by VorJack
One debate that has passed me by is the male infant circumcision debate. It always catches me off guard when I suddenly find people with very developed opinions on the matter.
So, in the interest of my education: What are your arguments for or against male infant circumcision?
Hi,
I think this practice should be banned, unless required for medical purpose. As long as we tolerate mutilation of male genitals it becomes very difficult to rationally ban female circumcision.
Both practices have their base in superstition.
My comment is awaiting moderation, but basically: Teach boys to wash properly, give girls the HPV vaccine, stop genital mutilation of children.
I should say we should not ban circumcision but rather make it so that someone undergoing the procedure can give consent for that procedure. The male undergoing it must be at least 18 years of age. This seems to me to be a visual aspect rather than hygiene or disease prevention. The cutting away of the foreskin can be seen as cosmetic surgery. However, I would never allow it to be done on an infant. It is despicable. All you need to hear is the crying of the baby when they do that procedure to turn you off. For all proponents I suggest you watch Penn and Tellers Bullshit on the subject. It is very graphic and not good for all people but you might need to watch something as shocking as what is shown to turn you off of circumcision.
dutchhobbit has it right. Allow it as an optional cosmetic surgery for those old enough to consent, and STOP performing it on infants.
Like FGM though, we’re faced with the question: if we completely ban it, are we responsible for the unsanitary, unsafe measures people might take privately to perform the operation anyway? Is it better to hold our noses and have doctors do it, when the alternative is that parents will do it themselves at home at much greater risk to a child?
It’s body modification. Just like Piercing and Tattoos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_modification
Consent is given because the parents can consent for their children.
But parents can’t give consent for their children to get a tattoo, which kind of spoils your argument.
Wrong, Blanket Statements like that kinda spoils Your argument.
http://www.aaatattoodirectory.com/tattoo_regulations.htm
OK, you’re right. There are a few places where parents are allowed to give consent for their children to be tattooed, and a few places where even parental consent is unnecessary. But (within the civilised world) such places are rare, and with good reason.
In general, parents can consent for their children to get their ears pierced (because that will heal quickly enough, if the child decides they don’t want it), but not for them to be tattooed (because that requires expensive and not always successful surgery to undo). Guess which of these circumcision is most like…
Also, what about foot binding? That’s “body modification” that Chinese parents traditionally performed on their female children. Does that mean that there shouldn’t be any ethical problem with parents choosing to cripple their children for aesthetic purposes?
Should parents be allowed to treat their childrens’ forms as works of art in progress, and do this to them? http://www.puddingbench.com/images/lizardman.jpg
I hate seeing little toddlers with pierced ears, I really do. The piercing gun used on earlobes by the chains that do it (real piercers don’t use guns and don’t pierce kids) work by blunt force – literally jamming a blunt stud through the flesh. Leaving aside the ethical problems associated with performing a body mod (and it is a mod) on a child too young to consent, those guns can’t be autoclaved because they’re made of plastic, so the micro-sprays of body fluid that regularly hit them mean that anybody who’s pierced with a given gun risks being contaminated by body fluids from everybody else who’s ever been pierced by it. Real piercers pierce with a single use needle or cannula (I do my own with cannulas) and autoclave their clamps between every single use. The jewellery will be surgical steel or titanium, not the Nickel-filled shit that Claire’s Accessories stick in people, so you don’t risk anaphylactic shock in people with unknown Nickel allergies (kids die from that, seriously).
Will think of that when I do my (future) piercings (it’s OK, I’m well over 18 :D). My sister decided not to pierce her newborn girl’s ears, which is a good thing.
I had my ears done via gun, when I was 14 I guess. For some mysterious reason they’re allergic to anything that isn’t gold. Quite expensive an allergy, that.
No reputable body piercer will pierce an under 18 with or without parental consent. There are those who do, such as Claire’s Accessories, but they’re evil corporate whores who fail to grasp the point of piercing (and fail to do it properly imho). No tattoo artist I have ever met would ink an under 18; my local guy (Jay @ Cardiff Ink, awesome artist) has a sign up which says something like “I will not tattoo or pierce under 18s. Parental consent, whining, tantrums or arguing won’t make a difference, so don’t even ask”.
I guess you get to decide what constitutes Reputable? I didn’t realize you had that much power Custy.
Yeah, there’s a slight give away: If they’ll ink or body pierce an under 18, they’re shit.
Ok, genital whacking on any kid is bad – but please don’t compare male circumcision to FGM. The male equivalent of FGM would be cutting off the entire glans of the penis.
No it wouldn’t. Read down the page. Female circumcision only involves thinning the labia minor, an equivalent procedure to removing the foreskin. It really gets my back up that in males it’s called “circumcison” but in females we call it “genital mutilation”.
They’re BOTH genital mutilation. They’re BOTH wrong.
I’m not sure if this has already been covered in later comments, but at least with me when I think of female circumcision it involves cutting away the clitoris and other parts of the labia, NOT just the labia. This is mainly coming from Africa from what I know, but I’m sure it occurs in other countries too. It is my understanding that it is intended to take away the pleasure from the girl so she will not cheat on her husband.
I think they are both wrong to do on consenting people, but I don’t think that it needs to be solely a cosmetic surgery. In some cases it may be the case, but in some cases it may be because the man has a larger than normal foreskin that may be uncomfortable during sex and may even tear. It is in that case that I don’t think it should be considered a cosmetic procedure. (There was a Dan Savage caller from his podcast SavageLove that had this same issue, so I know that it can happen.)
We’ve had this debate before, so I’ll sumarise as best I can remember:
1) The foreskin is an extremely sexually sensitive organ and contains a nerve bundle which is thought to be the most touch sensitive place on the human body.
2) It protects the glans. Without a foreskin to protect it, the glans itself becomes very desensitised over time.
3) It has a huge concentration of sebacious glands (more than normal dermis) that helps get things lubricated when lubrication is required.
4) It takes a few seconds longer to clean your penis properly if you have a foreskin.
5) Human papillomavirus (HPV) can live under the foreskin and is the leading cause of cervical cancer when contracted by women. There is, however, an extremely good vaccine for HPV which is given to all teenage girls in the UK for free (except Catholics, who won’t let their kids have it, claiming it encourages them to engage in sexual behaviour).
So: In order to promote hygiene and prevent cervical cancer, we can:
A) Teach our male children to wash properly and give our female children a vaccine, or
B) Genitally mutilate our male infants in a manner almost as brutal as female circumcision (a practise which we all condemn without a second thought).
+1 Well said.
Plus, I always wonder what fucking would feel like if I never had mine cut off. It was removed against the wishes of my parents at my birth. They just whisked me away and chopped the tip of my penis off.
