siding with the pro side is 20% supposed benefits, and 80%, “Because its considered a social norm in some places and its just too hard (whine, whine!) to get people in those places to change their opinions, so why bother trying?”
So you would advocate for female circumcision on the same basis?
Let’s face it. Our nation and culture, whether we like it or not, is based on Judeo-Christian values. People don’t even THINK about where or how the practice came into being, much less the why. And now, confronted with evidence that this really isn’t sensible, it’s so ingrained that we have to try to refute it.
This regular circumcision of newborn baby boys is NOT an international phenomena… and we DON’T see larger AIDS numbers in nations where circumcision is not the norm, so the AIDS argument doesn’t seem to hold a lot of water either. Here in the US we’re just SO USED to seeing circumcised penises that we don’t question it any more, and to some, the idea of an uncircumcised penis seems weird and (ironically) unnatural.
Now for those who want us women to share: I’ve been married twice. One was cut, the other uncut. Back in the day, I was shocked to see an uncircumcised penis. Hubby didn’t splatter on the rug (he pulled back his foreskin when he peed) and I certainly didn’t see any difference in performance that could be related to the cut vs. uncut between hubby #1(cut) and hubby #2(uncut).
I’m also ashamed to say that my own lack of experience when my son was born lead me to believe that circumcision was normal and never questioned circumcising my own son (sorry, kiddo). Of course that was before marrying hubby number two and learning that there actually WAS such a thing as an uncircumcised male in “this day and age”.
I’d also like to say that this was a STUPID choice, and that I don’t think it’s any smarter when other people say “I circumcised my son to make him look ‘normal'” because if uncircumcised penises became the norm then it would be the circumcised who look “freakish” to some.
Also, if a woman is basing her relationship on how a man’s penis looks, should he really WANT her anyway?
Boy, this topic again.
While this may not be definitive, the WHO, AMFAR, UNAIDS, and other major health organizations find the studies convincing enough to recommend circumcision as one strategy in some areas to effectively fight HIV infection. No, it’s probably not effective enough in North America (given the relative prevalence of condoms, information about AIDs prevention, and general understanding of hygiene) to make it a general practice, but it does seem in many apparently solid studies to show large effects under appropriate conditions. If we’re going to be rationalists and support evidence-based medicine, I think it is silly to deny these studies’ results a priori, just as it is silly to ignore the possible risks and other costs of the procedure.
As a woman, I wonder if I have a right to an opinion about this issue, but since I have experience on the — erm — “other end” of the question, I do have one…
I just sit in quiet wonderment about the line of logic that led to the idea of male circumcision. How does something like that get a start?
Clan Patriarch: “Hey there, mama… Nice looking young feller you got there. Congratulations on the quick birth, lack of postnatal death and avoidance of your own demise from infection. Now, I was just looking at your boy’s penis and I figure I could use this sharp rock to cut off a bit of it. You know, to please the gods.”
New mum: “Great idea! It’s just dangling a bit there anyway. Sure! Hack away. I’ll hold him still for you. Oh, and while we’re at it, why not cut off those silly ol’ earlobes and a couple of toes… You know. Kinda streamline him.”
Anyone? Does anyone know of a study of the history of this barbarism and why it used to be so prevalent?
Well, the specific question they were addressing was, “Will elective circumcision of adult men in Africa reduce their chance of contracting HIV?” The studies themselves, so far as I’ve read, don’t claim to have shown any benefit to, say, infant circumcision in developed countries.
In the Lancet study, at least, they listed the number of circumcised participants who tested HIV+ within three months after the procedure; that number seemed to be small enough that even if they were all actually infected to begin with, it wouldn’t impact the conclusion very much.
The biggest caveat I have about these studies is that they only took place over two years or so. (At least, that’s the case for the two studies I’ve seen, one in PLoS Medicine and one in the Lancet.) A 40% difference in infection rates over two years or less does not equate to a 40% difference in infection rates over a lifetime. OTOH, at least one paper (“The Potential Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa,” by Williams, Lloyd-Smith et al. in PLoS) estimates that this difference in rates would hold steady over the next thirty years.
There’s also the minor confounding issue that (most of) the circumcised men were abstinent for about a month after the procedure, which of course meant less opportunities for infection.
>jumps in< Hey if the baby dies, then they can have another one! >runs away<
1) Aside from the about 3% of Jews and Muslims, circumcision is not a religious issue in the U.S.–it’s probably best describe as medical folklore, with origins in the late 19th century’s pitiful misunderstanding of human physiology.
2) If there is in fact a reduced contractability of HIV through the penis may be due to the more porous nature of the internal surface of the foreskin. But latex is even less porous, safer, cheaper, and one’s own adult choice. By the logic that “circumcision = safer”, as a circumcised man, I should right now elect to get my meatus sutured shut and install a kind of ureter side-catheter to prevent any chance of future HIV contraction.
3) The foreskin likely provides penile lubrication and textural stimulation to both partners. It is also adds mass to the penis. Mass to the penis!
3) The many studies about urinary tract infection are far from conclusive, the rates of infection are very low anyway, and they are easily treated with a round of antibiotics.
4) Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that very few European men get circumcised now, and yet there is no public health crisis in European male nether anatomy, nor sexual frigidity amongst the French, Italians, Spaniards, etc.
5) These are sensible, simple ideas. Balance this against the idea of paying a doctor to remove an appreciable amount of a boy’s penile mass against his will and without anesthesia and the case for circumcision begins to get shaky indeed.
I have commented elsewhere on this, but I will reiterate anyway, since this seems to some degree at least to be a matter of collecting opinions. I was circumcised as an infant, and I wish that I were not. I had absolutely no choice in the matter, and I resent that my parents had it done. The fact of the matter is that it is an irreversible modification to one’s body, with (in the Western world, anyway) minimal if not nonexistant benefits. I absolutely never would have any sons of mine circumcised until they were in a position to make responsible decisions about similar things, like tattooing and body piercing.