I just want to add that, while a crime, it is nothing compared to the vaginal mutilation that Muslim women endure.
So what is the protective power of circumcision? 5% less likely to contract, 90% less likely to contract?
Largely irrelevant anyway. It’s the same virus that causes verrucas, at the end of the day – hardly uncommon to catch it elsewhere.
There is a huge difference in the purpose of circumcision in the male child and the female: the first is for (at least supposedly) for the purpose of cleanliness. Circumcision in the female is ONLY to prevent the female from enjoying sex under the premise that that will keep them chaste until marriage, and faithful until after. Hardly equivalent. To say that one makes it hard to ban the other is like saying that allowing the shooting of deer makes it hard to ban shooting people.
Teach boys to wash properly??? That has certainly worked so well so far… otherwise you would see signs that say things like “Employees must wash hands before returning to work.”
And of course, give all girls the HPV vaccine because we know for absolute fact that there are no problems or complications associated with that…
Sheeesh… I know I wouldn’t want MY penis to look like that character from Bazooka Joe comics (you know the one – with the turtleneck that comes up to around his eyes!)
Right, I wouldn’t want my penis to have eyes, either.
Man, having the word “penis” triggering moderation is not good for this conversation ;)
Amongst Jews, it’s for ritual purposes, not for “cleanliness”. And in America (one of the few countries where non-Jews routinely circumcise their children) it was promoted by one Dr. J. H. Kellogg, who thought that circumcision, combined with a healthy-yet-bland breakfast would reduce the sexual drive in boys, and lead to them remaining chaste until marriage, and reduce masturbation. That rationale may not be popular any more, but it’s hard to claim that it’s a million miles away from how it’s practised among women.
Ah, good old Dr. Kellogg and his strange, strange obsession with poo…
“Teach boys to wash properly??? That has certainly worked so well so far”
In other developed countries such as european ones where circumcision isn’t widely practiced there isn’t exactly an epidemic of complications from men retaining their foreskins since birth.
If HPV has a 100% success rate against the development of cervical cancer yet there are occasionally complications form the vaccination should we do away with the vaccine altogether?
“Sheeesh… I know I wouldn’t want MY penis to look like that character from Bazooka Joe comics”
Appearance is what you’re concerned about? Is that really a strong case for circumcision? What kind of a parent will mutilate their infants genitals because they don’t like the way they look when they appear exactly as they should?
It’s surgery, and you shouldn’t impose surgery on someone else without an immediate and clear medical need.
Every surgery involves risks. Circumcision, be it male or female, should be performed only when necessary.
Also there is the Hippocratic oath.
I hardly need to argue against circumcision, when there are no valid reasons for it.
I’ve seen some studies suggesting that it provides a slightly improved resistance to some diseases, but being reported as if that somehow justifies the practice. But what use is a 5% improved resistance to HIV, where there is little awareness of safe sex e.g. in sub-Saharan Africa where “real men don’t use condoms”? You only get infected during 18 out of 20 unsafe sex sessions, rather than 19 out of 20?
Ditto this. It’s like religion — the burden of proof should rest on the person making ridiculous claims. If you want me to surgically mutilate my infant’s genitals, you better provide compelling, life-or-death reasons why. Until someone presents me with those compelling reasons (because, as with religion, “most people do it” is not enough for me), my male children will undergo no such procedure.
As if it’d really stop boys from getting dirty >.> Just teach ‘em better hygiene? That’s all I got.
There is not (to my knowledge) any reasonable rational argument in support of male circumcision as a general practice for the population. For individual cases, it may be medically necessary, but the greatest majority of circumcisions are medically unnecessary.
Cleanliness and prevention of cervical cancer in women. That’s it. Teach ‘em to wash, vaccinate girls against HPV, stop torturing boys. That is all.
As a gentile (well, atheist now) circumcised male, I personally don’t feel I was tortured. I don’t know why my parents decided to have me cut, but I certainly don’t hold it against them. I have no lasting horrors of the operation and I enjoy sex quite a bit, thank you very much (loss of sensation? Not that I can tell).
Now, there are cleanliness arguments and it’s all well and good to say ‘wash’ but we also say ‘brush your teeth’ and judging by the dentition of a few of the folks in my area (and the six fillings in my head), that doesn’t work either.
For the sake of argument, one could say that it’s a useless skin flap and the operation is not dangerous so why not just take it off?
“…one could say that it’s a useless skin flap…”
That’s incorrect. There are nerve endings in the foreskin and it serves a protective function for the rest of the penis. The word I think you’re looking for is “unnecessary”. Many body parts would fit that category, but we don’t remove any other normal body parts from another person without need. And “unnecessary” is not a synonym for “unwanted”. When not medically necessary, there’s no justification for anyone other than the owner of the body part making – or not making – the surgical decision.
Except that it *is* dangerous. Numerous boys lose too much blood during the surgery each year; some even die. Of those who don’t, there is a significant chance that the surgery will leave them with adhesions, bridges, and other abnormal outcomes. Not to mention, a newborn’s penis is *tiny*. Taking off what seems like a little bit can make a big difference when he’s older; plenty of men have oddly-shaped erections due to more skin being taken off on one side than the other, too-tight erections leading to pain, etc. Neonatal circumcision removes the equivalent of an index-card’s worth of skin in an adult, skin that is chock full of sensory nerves. 100% of circumcisions result in that loss.
You’re throwing a lot of amounts around. Please link to some studies or articles. If more than one infant dies under the knife for a circumcision, it should be banned, but I’d need to see the data. And how can you lose ‘too much blood’ but not die? Blood can be replenished.
As far as loss of sensitivity, your 100% number may be basically valid (nerves are lost), but what’s the basis for comparison? When my wife touches my penis, a very pleasurable sensation is generated. Nearly always, an erection is the result (I can’t remember it not working, but I’ll never say ‘always’ without data). I actually find some touching to be too sensitive to take for very long. So, I’m thoroughly happy with my level of sensitivity. Am I the only circumcised male to feel this way?
I’m not an advocate for circumcision. It’s just that the arguments against seem as much based on emotion and hearsay as arguments for.
You can link to deaths from circumcision at my site (above) plus /death.html. Shamefully, there are no accurate records of death from circumcision (it’s easy to hide them under the secondary cause, infection, haemorrhage, etc.). A recent paper claims about 117 deaths/year in the US.
The ~20,000 nerves in the foreskin are specialised for light touch, like those of the fingertips or the lips. (How would you like kissing without those, using only the nerves in your cheeks, say?) They confer what has been called “a symphony of sensation” – not just more sensitive, but better sensitive. When they are cut off, the nervous system reconfigures, making the best use of what is left, the frenulum (the foreskin remnant left under the glans after circumcision – if you’re lucky), and the relatively dull sensations detectable by the glans.
“I actually find some touching to be too sensitive to take for very long.” We often hear circumcised men say this (or “If I was any more sensitive, I’d have a heart attack”), but not intact men. That is explicable by the changed neurology, and the billions of intact men are not filling the world’s cardiac wards after sexual encounters.
And why not chop off babies’ little toes, while we’re at it? We can manage perfectly well without them, and the surgery isn’t any more dangerous than any other surgery, so why not get rid of them?
Sandals.
There is no good reason to circumcise. God made us right to begin with. :-P
It was almost a year after my circumcision before I could walk. Of course, I had it when I was six weeks old.
LMAO!! Just wrong. But extremly funny.
I’m not upset at my parent, really; they were just doing what they were advised to do and what both of their families had done for generations. But yes, I’m a little bitter about not having a foreskin. Is it all that big of a deal? I don’t know, because I never had the opportunity to find out. It’s certainly not even CLOSE to being in the same league as female circumcision (“circumcision” is not a strong enough word for this type of mutilation), but I had no say at all in this irreversible process that changed my body forever. That’s not right.
Female circumcision actually is very close to male circumcision – it doesn’t involve removing the clitoris, that’s a totally different thing altogether. They’re both wrong, though.
Male and female “circumcision” are not close either in intent or in the amount of flesh removed. There are greater or lesser amounts of flesh (not a mere flap of skin) removed in different countries or sects. Wikipedia has line drawings, which do not convey the full horror of this practice.
True female circumcision is the removal of the labia minor, as male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin. In young children, the amount of skin involved is about the same and about as sensitive.
I’m not talking about cliteridectomy or infibulation. Those are far, far worse.
Just because FGC is worse doesn’t make MGC one whit better.
The AAP’s new policy suggests doctors be allowed to perform a “ritual nick” on girls, and is generating a firestorm of opposition, and MGC is MUCH worse than that.
The intent doesn’t matter (the road to Hell is paved with good intentions). What matters to the genitals’ owner is what is done to them. (But in fact, the reasons for cutting girls run eerily parallel to those for cutting boys.)
I agree. Mutilating a child’s genitals without some bloody good medical reasons is absolutely disgusting.
I am circumcised but my three sons are not. My wife and I came to the conclusion that there aren’t any compelling medical reasons to make our children undergo the procedure. I’m sure I’ll have to explain to them why daddy’s “looks different” than theirs, but I don’t find that discussion any more daunting than explaining to them about religion, sex, drugs, etc. As long as I provide them with facts on any of these subjects, they will be better informed and equipped to make personal decisions.
Aesthetically, the uncircumcised penis looks better.
Functionally, I’m told that ‘cut’ guys reach orgasm more slowly because the head of the penis has lost some of its sensitivity. On the other hand, I’ve also heard that an intact foreskin is more stimulating to a woman. I believe a road trip to a Nevada brothel may be necessary to conduct research on these claims.
Basically, I oppose all “expressions of religious belief” which compromise the physical or mental health of the individual. That includes wearing burkas, refusing blood products or medical care for minors, trying to cure the gay, brown rice diets, and threatening kids with hell.
I once heard a discussion of this topic on NPR. They interviewed several men who, for various reasons (from religious conversion to because their girlfriend didn’t like uncircumcized penises) decided to be circumcised as adults. They said it resulted in a dramatic reduction in sexual enjoyment. One described it as going from color television to black and white.
Personally, I wish I could sue the doctor who performed the procedure. It’s a form of sexual mutilation and should NEVER be performed on a child (much less infant) who is unable to provide his informed consent.
My husband and I didn’t think much about circumcision, we had our son circumcised because my husband was. The doctor did it slightly off to one side. As a result, the pee comes out at an upward angle and now, at age 6, he is constantly over-shooting the toilet, getting pee all over the back and onto the floor. THAT is why you should never have your son circumcised – you might end up cleaning pee up off the floor for 18 years!
Alternatively you can smack you son upside his head and tell him to either clean up his own piss or sit down to pee from now on ;-)
In other questions, why the hell don’t men sit down to pee on toilets? Urinals I understand, but who wants to risk pissing on the seat or floor?
Actually I do sit down to pee. Not just because I’m pierced; I was just raised that way.
Men must stand up to pee! Why? Just BECAUSE. What man sits down to piss? It’s just…My advice is…Just don’t do it!…Because…It’s wrong for some reason.
Yeah, that’s it.
I think men do sit down to pee when they wake up in the morning.
If I didn’t sit down to pee I’d be simultaneously peeing in the toilet, sink and shower. I appreciate that not everybody has the same kind of metalwork down there as me, though :D
Depends on how much booze they had the night before….
Pictures please.
Rewind: You want a picture of my piercings or me sitting down to pee? I have to tell you, I’m just not sure I’m comfortable with a photo of my wang on UF – and I’m absolutely certain that Daniel wouldn’t be!
Absolutely certain or willing to give it a try certain?
Love you Jabster, but you’re not looking at my willy :D
I sit to pee most times. Why? I’m on my feet most of the day. It’s good to take a break and sit.
I sit peeing when I move my bowels in the morning.
This doesnt make any sense. How does cutting of the foreskin affect the aim of the urethra? I don’t know about you, but the line where my foreskin used to be is no where near my pee hole!
I was thinking the same thing, but it’s possible that the urethral opening was nicked when the pediatrician was messing about with the knife.
I imagine he’s cut unevenly and left more, tighter scar tissue on one side than the other, giving that strange banana willy thing (insert Ray Comfort joke here).
Yeah, something like that (what Custador said about the tighter scar tissue on one side).
Man, I had no idea sitting down to pee was such a hot topic!
Men who are insecure find it emasculating, apparently :-)
I decided long ago to never have kids, but in the event that I did have to make this decision, I did some research.
My male friends, both uncircumcised and circumcised, were of great value to me here. The ones that were circumcised said they have no recollection of the surgery, but they were never given practical hygiene lessons either. Of my friends that were not circumcised they said that their parents gave them explicit directions on how to keep themselves clean and have never had any problems.
So, I came to the conclusion that the only thing circumcision is good for is to allow the parents to escape their role in being, well, a parent. So, in the event that it were to ever come up in my life, the answer is most definitely no.
I’ve never thought of circumcision as genital mutilation, although, I guess technically speaking it is. To my knowledge, I was circumcised because my parents were advised by their/my physician that I should be. It had nothing to do with them dodging their parental duties, and it had nothing to do with our religion. They were just following medical advice.