That being said, I recognise that I am lucky, and would much rather be a circumcised male than a circumcised female. The latter is a far more barbaric practice than the former. I would assert, though, that both are barbaric.
Meanwhile, I am not a denier of global warming, HIV/AIDS, the Holocaust, or any other such popular delusion. I just think it insensitive at best, and cruel at worst, to deprive someone of the choice to remain unmutilated. And yes, I do regard it as mutilation! I fail to see how one could define “mutilation” in such a way as to exempt circumcision. For crying out loud, a healthy part of the body is being cut off for no proven medical benefit!
Finally, as to the African circumcision thing, if a responsible adult decides that they want to get parts of their body cut off for whatever reason, I will not try to stop them (beyond reasoning with them). I am willing to believe that, in that situation, there is some benefit to circumcision, but that benefit is minimal compared with the benefits of proper condom use. If people are unwilling to learn how to use a condom and have sex with HIV-positive partners, they will have asked for what they have coming to them. (Sorry if that sounds harsh, but again, how could it be otherwise?) I do not deny that Africa has a number of serious problems, but a shortage of uncircumcised men is pretty far down on my list.
Used to be??? In the U.S. it is the default! History:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/
In large studies of infant circumcision in the U.S.,
“I do have one question though: I realize that people die from medical procedures, is this common enough for circumcision that we should outlaw it? I see the knee-jerk reaction the same as saying a bear killed a baby, thus all bears should be shot. Todd”
From a US government site:
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].
Your choice…
I’m always bemused by the “infants don’t remember pain/suffering the way adults do, so it’s not such a big deal” argument. When I’m hurting, my concern isn’t for how I’ll remember the experience the next year or even the next day – it’s for how I’m feeling in the moment. I can think of many unpleasant experiences I’ve had in my lifetime that don’t bother me a bit now, though at the time I wanted them to stop. I try to minimize or prevent my own present and future pain when possible – I would approach painful procedures for infants in the same way. There would have to be compelling evidence that infant circumcision provides substantial health benefits that can’t be obtained another, less invasive, way or later in the child’s life at his own discretion for me to even consider performing such an awful procedure on any child of mine.
They said they did not want their kid to feel a freak, and judging by some of the other letters here, they had a point, it seems that males that are not circumsized get teased and sometimes have difficulty with girlfriends.
Sure – now.
In 17 years? Who the hell knows what women will prefer? Maybe by then circumcised men will be the minority. His parents just doomed him to a life of “ewww, where’s your foreskin?”
The smart choice would have been to leave it there and let him have it cut off, as an adult, if he felt that he needed to do it to fit in. Rather than nonconsensual, irreversable surgery.
And when our son was a toddler, my husband would take him into the shower with him, rather than give him a bath.
I can personally tell you that at toddler age, having a penis that looked like my dad’s was not even remotely a concern. (I would have had to have a dick the size of my arm to “look like my dad” at that age.) It’s only when you get to the age where you’re showering after gym class that you start to compare penises, and nobody measures up in that competition anyway. Everybody thinks there’s something weird about their ding-a-ling.
It’s a specious rationale, and the fact that it’s exactly the rationale that my parents used to have me circumcised only makes me more sensitive to its bankruptcy.
I realize that people die from medical procedures, is this common enough for circumcision that we should outlaw it?
I don’t think we should outlaw it, but surely if circumcision puts people at risk – even a small risk – it’s worthwhile to eliminate as many unnecessary circumcisions as possible?
I don’t see what the problem is with allowing men to choose circumcision rather than just forcing it on them whether they’ll eventually want it or not. Surely we wouldn’t allow two parents to force their daughter to have breast implants, right? Why should we let them make a similarly cosmetic decision on behalf of their sons?
I’ve often thought that the issues of circumcision and male birth control are two issues where a legitimate “Men’s Rights” movement could emerge (as opposed to the thinly-veiled misogyny of the mainstream men’s-rights movement.)
I don’t think it would be unreasonable for men to demand that:
1) People not chop off parts of our dicks without our consent just because some future woman (or man, I guess) might prefer it that way; and
2) Like women, we have birth control options that are safe, effective, and don’t interfere with sex (and don’t rely on another person to be responsible for it.)
Thanks, cm, @109! I’m from Australia and astonished at what’s there at the links you posted.
Just as a sidelight from my, admittedly, rather limited experience with penises: my husband’s mother had five sons, and going against the general mood of the time, had none of them circumcised. At the age of 13, the eldest, (my brother-in-law) decided he wanted to “look like the other boys” and so asked to be circumcised and underwent the procedure, with his to-the-best-of-his-experience consent.
His comment to me decades afterwards was that it hurt like bloody hell for weeks, resulted in far less sensitivity than he had before, and at the age of 54 he regrets ever having it done.
Just one anecdotal example, sure, but I admired how his mum gave her boys a chance to choose it, or not.
Wow. PZ was right. Abortion and mutilation, the two subjects guaranteed to bring everybody out of the woodwork. Impressive!
Wha? Oh, all right… yes, I don’t remember, no we didn’t and he seems to be fine, no.
From DaveX, post #27:
This is why it’s important to have discussions over the Internet, because if you were sitting across from me in real life and you said that, I think I’d have tried to strangle you.
Why don’t you volunteer for a prefrontal leukotomy? It protects against becoming unruly and demented in old age, and it’s not as though that bit of brain tissue is doing much otherwise for you, is it?
I’ve noticed that, among men who were circumcised fairly on into their lives and that I’ve spoken to about it (admittedly a small and informal sample), there’s a great deal of variation about whether they feel it reduced sensitivity or not.
I’ve always wondered whether this is due to different techniques and methods. I believe some methods of circumcision leave some of the original tissue behind, and perhaps that’s why.
One final thought, and then I promise I’ll leave this thread alone:
It is blatantly obvious to anyone who does some research into the subject that the health claims made for circumcision are utterly wrong in most cases and probably universally wrong. The past claims were always terribly weak to begin with, and even the latest HIV claims are fairly dodgy.
Given that, how much does it undermine our confidence in clinicians when they repeat such clear untruths? I know I lost most of my respect for Tara when she began talking about the benefits of circumcision, and now I don’t trust her judgement at all on contentious medical matters.
Threads like this really do take on a life of their own.
My purpose in the original post was to make two points:
1) Circumcision, like any surgery, has inherent risks of infection of which parents may not be aware.
2) Recent research has shown that circumcision decreases genital sensitivity.
Add these two things to a third thing that we already know:
3) Routine infant circumcision is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (nor its counterparts in Canada, the UK, or, heck, any other country in the developed world) because the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
From these knowns we should expect that doctors would no longer perform infant circumcision unless medically indicated. But they still do. This cultural inertia could be stopped if doctors took Hippocrates advice “First do no harm.”
PZ really hit the penis on the foreskin when he said:
Frak.
Don’t worry; spirit foreskins are waiting to be reunited with the souls of men in Heaven.
How many parents would check the option box for their newborn if instead of circumcision, the option was neonatal genital mutilation?
Our Obstetrician has been practicing at Marin General Hospital for years, having provided fetal heartbeat tracks for GD’s Micky Hart, among other qualifications. When vocal anti-circumcision radio MD, Dr. Dean Edell, booked a room for the impending nativity of a son, our OB nearly convinced staff to tag him for a circumcision (that would most definitely not be performed). The chance that the joke might go awry convinced everybody that it probably wasn’t that funny in the first place. Born in the fifties, I was never given a choice, but by the time it matters to my son, he’ll be considered normal for Northern California.
Only in the US. Everywhere else, AFAIK, only Jews and Muslims do it (and AFAIK a few other religions).
Why?
Most people in the First World seem to shower every day, so…
Full disclosure: I shower once per week, unless it’s very hot. In between, I occasionally (at irregular intervals) just pick the dust off with my fingers. Most of it is washed away in pissing anyway. Never had any urinary tract infection or anything. And that even though I normally change my underpants only once every two days and my pyjamas once a week. Biology schoolbooks in Europe ask for regular cleaning with a sponge — I call paranoia.
With no anesthesia? In the USA? For secular reasons?
I’m getting a headache. No, really, that’s not rhetoric hyperbole.
Nonsense. He just needs to use at least two fingers for holding. See comment 54.
To the contrary. If it’s done for a religious reason, it’s at least done for a somewhat understandable reason. If it’s done just because the baby has the misfortune of being in the USA…
What benefits???
That’s it: Christians are not circumcised, except apparently in the USA.
Not just that. The French managed to get their birth rate up to 2.1 children per woman. Sure, socialism has something to do with that, but if the basis isn’t there… :^)
Only in the US. Everywhere else, AFAIK, only Jews and Muslims do it (and AFAIK a few other religions).
Why?
Most people in the First World seem to shower every day, so…
Full disclosure: I shower once per week, unless it’s very hot. In between, I occasionally (at irregular intervals) just pick the dust off with my fingers. Most of it is washed away in pissing anyway. Never had any urinary tract infection or anything. And that even though I normally change my underpants only once every two days and my pyjamas once a week. Biology schoolbooks in Europe ask for regular cleaning with a sponge — I call paranoia.
With no anesthesia? In the USA? For secular reasons?
I’m getting a headache. No, really, that’s not rhetoric hyperbole.
Nonsense. He just needs to use at least two fingers for holding. See comment 54.
To the contrary. If it’s done for a religious reason, it’s at least done for a somewhat understandable reason. If it’s done just because the baby has the misfortune of being in the USA…
What benefits???
That’s it: Christians are not circumcised, except apparently in the USA.
Not just that. The French managed to get their birth rate up to 2.1 children per woman. Sure, socialism has something to do with that, but if the basis isn’t there… :^)
The volume of comment on this post makes me wonder if Freud was onto something when he discussed castration anxiety as one of the primary neurotic anxieties.
There was a time in this country when breastfeeding was considered strange by many people. We were a “modern” technological society and didn’t have to perform that backward, strange ritual anymore.
Yeah, we were stupid, and we’re still stupid in many ways. The whole “I want my son’s penis to look like his father’s” and “I don’t like the way uncircumcised penises look, I’m not used to it” arguments are so idiotic I’m surprised there are people who have the guts to state them publicly and label themselves as fools.
Circumcision permanently alters the body’s function. The glans is normally a mucous membrane, NOT dried out skin.
An admission: I find clitoral hood piercings attractive. Should I advocate that all newborn baby girls be pierced? And would it not be considered strange and actually quite sick that I was worrying about the attractiveness of an infant’s genitals, as if my personal preference was at all relevant?
How is this even a fucking discussion?
Ian: “Hygiene only comes into play for people who don’t shower or wash.”
…which is a concern for people planning to spend protracted periods of time in combat environments, and therein lies an important clue for how male circumcision came to be practiced so widely in the United States in the years following World War I.
So, all you well-intentioned parents: do your part! Help keep America’s young men from becoming infected with HIV through unprotected sex in sub-Saharan Africa or by protracted deployments in trench warfare combat environments! Circumcise your boys! American women on the home front are counting on you to do the right thing!