I really struggle to see the connection between male circumcision — most of which happen because of the rationale I just described — and female genital mutilation, which is almost always directly connected to sexual repression. That argument isn’t convincing to me.
I suppose I’ll revisit the issue when/if I have a male baby. If there are sexual benefits to be had, and there’s no medical reason to do it, then I suppose we won’t do it. But, if there is a medical reason to do it, I won’t worry myself with the decision — parents have to make those types of decisions for their kids all the time. I certainly won’t view it as a torturous act or anything remotely close.
“I was circumcised because my parents were advised by their/my physician that I should be.”
Then your physician, like many many others, gave advice without evidence and utterly betrayed his Hippocratic oath.
Well that’s quite the accusation.
“Well that’s quite the accusation.”
I did not know you enjoy accusing yourself.
Pls don’t blame your penis, brgulker.
Pls don’t blame your male organ, brgulker.
Does Not Compute.
Custador has amazing powers of perception that warp time and space. This allows him to see into the hearts of all Dr’s everywhere.
Specifically, 20 to 30 years ago and thousands of miles away, to see Brgulker’s Dr read the latest article conclusively debunking the previously established medical practice of circumcision then cast it aside along with his Hippocratic Oath so he can continue cutting into little boys. That monster!!!
Normally I’d expect Brgulker to cough up the name of his pediatrician so Custador can bring charges against that horrible mutilator of little willies, but its unessessary as Custy saw the mailing label on the Wang-Butchers magazine.
“First do no harm”. Any surgery that is unnecessary for the patient but which risks sever complications including amputation and death RISKS HARM. It’s not about “my opinion” it’s about what the oath says and what doctors did and do.
Picked up your M.D. recently?
Sitting on a regulatory board of some sort?
Was the Dr of 20-30+ years ago following best practices?
Actually it IS all about your opinion.
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=54
Your opinion has been duly noted. Since it flies in the face of past medical practices and the history of the debate it’s been dismissed.
Suuny, the link you posted completely proves MY point! Since you obviously didn’t read it, I’ll give you the edited highlights. Bottom line though: The medical profession has known that routine male circumcision is wrong since the 1940s.
“1941: Alan Guttmacher writes (approvingly) that some US doctors circumcise routinely without even consulting parents, and that 75 per cent of boys born in urban hospitals are circumcised.”
“1942: Battle of El Alamein: allied offensive begins in Egypt. Some British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers are forcibly circumcised concurrently with widespread skin infections, giving rise to “sand under the foreskin” myth. Italian and German soldiers (all uncut) mysteriously unaffected by this problem.”
“1949: Joseph Lewis publishes In the name of humanity, an eloquent condemnation of infant circumcision on rational and humanitarian grounds”
“1949: Douglas Gairdner publishes article “The fate of the foreskin”, finally correcting the medical profession’s misunderstanding of infantile phimosis and showing that a phimotic condition is normal and healthy in infants and boys. (British Medical Journal, 24 December 1949, pp. 1433-7).”
“1965: W.K.C. Morgan publishes “The rape of the phallus”, the first criticism of circumcision’s murky psychology to appear in a US medical journal.”
“1966: Excessively severe circumcision (involving amputation of entire penis) of “John Thiessen” (Bruce, now David, Reimer) in Winnipeg leading to sex-reassignment surgery and failed attempt to bring him up as a girl.”
“1971: American Academy of Pediatrics finds “no valid medical indications for routine infant circumcision.” “
“Late 1980s: Demands from circumcision advocates for mass circumcision as a means of controlling AIDS. At this time USA has highest proportion of circumcised men and highest incidence of AIDS cases in developed world.”
“1989: United Nations adopts Convention on the Rights of the Child. Section 14 guarantees children their own freedom of belief and religion, and Section 24.3 requires signatories to “take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children”, meaning circumcision among other cruel or harmful customs. Ratified by Australia, December 1990.”
“1993: Claim that uncircumcised men had significantly higher rate of cancer of the penis exposed as a myth, yet again.”
“1993: Important paper by Williams and Kapila on risks and complications of circumcision published in British Journal of Surgery.”
“1996: Canadian Paediatric Society, Foetus and Newborn Committee, issues new policy on circumcision in which it states that “circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
“1998: Highly publicised death of baby Dustin Evans Jnr in Cleveland, Ohio, under anaesthetic during attempt to repair damage arising from circumcision complications. Doctors were at pains to distance his death from his circumcision.”
“1998: Study of UTIs by To et al shows that it would take 195 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.”
“1999: In a standard textbook, leading paediatrician refers to circumcision as a mutilation: “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” (N.R.C. Roberton, “Care of the normal term newborn baby”, in Janet M. Rennie, N.R.C. Roberton (eds) Textbook of neonatology (3rd edn, Edinburgh 1999), pp. 378-379.”
“1999: An English judge rules that a Muslim father may not have his son circumcised contrary to the mother’s wishes, even though they had originally agreed to raise the child as Muslim. The ruling is upheld in the Court of Appeal, which stated: “a newborn child does not share the conceptions of the parents” and “it [is] not in the best interests of the child to be circumcised, with its risk of pain and psychological damage which the boy would find hard to understand.” ”
“2000: Parents of Jacob Sweet, brain damaged after infection arising from circumcision in Anchorage, Alaska, settle medical malpractice suit against doctors after 13 years.”
“2000: The American Medical Association issues a policy statement on circumcision, calling it “non-therapeutic” ”
“2002: Revival of old claim that male foreskin increases risk of cervical cancer in women makes headlines round the world. One of the researchers demands universal male circumcision. The shonky statistical manipulations and ethical bankruptcy of the researchers pass unnoticed by the media.”
“2002: Royal Australasian College of Physicians issues new statement on circumcision which states that there is “no medical indication for routine male circumcision” and “no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure” ”
“2002: Chairman of Danish Council of Medical Ethics calls for ban on circumcision of boys before the age of consent; he states that “no adult is entitled to carry out irreversible surgery on a child, unless it is for health reasons”; and that “prior to eighteen years of age, Danish children have a right to be protected from ritual interventions which can cause pain or permanent damage”. ”
“2003: Medical Journal of Australia publishes three important articles showing that too many circumcisions are being performed in Australia and that the foreskin plays an important role in sexual function.”
Sunny, I’m waiting for edited highlights of that link you posted to be moderated, but suffice it to say that you can’t have read it since it totally demolishes your argument for you and completely proves my point.
Funny, Quotemining.
Actually it shows the debate about circumcision in the medical community was alive and well years ago here in the States.