Besides, who doesn’t like the pleasing æsthetics of a properly circumcised penis? I know I could go for one right now!
(Okay. Pulling tongue out of cheek…)
@ Oran:
No. No f***ing way with bells on.
The problem of STD infection is easily fixed by other non-surgical means, as has been pointed out. In my case, since I’m married, it’s irrelevant, of course…
“Born in the fifties, I was never given a choice, but by the time it matters to my son, he’ll be considered normal for Northern California.”
Male circumcision is already uncommon in Northern California (under 35% if I recall correctly) and the rate is falling every year. I suspect when my son is old enough to be comparing notes in the high school locker room, there won’t be very many kids at all who don’t have foreskins, and I’d be willing to bet that the majority of those who don’t will have been circumcised for religious purposes.
Sixteen years from now, the kids who will be getting psychologically abused by their classmates in the locker room for having ugly and mutilated “mound tackle” will probably have a pretty good case for arguing that they’re on the receiving end of religious bigotry. Won’t that be a fun political football to be kicking around?
Oran: I wouldn’t cut it even if I was paid to do it.
To the parents that cut their sons for social or esthetic reasons: If you think cutting part of your son’s penis is an insignificant, harmless and for the most part painless procedure, why don’t you watch while it’s being done? I bet that would change your mind…
>If you think cutting part of your son’s penis is an insignificant, harmless and for the most part painless procedure, why don’t you watch while it’s being done? I bet that would change your mind…
Great idea. Here’s a google video of a supposedly routine circumcision. From what I’ve read, that really is just a routine circ.
http://tinyurl.com/252zuh
(WARNING: some blood, the baby’s crying all the time, etc.)
“Not to jump into the stereotype the fine Mr Myers mentioned but…..condoms work a hell of a lot better.”
Unless you’re trying to have a kid, thus having sex without a condom.
Undiagnosed spousal HIV is not exactly unheard of. If the mother is HIV+, at least the kid is more likely to have a father.
Alas, any attempts to criminalize RIC will run up against the obstacles of various religious groups claiming discrimination and doctors who will give out diagnoses to whichever parents want them.
It still might be worth trying, though. Or maybe the cycles of history will obliterate the practice for us – we can hope.
In my case, since I’m married, it’s irrelevant, of course…
nope, not gonna go there, too easy.
A paediatric surgeon I trained under as a medical student had the viewpoint that he did NOT recommend it “just because”; would prefer that it be restricted to cases of severe balanitis, phimosis etc (positive medical indications for circumcision); but that in regard to cultural circumcisions (Jews, Muslims, some Christian sects etc.), the medical profession had an obligation to offer the procedure under the safest and most comfortable conditions possible.
I concur with this.
My only rider is that I hear the rate of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis is also markedly lower (if not absent) among circumcised men. Back in the days of Moses, circ as a ‘preventative measure’ might have had something going for it.
Has anyone done a study on HPV carriage rates in cut vs. uncut men, and women who have had sex with either exclusively?
No, never. Nor for protection against any lesser STDs.
There’s an entire blog on the link, or the lack of a link, between circumcision and HIV. It’s a bit sparse but it seems to be kind of new. I wouldn’t have thought that there would be enough interest in that for someone to have started a blog until I saw the number of replies on this thread!
Why is it that that so many people think the answer to circ/no-circ discussions simply amounts to citing this study or that study? Haven’t you read your Hume? No issue of what ought to be done can ever be wholly be settled by an analysis of the facts of the matter. To reach a conclusion about what is permissible, manditory, or desirable, there must be premises in the argument about what is permissible, manditory, or desireable.
Circumcision is rape. It began in this country as rape. Its original proponents actively sought to diminish the sexual capacity and expression of their victims. The whole “a son should be like his father” BS is simply more rape. This argument simply says that altering the child’s genitals to help the parents deal with their sexual anxieties (and these anxieties are caused by circumcision itself) is a justification to cut a child’s penis.
Since I consider circumsion rape, I think an appropriate penalty would be 20 years in prision.
Religiously motivated circumcision should be thought of as a mental illness. Come on now: If a guy says “I cut children’s penises because I believe a magic man in the sky will like me better if I do it”, what is he but insane? The fact that the mental health professions do not recognize this as psychopathology shows that they are illigitimate.
Now suppose there really were a God who demanded such a thing as circumcision. I think it would be necessary to fight him. If anything remotely resembling the god of The Bible existed, then the highest goal of humanity would be to make weapons that could destroy him
After seeing that video, I’m even more opposed to having any potential male children circumcised.
Just for the record, until I started having sex I’d only seen one penis (my brother’s when we were very small) and was shocked at the appearance of the circumcised penises. They’re a little creepy, but I live in the USA and have only ever seen circumcised penises on adults. I think it’s a useless surgery considering we have clean water and soap readily available.
On the other hand I won’t throw stones at those who chose to have their sons circumcised because it has been the prevailing cultural norm here for awhile and many doctors do make the argument that the son should match the father.
Comparisons to female genital mutilation may be a matter of degree, but I reserve the right to physically assault anyone who tries to do useless, largely cosmetic surgery on my clitoris!! Given my feelings about female versions of this surgery, I’m shocked that any man would willingly allow someone to take a scalpel to his penis. This is particularly baffling when you talk about vasectomies, and the men all begin to wince from the perceived pain of an incredibly minor surgery. Seriously, if you think a vasectomy is too painful for a consenting adult, how could you ever think it’s okay to perform circumcision on infants?
Ichthyic 133:
I guess I needed snark tags…
Seriously though, fully appreciative that situations vary, and individuals need to make appropriate judgements based on their own personal circumstances. Which I guess is the point. I absolutely don’t think that the procedure should be forced on a non-consenting infant. It’s not like there aren’t many, many other important factors and decisions to be made.