“1999 (USA) The American Academy of Pediatrics issues new policy on routine male circumcision which states that the potential medical benefits of circumcision do not warrant performing it routinely, but that paediatricians may perform it at the parents’ behest for “cultural, religious, and ethnic” reasons, but that analgesia is essential. You can compare that policy with their policy on female genital mutilation.”
If you want to pick and choose your facts and ignore ones you don’t approve you are invariably going to be right.
Your grave pronouncements of the purported Medical Ethics of Brgulker’s Dr only serve to make you look increasingly hysterical.
Good grief Sunny! Even the quote you posted to make out I was quote-mining (which is crap, the bits I posted are a fair reflection of the link *you* posted) says the same thing as me!
“but that paediatricians may perform it at the parents’ behest for “cultural, religious, and ethnic” reasons”
I think non medical surgery should be left to the delicate hands of some shaman politicians.
@ DM – Exactly. Saying that they can do it for “cultural” reasons does not constitute a medical debate.
And you claim this supports your view that there’s good medical reasons for routine circumcision?
A very tiny minority of circumcisions happen for medically indicated reasons, such as the foreskin being too tight and cutting off bloodflow to the glans. The vast majority happen for religious or cultural reasons such as “I don’t want him to be embarrassed when he showed with the football team” or “his dad’s circumcised” or some such.
If it’s medically necessary, then yes, it should be done. But in most of the world, circumcisions are simply not done because there’s no reason to do them.
“Showed” = “showered”
So far it looks like everybody seems to agree that getting cut without consent (or medical necessity) is a bad thing. I’ll toss my hat in with them.
It shouldn’t be banned outright as there are legitimate medical reasons for the procedure. I won’t throw out cosmetic rationale as well but at least a decision for this reason should be made by the patient himself.
There is the possibility of a non-essential medical procedure having complications. Shock caused by sudden blood loss, deformity caused by scarring, amputation of the glans are all bad things that would be avoided by trying to remove some tissue.
Hygiene, can’t do much more than try to instill the importance of the how’s and why’s of maintaining it. Even a circumcised penis can get dirty if the basics of “water + junk + scrubbing > dirty junk” are not followed. Trying to defend circumcision with the argument that “people are too lazy to play with themselves while under running water” is not convincing.
I’m not why female genital mutilation has been brought into this discussion, its not relevant to the question. The origins for both can probably be traced back to a cult or super exclusive club or something. Trying to compare and contrast the non-consensual mutilation of the genitals and coming to the conclusion that one is “better” than another seems … I don’t know… an exercise in apologetics.
Circumcision is really weird. Why would anyone do that to their baby? Snip off the end of your son’s penis? That just doesn’t make any sense. I have four sons – I could tell SUCH STORIES! But my kids would KILL ME!
My husband was circumcised; my son is not. I just left him the way he was born (as opposed to cutting off part of his body) because my pediatrician told me the only reason to do it is for “social” and traditional reasons.
He is 7 years old now. I have never had to teach him anything specific, hygiene-wise, other than “go take a shower and wash yourself with soap.” According to my research (around 2003) parents are not supposed to try to retract their son’s foreskin to clearn under it, because it is not initially retractable, and doing so can cause pain and damage. The first time the foreskin is retracted it should be done by the child himself.
And, @ Charity, little boys with foreskins also pee all over the floor and the toilet seat; it’s just one of those yuccky consequences of having little boys!
The British Medical Association regard it as genital mutilation and it is almost universally not available to be funded by the NHS. In UK it is only really Muslim lads who are being butchered by Muslim doctors who do it for them privately.
Well, I live in the UK and I know a lot of non-Muslims who were circumcised as well. In fact, some of my more secular friends have been. For them it’s just something you ‘do’. And you can find a private circumciser. It’s not really much of an issue here I guess.
You rarely have people passionate about it, or against it.
Although I did know one boy who was circumcised and the doctors totally ruined his penis. From what I hear he’s incredibly aggressive nowadays because of that. Haven’t seen him in years, but it would be interesting to hear his story.
Um…. I was born and raised in the UK and the only people I know who are circumcised are Jewish, Muslim, born in the US or had a genuine medical need. I also happen to be a student nurse working on NHS wards – and I can tell you that policy for every NHS Trust I’ve worked in is to never circumcise without need.
I lived in the UK from birth to the age of 30, and (while the topic didn’t really come up that often) I don’t think I ever knew anyone who was circumcised.
I’ll admit to just assuming, because on two occasions I’ve been looked at with incredulity that I haven’t been circumcised. First time was in primary school where it was mostly White English and the vast majority of them were circumcised. Then sometime last year I was around a mixed group of White, Asian and Black guys and the same thing happened. So I just assumed a reasonable amount of the population did it.
But it’s true the topic never comes up a lot, so perhaps I’m just generalising by experience.
And Jews; they get Rabbis to do it for them, and they’re not even sterile at the time.
Pharyngula just had a fascinating discussion on this recently. I got reemed over there because I had my son circumcised for social reasons, and especially here in the U.S., I felt his odds of receiving special female attention in that area would be considerably higher if his member didn’t have a hat on it.
Now before we re-iterate the same arguments that occurred over there – I’m not condoning the practice of circumcision. I know it’s unnecessary. At the same time, it does not belong in the same discussion as FGM; that is just plain horrendous.
Secondly, you can say that my decision is unwarranted, foolish, stupid, whatever – but several females (reluctantly) jumped in and agreed with me.
It is a shame that this has become the de facto standard here in the U.S., and I do hope that we start to shift away from this practice, but for now, I felt that life would be simpler for him to just get it done.
That’s the shittiest reason I’ve ever heard.
You realize that only ladies in America, whom went through the sexual parts of their lives at a time when most men were circumcised prefer circumcised penises? This attitude exists nowhere else on Earth.
If infant boys nowadays are being circumcised less often, then the infant females aren’t going to have a preference because the males they will typically have sex with (when they reach that age) won’t all be circumcised.
Aside from the fact that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, not the glans. (Since you are so worried about him getting the ladies.)
Also, you are a hypocrite.
You want people to change but you won’t change yourself. Show-stopper. Oh, and: Is it unnecessarily chopping a bit of the sex organs off? Yes? Then it DOES belong in the same category as female genital mutilation. You can rationalise what you did to your child any way you want, but don’t expect to not get called on it.
Lisa,
Feel free to pass that bit of knowledge around. We intact American men really need an educated populace from which we can date ;)
Brian, while I can sympathize with your statement, true change can’t occur until new parents stand up for their sons and protect them from this practice.
The only observation I have is that I’ve had sex with circumcised and uncircumcised. I have to say I like the uncircumcised MUCH better.
My own opinion is that it’s genital mutilation. Wouldn’t want it done to either male or female. Just because you don’t remember the pain when you’re older doesn’t make it a good thing.
Woohoo, Cavaliers beat Roundheads :D
(English Civil War joke)
Replied to the wrong thread….
Lisa,
Feel free to pass that bit of knowledge around. We intact American men really need an educated populace from which we can date ;)
I know that no one asked me if I wanted to be circumcised and I know that there can be a lot of complications, but it my own experience, I obviously have no memory of it, and, just personally of course, I think that they look better circumcised.
You only think this way because you are circumcised. If you weren’t you would prefer an uncut penis.
Having just had a son 3 weeks ago, I am still answering the question of whether he was cut or not. No, we did not get our son circumcised. For many of the reasons you all have mentioned.
I told my mother “there was no medical reason to do so, it’s barbaric, and I have an ethical problem with it since he cannot consent.” She asked if I was mad about my circumcision. I said, “I’m not losing sleep over it, but I would have liked to have a say, and would have preferred it wasn’t done. I’m not doing that to my child. It’s the same reason I haven’t got my daughter’s ears pierced, she should have a say. they’re her ears.”
Of course, we had this discussion in front of my uncle who happen to be an Orthodox priest. He didn’t take part in the conversation.
My director of nursing asked if we did, I said “There was no medical reason to. We don’t cut out infant appendixes because they might get appendicitis later in life. He can’t consent, and it’s a gruesome procedure. I’m not putting him through that.”
I cannot wrap my head around looking at your child for the first time, falling in love as most parents do, then thinking “we should cut a piece off.” WTF!? How long does the honeymoon period last before you start thinking about cutting bits off? Blows my mind.
We don’t cut out infant appendixes because they might get appendicitis later in life.
Ahhh…I like this. I just may steal it for future conversations…if you don’t mind…
It’s free to the public…you owe me a beer if you’re ever in NE Ohio. ;)
Haha, “I cannot wrap my head around”.
That made me giggle [/endimmaturity]
My sister and I once had a discussion about this topic and when I told here about how men who have had a circumcision in adulthood say dramatically and negatively affected their sexual enjoyment her response was, basically, “Big deal?”
An attitude that still flabbergasts me. It seems that many (most?) people will casually shrug off information that should cause them to rethink their position on something they’ve always accepted.
I don’t fully understand exactly HOW circumcision works (how you get from one to the other, I just can’t imagine how exactly it works) I would say that it would be EXTREMELY traumatic to a full grown person who could tell the difference.
If you’ve never known one vs. the other though, not so much.
I had my son circumcised because of cosmetic reasons. Easier to clean and maintain. Plain and Simple.
Not because some eye ball in the sky said I had to or else….
Speaking as the owner of a foreskin, that’s not a good reason; it takes maybe an extra five seconds in the shower to keep it clean. One might as well cut off your child’s ears so he doesn’t need to clean behind them.
“I had my son circumcised because of cosmetic reasons. Easier to clean and maintain. Plain and Simple.”
You messed up cosmetic and hygiene with your son’s foreskin? I hope that will be his last.
A car with plastic seat covers is easier to clean, but you will still buy the one with the leather seats. But your CHILD you had circumcised because it’s easier to clean? Cosmetic reasons… Wow, you must have wished for a girl really, because they are really easy to clean. Or maybe you just like to have a boy because there’s something to cut off? Would you have been disappointed having a girl because there wouldn’t be anything to cut off?
The whole idea of taking a piece of a child for any reason other than medical, is utterly absurd, and should have been banned a long time ago.
As far as I am aware my boyfriend had to be circumcised twice, because they did something wrong the first time.
I have been with both types, and personally, from a girls’ opinion? I prefer cut over uncut.
Of course that may be because the uncut guy I was with refused to wear a condom because it was “difficult” with his foreskin.
He lied to you and used it as an excuse not to wear a rubber. Seriously. It makes no difference.
Not so sure. The times we did use one, it wouldn’t stay on. So.
Anyway I personally prefer circumcised just because it makes things so much easier.
Did he have a small penis? A correctly fitting rubber shouldn’t just come off.
Circumcision is an archaic practice that makes very little sense and should definitely NOT be performed on babies.
Today, it is the wisdom of god on baby hygiene.
Both of my sons were circumcised. The doctor told me the reason was because they could get an infection and that the foreskin increases the risk of disease. At that time I was not aware of any reason ‘not’ to do so. If I had the information then, that I’m aware of now, I would not have chosen to circumcise them.
Everything I was told at the time was in favor of doing circumcision and no information as to why one may not want to do so. That needs to change. However, I don’t think the doctor’s objective is to be misleading, it’s a societal norm to them as much as to the rest of us. Their awareness of the counter arguments need to be increased so they can give parents more information when making that decision.
As for the procedure: Now days, they place a metal ring under the skin, a tight rubber band above the ring which cuts off the blood flow. The skin dies and all falls off in about the same time period as the belly button. No crying, no bleeding, no open wound on the area.
As for the peeing all over the place, that’s what little boys do. Make THEM clean it up!
Big boys do it too, and I agree – MAKE THEM CLEAN IT UP.
A friend who is a male to female transsexual had this to say. She was glad she had not been circumcised since that gave her surgeon more tissue to construct a vagina from. The first popularity of circumcision in the U.S. stemmed from Kellogg’s erroneous beliefs that masturbation was harmful and that circumcision would make it too painful for boys to do. When that idea proved to be false, too many OBs didn’t want to give up that extra little fee. They found that Jewish women have less incidence of cervical cancer and gave that as a reason for ALL boys to be cut. It was later found that a kosher diet has more of an influence on this than does the state of her partner’s pee pee. By this time so many guys were bald that the shower room argument came in to play. This also entailed cutting many who would never in their life have sex with a woman. I would not be surprised if the African AIDS study proves to be a misinterpretation of the data. For example, those who are willing to go through with this as adults may be more likely to practice safe sex. As for appearance, many woman love a foreskin, and many rather dislike it, just as there is much discussion in the gay community about who you’d rather make love with. If you grew up in Europe I imagine that a cut foreskin would look rather naked. Here in the U.S. times are changing, and with fewer babies getting cut (I’ve read something like 45% today as opposed to 90% a few decades ago) that any social embarrassment about having a foreskin will soon disappear.
I agree that there’s a reason it’s there. Why mess with it? Teach boys to clean properly just like you do girls (always wipe front to back, ladies)!
And yes, I realize that we tell kids to brush their teeth but they don’t do that, so what makes us think a boy will take care of his penis? Well first of all, IT’S HIS PENIS. Secondly, we don’t pull people’s teeth as a preventive measure, so… why should we do it with foreskin?