For the record, though, I’m pretty comfortable that the issue really doesn’t apply in my particular personal circumstances…
I feel I should point out, to those claiming circumcision reduces STD transmission, that the US, where circumcision is common, has higher rates of nearly every STD, than western Europe, where circumcision is rare.
Other factors dominate? Or perhaps circumcision is not really helpful in this regard.
I think people are forgetting one important group of vulnerable people who have a very significant interest in this matter, the medical profession. Circumcision is a very nice money earner for medics who, lets not forget, often have huge student loans to pay off. In places like California where circumcision isn’t covered anymore by medical insurance the rates of circumcision are dropping dramatically. Those poor doctors.
Won’t someone think of the medics ?
Besides making it easier to keep the penis clean, circumcision changes the mechanical effect of sexual intercourse. Women may post comments that it makes a man’s penis look cleaner/nicer/whatever, but some of my partners have commented that a circumcised penis also gives them more sensation. The initial copulatory motion of an unclipped penis is within the foreskin, until that motion extends beyond the length of the foreskin.
Male circumcision may be an optional procedure, but its risks are no worse than many other experiences or events that we seem not to worry about. Find something important to write about, like war or imposing one religious values on others.
To save precious space on Scienceblogs, I’ve compiled a key you can all use for future comments. From now on, just enter the number of the argument you wish to make. In the unlikely event you want to make a new argument, please be concise, and append a new number.
1) Circumcision is a routine and usually harmless practice. I’m personally glad I was circumcized as an infant. (#36)
2) our doctor said there were medical benefits and we wanted our son to look like his father. (#58)
3) [Females] won’t go down on a guy who is uncut. (#79)
4) Circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV! (Inf)
—
5) OK so circumscision[sic] lowers risk of spreading AIDs. So why is it being done to babies? (#6)
6) My parents considered having that done to me. I’m glad they didn’t; I rather like my foreskin. (#11)
7) The glans is normally a mucous membrane, NOT dried out skin. (#125)
8) the foreskin can be grasped and used to direct the pee more pre[c]isely than the course[sic] movements allowed by penile manipulation alone (#54)
For example, here is a pitched argument remarkable for its savage wit:
1.
6.
wtf? 4!
7!!!
2!!
8, damn it!!
(Note: the method I have outlined can be usefully adapted to many other topics)
Adult men are welcome to opt for it. But it’s not optional when it’s done to babies.
I’m rather amused these so called atheists who support this practice don’t even realize they have been indoctrinated by their culture in the same manner as religion.
Religion should not be our primary enemy, but just part of the larger problem. This has been demonstrated by the people who said they had their sons cut because it was “normal”, “didn’t want to be a freak”, “wanted to look like dad”, “it’s just the thing to do, I’ve never really questioned it”, etc… Yet these same people will call themselves progressives or liberals.
Wake up people, it’s tribalism pure and simple.
At pre-natal classes in the US one of the other fathers approached me and asked what I thought of the idea, and what my personal experience was (knowing I was from the UK he correctly guessed that I was poloneck intact) I told him that I had no practical issues from my possession of , and emphasized that any cultural ideas he had about it were just that, cultural, and that he shouldn’t make a decision about surgery based on that. I don’t remember saying “WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO CUT BITS OFF YOUR SON FOR?”, but that was the general impression I tried to leave him with.
Every few months this subject comes up and the horde of child abusers and pedophobes comes out of the woodwork to defend mutilation of infants.
The prepuce is living flesh with thousands of nerve endings. There is no reason to eliminate it. Supposed health benefits came to the fore in the 19th century and have been used ever since. Even if the HIV infection prevention claim is true, it is no reason to cut out a healthy part of the body.
There are many other strategies to reduce infection. Excising the prepuce is not like excising a cancer tumor.
Supporters of mutilation claim these “heath” benefits and ignore the fact that for centuries it has been simply of superstitious religious rite.
As usual, I have to post some links to explanation of the crime of circumcision.
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.cirp.org/
A video explaining the prepuce.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html
Continued here to avoid spam filters which sometimes don’t like too many links.
Here is a child mutilator at work. This is a violation of medical ethics. How can a doctor justify this on health grounds? He doesn’t try, but goes into religious mumbo-jumbo at the end of the video.
http://www.samkuninmd.com/docinfo/circvid2.html
There is in addition, the violation of human rights. Unnecessary involuntary surgery is a violation.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Rights.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/vanhowe5/
“Besides making it easier to keep the penis clean, circumcision changes the mechanical effect of sexual intercourse. Women may post comments that it makes a man’s penis look cleaner/nicer/whatever, but some of my partners have commented that a circumcised penis also gives them more sensation. The initial copulatory motion of an unclipped penis is within the foreskin, until that motion extends beyond the length of the foreskin.
Male circumcision may be an optional procedure, but its risks are no worse than many other experiences or events that we seem not to worry about. Find something important to write about, like war or imposing one religious values on others.”
I was waiting for this argument to crop up, the “there are more important things…”
Yes, its true that there are more important things going on in the world. That fact does NOT mean, as I knew someone would assert, that something less important but pointless, stupid and damaging is NOT pointless, stupid and damaging.
But you left an opening. Circumcision IS IMPOSING RELIGIOUS VALUES on the innocent.
Circumcision is a religious practice. It started that way. In the 19th century in the US it became widespread almost SOLELY as a religion-based moral imposition, as a method of reducing sensitive to discourage masturbation.
Since then all other “reasons” have been pretty much excuses.
I hate this topic because it makes me sound like one of those “men’s rights” idiots, but your argument is idiotic. Sickening, really.