On a personal level, my boyfriend of 5 years is uncircumcised and I’ve grown to prefer an uncut penis. You don’t need any lube at all to give a chafe-free hand job! And if you want it out of the way, you simply push it back and when erect, it looks just like a “normal” penis. Imagine that!
Actually, some teeth are pulled as a preventive measure. Y’know, wisdom teeth.
Really? Mine got pulled because they hurt like dry buggery and kept getting infected…
It’s generally recommended to remove them even if there’s nothing wrong with them. It could be that it’s recommended to make dentists more money, but I’ve yet to see someone regret having their wisdom teeth removed.
Not to mention that there are tangible benefits to having wisdom teeth removed and next to 0 downsides.
I had two of mine done surgically and the third done normally; the fourth has never erupted and is way over in the middle of my palate. My dental surgeon told me that “If you were in the US, your dentist would take that out under general and buy himself a yacht on the proceeds”. Nice guy :-)
Of course, wisdom teeth are NOT pulled at birth, and generally when they are pulled it is done for preventive reasons because the dentists suspects there will be trouble later on. There is no comparison with circumcision.
Whoa, this debate is new to me. Why is it all of a sudden despicable to be circumcised? Sure it has its origins in superstition, but isn’t it just a matter of preference? I find it offensive that people are saying I was “mutilated” as an infant. I don’t care if my glans is desensitized, sex still feels great to me, and I’m a marathon man in the sack. My fiance (who shares my view of religion), and many other women including people on this board, would never have gone near an uncut penis. Its not just about HPV, no matter how careful you are, you can still cause bladder infections in women by having unprotected sex. There are several legimate pros to circumcision while the cons seems superficial in my opinion. I plan on circumcising my children if I have any sons.
“isn’t it just a matter of preference?” Yes, HIS preference, when he’s old enough to have one. He’ll almost certainly prefer to leave it alone.
“I don’t care if my glans is desensitized, sex still feels great to me,” In other words, you don’t know what you’re missing. And you’re lucky, no two circumcisions are the same, and some circumcised men find theirs have given them real problems – and you have no idea how your sons’ will turn out.
“My fiance (who shares my view of religion), and many other women including people on this board, would never have gone near an uncut penis.” Well there are people who prefer amputees, too. They have websites and everything.
“Its not just about HPV, no matter how careful you are, you can still cause bladder infections in women by having unprotected sex.” Women could reduce the risk of such infections to men by having parts of their bits cut off too, but we wouldn’t think of asking them to do so.
“There are several legimate pros to circumcision while the cons seems superficial in my opinion.” The reverse is the case. Don’t you think “preferring the way it looks” is superficial? While the human right to decide the fate of your own genitals is significant.
“I plan on circumcising my children if I have any sons.” You don’t need to have sons, if the AAP’s new policy causes the law to be changed. They want to allow a “ritual nick” – far milder then any circumcision – on girls. Will you put your daughters up for that?
“In other words, you don’t know what you’re missing. ”
I take issue with this. If one is going to get circumcised at all, it would be infinitely better to do it as an infant than an adult. The only testimony that sex is better with a foreskin is from people who have had the procedure as an adult. In the same way that people who become blind develop a superior sense of hearing, perhaps the shaft and the area around the glans becomes more sensitive for people who are circumcised before puberty. I would rather see a nuerological study of sexual stimulation for cut/uncut than just hearing testimony. Otherwise, its just speculation based on hearsay (and we all know where that gets us).
So, in Europe, and many other regions in the world, millions and millions of women get bladder infections because of uncut men? Get real.
I don’t suppose you can name any of these “legitimate pros”, can you?
1. More hygenic (I never even heard of “smegma” until I was in college)
2. Reduces the risk of catching and transmitting an STD
3. Increases chances of intercourse with women (which you might call superficial, but I call the whole purpose of life)
Uh, I’ve heard about smegma and I’m a girl, with neither father nor brothers. Sorry, but your education kind of sucked.
STDs are much easily taken care of by safe sex, I’d guess. Wear the rubber.
Getting laid, well, I suppose American women are just that shallow. Who knows.
So, not really pros.
1) Well, if you can’t spare an extra five seconds in the shower, I guess you have a point.
2) This isn’t actually true. There’s no correlation between circumcision and STDs.
3) In my experience, the opposite is true.
Bladder infections due to sex aren’t always due to wearing a condom or not. If there are certain germs already present the sexual action can push them further up to where they can start causing discomfort. It’s not about being circumcised and having germs trapped under your skin or not, but if it were, you can CLEAN YOURSELF.
I’m completely against it. There’s no sound medical reason for it, and cultural/religious reason are not sufficient to warrant painful mutilation of infants’ genitals.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
I’m torn, honestly. On the one hand, the data is pretty clear that transmission and reception of STDs are both lowered by circumcision, and I also find cut penises more attractive.
On the other hand, you’re cutting a piece off of your kid (or rather, having the pediatrician do it for you).
“On the one hand, the data is pretty clear that transmission and reception of STDs are both lowered by circumcision”
The data on that is far from conclusive. Remember that the US has the highest incidence of AIDS in the developed world, and also the highest number of circumcisions.
For most doctors, circumcision is merely a gratuitous sideline. They only do it for the tips.
Terrible ;)
Ba da bum! Zing!
they do it for a $300 tip, or that’s what they charged my sister for my nephew, and they botched it. Poor little guy’s wanker is seriously crooked.
If people want to be circumcised, let THEM decide when they’re 18 and up. Y’know, the general age of consent? Funny how you don’t get to consent to them slicing your dick up.
I think is an abuse that parents commit on their sons
I think that’s extreme.
I certainly don’t feel I’ve been abused to having no foreskin. I think I actually might prefer it had I not had it done (though I can not know for sure as I may be biased).
As for Custador’s comments, I don’t think mine has been “desensitized” all that much. But I guess I also can’t really say for sure. What I CAN say however is that sex is still fantabulous!
Though I do think people should be given a choice.
My father was circumcised in his mid twenties and swore that sex was never as good afterwards. So good for you and your fantabulous sex: It could (and should) have been even better, but your folks had you mutilated as an infant.
Can’t find the reseach link (Dr Oz show) but male circumcism may have an important benefit (no god didn’t make everything perfect). Males may lose a little nerve endings but females with uncircumcised partners have a much greater chance of developing (papilloma) cervical cancer. Now don’t say, “Just keep it clean.” No always practical and easier sadi then done. My girfriend and I both love the circumcised unit of love. No torture for me….I was too young to remember and brain at 1 hr old doesn’t process “pain thought”.