It is a fact that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity. The “women like the look” and even the “some women think they feel better” excuses are frankly sickening. A man can CHOOSE to modify his genitals to please himself or others when he’s old enough. To impose that on a baby because its your opinion is nothing short of twisted.
Do a google search on the word ampallang. It’s a penis piercing that is said to increase female pleasure, and even male pleasure. In some cultures its the norm. Except they don’t do it to BABIES.
If I come up with a surgery and come to you and say “I think we should do this to your baby daughter’s genitals. There’s a small chance of serious complications, and it’s likely to reduce her sexual pleasure to some degree, but most guys I know really like to fuck women whose parents did this to them. Oh and, some people say its easier to clean,” I would be nothing but a sick twisted bastard.
How come the same doesn’t hold true in this case? How on earth can anyone make the argument that its OK, and even positive?
You are not being honest with yourself. You haven’t really examined your motivations. You are letting conservatism and fear make you put your baby through horrible pain. Wake the fuck up.
That works out at one a week. I’m astounded that that isn’t a national scandal
Guess what? In the US, it was (and to some degree still is) standard to surgically reduce babies’ clitorises if the doctors felt it was “too large”, the argument being that the child would feel awkward when naked and might look different in a bathing suit.
Many of the women this was done to have reported having difficulty with their sexual function in adulthood. The response? The doctors now say they’ll use sharper implements that they think will cause less nerve damage.
There’s been a movement to get them to stop, but it’s been slow in coming. Professional medical ethics is still something of a contradiction in terms.
Phimosis isn’t an argument, at least not until puberty. Yes, you got that right. You don’t need to be able to retract the foreskin until puberty. Trying to “stretch” it earlier can cause secondary phimosis from scarring or paraphimosis.
…and phimosis can be cured with strong corticosteroids applied locally. Works like a charm, and has decreased the circumcisions for medical reasons to almost none in Sweden.
Phimosis isn’t an argument, at least not until puberty. Yes, you got that right. You don’t need to be able to retract the foreskin until puberty. Trying to “stretch” it earlier can cause secondary phimosis from scarring or paraphimosis.
…and phimosis can be cured with strong corticosteroids applied locally. Works like a charm, and has decreased the circumcisions for medical reasons to almost none in Sweden.
Well, that’s it. With the constant repeating over and over again of the same old tired lines, I’ve decided, yup, you ALL must be right: It’s easier to clean without the excess skin, and bearing the glans must have some sort of great sexual benefit.
… so even though there really isn’t a heck of a lot of evidence for this (something that really DID surprise me here of all places) there is a LOT of strong opinion. But, hey, if people aren’t rational here on Phayngula, where ARE they rational?
But, yup… this has really REALLY changed my mind. And after all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? So I’ll go out and have all my little GIRLS circumcised now, that way they don’t have to worry so much with infection because of that useless labia, and perhaps THEIR husbands will actually be able to find their clitoris.
Just to re-iterate, there is very strong evidence from peer-reviewed studies published in respected journals that suggest that adult circumcision in some contexts greatly reduces the risk of HIV infection. That evidence seems pretty incontrovertible to me — if you want to deny it, you’d have to challenge the whole process of standard scientific publication. Most of the top international AIDS prevention organizations seem convinced by it, and recommend it as one potential technique for fighting AIDS in countries where such things as condoms and reliable hygiene may not be present.
But do note that these studies don’t really speak to the issue of infant circumcision in the West, where condoms and hygiene are not as much of an issue. In such cases, circumcision really is more about cultural (and religious) practice, and really can’t be justified for medical reasons.
Perhaps it would be helpful if folks could keep these two things separate. (Of course, it would also be helpful if people used less emotionally-charged language than “pedophobes” and “child mutilators”.)
I hope this doesn’t sound (too) gay, but Blake, you are sweet and actually quite palatable! :P
From the other side of the pond, it came as a great surprise to me that circumcision is so widely practised in the States.
Re: the comments of women preferring cut to uncut, how can you tell? When erect, my foreskin retracts, exposing the glans — so (judging from what I’ve seen in *ahem* adult entertainment *ahem*) looking pretty much the same as a circumcised penis.
The small number of British men I’ve discussed this with report the same. (Admittedly, us Brits don’t tend to talk about “that sort of thing”, so it’s a very limited sample.)
I probably missed quite a few, and I know very well that this isn’t very scientific or anything, but for what it’s worth I counted 1 uncut guy saying he would have a circumcision for the HIV protection benefits, and 15 saying they wouldn’t.
To be fair, Oran, your sample is primarily of Western men, with easy access to condoms, understanding of genital hygiene, and living an environment where the HIV infection rate isn’t 20%, as it is in some African countries.
Even though I’m circumcised, if I wasn’t I wouldn’t have it done in my current situation as a comfortable middle-class guy in North America who is knowledgeable about disease prevention. However, that’s not the circumstances that it is proposed to be done as a prophylactic technique.
MarkW (#156):
Even when you have an erection you still can move the foreskin around the glans a bit, no? Well, with a circumcised guy there’s a lot less of that. Besides, you probably aren’t erect the entire time that you are naked with a woman and it’s just nicer to look at when it’s not altered. The human body in its natural state is not a bad thing!
My husband and I were talking about this last night actually. He thinks that it looks funny, like a peeled banana. I think that it looks (for lack of better words) cheap and common, like a pair of fake boobs. Besides, imagine being a newborn who is getting cooed over, held, and loved and then all of a sudden you are strapped down and something so overwhelmingly painful happens that you may go into shock. Afterwards the cooing starts again but you are stuck with a wound that takes a while to heal and for that time it’s stuck in a diaper filled with feces and urine, the same stuff that’s irritating enough to cause diaper rash on intact skin. This and the lack of anesthesia in a lot of cases just make no sense to me. The arguments are illogical the the procedure is cruel. I too expected more from Pharyngula readers.
Mark in #156: “Re: the comments of women preferring cut to uncut, how can you tell?”
I prefer uncut to cut, but yes, you can tell. I wouldn’t compare it to a greased piston as somebody did upthread, though – I would say something a little less industrial, more like a flower on a stem :-) versus a stick. And I too prefer the natural look, but then I’m European.
More or less everything that I could say has been said already, but don’t take it that I don’t feel passionate about the subject. The practice should be definitely stopped. I understand that it must be very difficult to admit that you were assaulted as an infant. There were several mentions of doctors in the thread, but surely they deserve more heat and have a lot of explaining to do.
(Tsk. I added a totally out of place smiley. Imagine it out. Sorry for muddled editing.)
“the lack of anesthesia in a lot of cases”
Look, I’m just as horrified by circumcision as the rest of you (looking at the scar every time I take a piss doesn’t help), but please be careful with this argument about anesthesia for newborn infants. I seem to recall that complications from that are an issue as well.
I’m not sure I want anybody feeling more comfortable about circumcizing their baby sons just because they arranged for an anesthesiologist to be involved in the procedure.
And the winning entries on this thread are:
Pete at #143 (the Savage Wit Award), and
Tulse at #154 (the Pharyngula Rationalist Award).
I must insist all those who argue for whatever benefit (health or social) to cut part of a child penis, watch it being done to your son and see if you can continue fooling yourselves. At least Jews often do it in a public ceremony and have less of a chance to fool themselves. Not that witnessing something so cruel keeps people from fooling themselves, as many people in Spain and Latin America still consider that torturing an animal for fun is an art. Accepted cultural reasons for something can justify even the most outrageously stupid things!
The other peeve I have with this circumcision stupidity is the attitude of “let’s impose this painful measure on the stupid African negroes who can’t take care of themselves without the help of our white/occidental intelligence and culture”. If you can’t convince many African men to wear a condom during sex, which is at most a minor nuisance, do you think most of them will be willing to let somebody cut their penises with all the pain and discomfort involved? Are you going to impose the measure at gunpoint?
Yet another anecdotal data point for people to consider:
I am circumcised, and have no regrets about it. My two sons are both uncircumcised. Our doctor (US) made it very clear that there was absolutely no medical benefit to removing an infant’s foreskin, and that we should understand that if we were to do it, it would be for some combination of the cultural/religious/aesthetic reasons listed ad nauseum above. None of those arguments swayed us, so the choice was easy.
I suppose if our doctor had been less enlightened on the subject, or if we had felt intense religious pressure, it might have been a tougher decision.
Bottom line for me is this: if you have your baby circumcised, you are doing it for cultural — not medical — reasons.
I’m with flaq, mostly. I’m also circumcised, and when my son was born a couple weeks ago, we finally had to made a decision about whether to circumcise. It wasn’t at all an easy choice. My wife leaned for it and I leaned slightly more heavily against. In the end she felt that it was a decision on which the father’s voice should count more heavily. We didn’t have the procedure.
I’d like to say that it’s not at all as black-and-white as most people seem to think. There are lots of valid arguements for and against, but I found that the strong arguements weren’t very good, and the good ones weren’t very strong, which made it hard to come down on either side.
Intact penises look awful to me, but intellectually I had to come to grips with the point that I shouldn’t let my own cultural/esthetic biases influence me on something of this nature. I also had to avoid being swayed by pressure from the grandparents. Then again, my wife mentioned that in her experience sex is much more pleasant with a cut penis, and that was something to consider.
When it came down to it, I just couldn’t justify to myself performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on my son without his consent. And so, we didn’t.
To the “but it will protect him against AIDS” cohort: maybe not so much.
re: # 166 I’ve notice this “women prefer circumsized” argument cropping up again and again on this thread and I’m utterly confused, although this may be a cultural thing as I’m from the UK where circumcision is relatively rare but I’ve always felt the other way around – I greatly prefer the look and feel of an uncircumcised penis to the circumcised one. However I do agree that any girl who chooses her sexual partners on the basis of whether or not they were cut a baby is not worth sleeping with.
As far as the health argument goes I can’t help thinking that appendicitis is a potentially life threatening condition that can be easily prevented by the removal of the appendix (which is of considerably less use than the male foreskin), an operation that leaves a miniscule scar compared with that left by circumcision. However what reputable doctor would on that basis advocate the routine removal of a baby’s appendix at birth? I don’t see a difference here (after all an appendectomy is a routine operation these days). Could one of the pro-cut posters please explain why circumcision is OK at birth but appendectomy isn’t – trust me, appendicitis is considerably more painful than the urinary tract infections circumcision is supposed to guard against.
I’ve notice this “women prefer circumsized” argument cropping up again and again on this thread and I’m utterly confused
If I thought for a second that argument might be rest on a claim with a sound basis, then I’d be putting it at the top of the list of reasons not to circumcise male infants.
I don’t, so I won’t.
Show me results from a statistically reliable survey, otherwise STFU. That’s what I say.
Late to the party, but here’s my two cents:
I’m not circumcised. I’ve never had anything cut off my body except hair and nails. And the tip of one finger one time, but that was a kitchen accident. Based on how much THAT hurt, you couldn’t pay me enough to have anything snipped off my genitalia.
My wife has said she thought it was a little strange at first- she comes from a culture where circumcision is still quite common- but it doesn’t seem to be slowing us down now :)
When we have kids none of them are getting anything cut off until they’re old enough to make their own decisions.