“females with uncircumcised partners have a much greater chance of developing (papilloma) cervical cancer.”
That is simply not true. The original research making this claim was based on Jewish vs gentile couples, ignoring the genetic component of cervical cancer, and making the false assumption that all the gentile husbands were intact. With better studies, the correlation vanished.
Then a study across five countries seemed to show a correlation between HPV and intactness, but in only one country (the Philippines) were a significant number of men circumcised. There was no correlation in any country taken individually, so it was just a comparison of HPV rate by country. Cervical cancer itself (the link from HPV is indirect, HPV is a very common virus) only showed any correlation in small, high-risk subgroups. You can see more at my page (above).
Untrue. Just because you don’t remember the pain doesn’t mean you didn’t feel it at the time.
And what does feeling it at the time even matter? I don’t remember it, and after being squeezed through a hole and having my feeding tube sliced off, a little nip at my noodle isn’t going to be a deal breaker.
I’m not claiming it’s a significant point; I’m claiming it’s an untrue statement, Just because they won’t remember the pain, that means I shouldn’t correct a statement like “babies can’t feel pain”?
Not only is that not true, but there is a perfectly good vaccine against HPV.
It’s “not always practical” to practise basic hygiene that takes seconds? Don’t have sex if you can’t be bothered to keep yourself clean.
I am in nursing school and during our last rotation, our clinicals were in a postpartum unit. We watched a few circumcisions. There is a “board” that is specially designed for this. The infant’s arms and legs are strapped down on this board, so the baby is perfectly immobile. Some doctors use local anesthesia; some don’t.
We were told that the baby cries more because of the coldness of the betadyne when it’s applied, rather than from the pain of the actual procedure, but I didn’t believe it for a second.
I don’t intend to work in a postpartum unit. *shudder*
The bottom line is, HIS body, HIS rights. This is not “a decision parents have to make for their sons”, the decision is pushed on them. In the rest of the developed world, circumcision is not offered. The English-speaking world tried it, and (except for the US) has given it up – without any epidemics of the many ailments circumcision is supposed to be good against. There is no other normal, healthy, functional, non-renewable part of the human body that parents may have cut off at their whim.
Cutting any other such part off a boy is against the law. Why the anomaly?
The nearest corresponding part of girls has special legal protection. Why the double standard?
I’m so glad my son doesn’t hold it against me…..it was what was done when he was born. He was “cut” before he left the hospital and remembers nothing of the event. My husband (my third) and my prior husbands were also cut. It was what was done in those days.
I have never heard any of them complain about their sex lives (although I would NOT want to hear about my son’s anymore than he would want to hear about mine).
In retrospect, I wouldn’t have had it done to my son, but that was the “normal” think to do back in 1975.
I do feel that if they had removed my Labia and Clitoris, I would’ve been pissed. I do not think that it’s the same thing………as the men in my life can complete an orgasm……..whereas the female friends I know who have been “circumsized”……………….feel absolutely NOTHING
“Female circumcision” covers a multitude of sins; the closest equivalent to male circumcision is excision of the clitoral hood, which is towards the less barbaric end of the scale. What most people think of as “female circumcision” is a clitorectomy, the equivalent of removal of the glans.
Yes. I’ve always thought that the term “female circumcision” is deliberately inaccurate, to hide the fact that it’s closer to female castration or female amputation. The term “female genital mutilation” is being used now. I like awareness of it increasing.
exactly.
I had a colleague who was an ex-pat from Nigeria. We were traveling together for work and became good friends. She explained what was done to her when she was 11. I had nightmares about it. I do agree that mutilation is a better term.
Some interesting insight here.
Personally, I find the practice pointless and ridiculous. Let’s not mince words here, this is child mutilation we’re talking about. Being a guy who still has his ‘turtle neck’, I have no issues with hygiene ‘down there’. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, no child should ever be circumcised. Ever.
Totally agree, Freddy.
On a similar-ish note, it’s akin to docking a dog’s tail and ears. Why would you mess with something that’s SUPPOSED to be there in its natural form?
Human willy eugenics for the lose.
But still god started it. He does hate his own creation.
From someone who had a botched circumcision and redo, I can tell you it sucks. I want my foreskin back. Thanks Mom & Dad.
I’m a bit late to the conversation, but here it goes. We had my son circumcised at the hospital with anesthesia (hold the lynch mob please) because my husband was circumcised. Fast forward a few months: during my obstetric rotation, I witnessed a circumcision with anesthesia. I had to leave the room. The way it is performed in the hospital does seem to be torture. if I knew then what I know now, I never would have allowed my son to be circumcised.
This may be a dead horse I’m about to beat, but there are several “levels” of FGM, the least of which is removal of the clitoral hood (if I recall correctly). Last time I was in biology class (5 hours ago), the clitoral hood was pretty much the same thing as the foreskin — only boys get testosterone and the female (default) does not.
In general, I don’t think we should screw with anyone’s genitals before they’re old enough to at least understand what’s going on. That’s including transsexual surgeries; they’ve guessed incorrectly many times regarding the “proper”, or post-pubescent, gender of the child. Life-saving surgeries (like blocked urethrae) should of course be taken care of, and movement impeding malformations, such as correcting club foot, yes, definitely.
The uncircumcised penis also is not unhygienic, barring general issues with hygiene (access to clean water or a sandy war zone). And if certain religious figures would stop speaking against it, condoms take care of AIDS much more effectively than circumcision.
Really, we don’t need to mess with genitals.
PS As a female, I prefer intact men.
OMG! You want to mutilate male children so they, as adults, will be less likely to infect females
with HPV? Where do you think that HPV originates? It does not spontaneously appear under
the foreskin of a healthy adult male. It has to be contracted from someone already carrying
the disease either anally, vaginally or orally. And having no foreskin does not protect the
owner of the penis from ALL HPV infections.
Plus, are you going to ignore all the other STDs and encourage your son to jump into unprotected sex knowing that
one in six (CDC figure) adults are carrying the Herpes virus and one in ten carrying another
STD or HIV? Do you think trimming his foreskin will protect him and all his sexual partners
from all of those vermin? If that were true the US would have drastically lower rates of
HPV and STDs but, in fact, our rates are higher than most countries that do not mutilate
genitals.
There are only two ways to prevent the spread of STDs. Abstinence and condoms (and those are
prone to failure with misuse). So please, quit using the”lower disease rate” to support your
desire for a cosmetically altered penis. It is time to quit drinking the circumcision Kool-Aid
and start using abstinence, barriers (condoms) and vaccinations to actually PREVENT disease.
NECRO THREAD LINK!!!!!!