Having read the arguments through this thread, I’m now much more firmly anti-circumcision than I was before. The positive arguments I’ve seen thus far have been a slight decrease in a very uncommon form of cancer, a disputable claim re. HIV infection which hardly makes the procedure competitive against barrier contraception, and the social-acceptance argument. None of these seem like a good enough reason to cut off a sensitive body part.
My wife said it made things generally messier and for her less pleasurable than with a circumcised penis. It was also the only intact one she experienced, so she admitted it may have been an anomaly. As I mentioned, I didn’t think it was of overwhelming importance.
Nail on the head there. It’s a cultural thing. Here in the States it’s still routine. Where we live (Sacramento, CA area) it’s about 50/50 now, and probably tipping against. So cultural/esthetic attitudes will probably change in this department by the time Junior is “swinging his sword”, so to speak.
My OB/GYN gave me the best advise I can think of when I was agonizing over the decision (Now being transplanted in the USA).
If you don’t do it now you can always do it later;
BUT
Once it is done, it is done for good.
No going back, no do-overs.
As for the cut vs un-cut from a woman’s point of view?
I’ll side with the uncut on this one.
It seems that arguments (on both sides) attempt to make extreme comparisons to the point where they are no longer valid. No – circumcision is not equivalent to cutting off infant breasts to prevent breast cancer… sorry, rationalize away, but it is not.
Data points to some advantages for circumcision. I think most agree that those advantages can be equaled with good hygiene and common sense, (use of condoms). Tools for good hygiene, (ample soap and potable water), are NOT universally available. Urinary tract and penile infections occur in infants whose parents do not have access to good hygiene as much as adolescents and adults.
I make no conclusions, other than to say, follow the data and avoid gross and emotional arguments that only foster fear and confusion. I think you may find that both answers are correct in different environments.
As others have pointed out, the whole “women prefer circumcised” as a rational for infant circumcision is bizarre, disturbing, and irrelevent. It smacks of male insecurity transfer from father to son; your sexual performance should be more than the sum of your dick. I would have thought consideration and a basic understanding of female anatomy would stand them in better stead for the future than slicing off their foreskin, unless that really is the limit of your sexual expertise.
And wanting your baby son to look the same as you? – What? A balding, middle-aged guy with excess body hair and a paunch?
154, I don’t apologize for my rhetoric. It is an exact description of the act.
From Merriam-Webster, “Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of”
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
From Wikipedia, “Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.”
As to the argument, “women prefer circumsized”, how would they respond to the argument that “men prefer excised”?
UTIs in infants are NOT caused by lack of access to soap and water. Newborns only need to bathed once or twice a week. And what, exactly, are you talking about when you say “penile infections?” The most serious one I can think of for an infant would be an infection of a circumcision wound. In that case, lack of access to soap and water would most definitely not be a good argument for having him cut.
To say that there are good arguments for or against circumcision just illustrates that you haven’t done your homework. There is no medical justification for RIC. If you want evidence, just look at the fact that no medical organization in the world recommends it.
I notice that some here are using the term “uncurmcised”. Better terms would be “normal” and “intact”.
“Normal” is obviously accurate. How can a body which as been surgically altered in te absence of any disease, injury, or defect be normal? “Intact” is a little loaded, but don’t we want to imply that to have a normal penis is to have escaped risk of harm?
It’s all about framing. Frame things right and medical-context circ disappears, as it almost has in Australia and Canada.
Doing away with religious circ will require much more effort, but if we can interfere with the transmission of the ircing religions we have a chance.
Firstly I’m from the UK originally, and not circumcised…
I recall (when much younger) seeing guys draw images of penises…. I couldn’t relate – and wondered was I wierd? All the (cartoony) images were of circumcised dicks, and I’d never seen one in the flesh (as it were)!
I have to admit – I personnally don’t like how a circumcised penis looks…..(having seen one or two in certain movies)
My wife notes that our friends circumcised boys (when changing diapers I hasten to add) seem to have much larger penises that our own dear son (uncircumcised)
Personnall – I think that’s probably the main reason for American men wanting to support circumcision — American men are scared their kid will be called ‘pencil dick’ and will never make it in the world.
What a crock!
So I’ll go out and have all my little GIRLS circumcised now, that way they don’t have to worry so much with infection because of that useless labia, and perhaps THEIR husbands will actually be able to find their clitoris.
Not unless they root around in the medical trash, they won’t. What do you think they’re cutting off, exactly?
Female genital mutilation (also known by the euphimism “female circumcision”) is not remotely comparable to male circumcision. FGM is removal of the clitoris and all or part of labia. A comparable procedure on a male would be the removal of the entire penis and all or part of the testicles. In additions the two are performed for very different reasons. Male circumcision is usually performed for religious reason or for hygiene (however you feel about those being reasons for circumcising). FGM is rooted in deeply misogynist practice, and often intended to prevent sexual pleasure. The effects of FGM include chronic infection, scepicemia, pain during sex, increased pain and danger during childbirth, and death. Deaths from FGM are far more common than deaths from male circumcision since the wound is larger and can be reoppened during sex or childbirth.
So while I’m no fan of male circumcision, comparing it to FGM is a massive trivialisation of FGM.
–IP
There are different types of female circumcision. Look them up in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
Type one is comparable to male genital cutting (hey, as far as I can tell type 1 female and regular male circ are basically the same).
Types I and IV are actually often milder than male circumcision–for instance, in Indonesia nearly all baby girls get a symbolic pinprick of the clitoris or removal of a small part of the hood. Still pointless suffering for the girl, of course, and still a health risk in areas with poor-to-nonexistent medical hygiene.
Even in Africa, most of the countries UNICEF surveyed do Type I circumcision more often than any other type. The only countries where full removal of the clitoris or worse mutilations are the most popular were Burkina Faso, Sudan and Eritrea.