The Argument Against Circumcision

I walked into my wife’s recovery room the day after the birth of our first child and asked where they had taken our son; I had not seen him in the neonatal room when I had returned to the hospital and he was not in the room with my wife. She was groggy with painkillers and said she thought they had taken him for some “tests.” No, the nurse corrected, they took him for his circumcision.

During my wife’s pregnancy we had progressed from circumcision-neutral to decidedly against the procedure as we had educated ourselves about the justifications for circumcision. The main impetus for modern circumcision began during Victorian times. The pseudo-psychology of the time claimed that circumcision helped prevent masturbation, which was assumed to cause blindness, insanity, homosexuality, and criminal behavior. The anti-masturbation hysteria has relaxed in the last several decades, but the cultural inertia for circumcision continued, supported by two additional reasons whose veracity has since come into doubt.

Read the rest: http://theopinionator.com/selfsufficiency/circumcision1.html

and it amazes me that seemingly intelligent people will go to great lengths during their pregnancy to learn all about every aspect of fetus development, birth, infant care and development, breastfeeding and parenting, but..........

they don't even think about this barbaric practice and consent to allow it for such ridiculous reasons as "I want him to look like his dad!"

Give me a break. Little boy penises do not look like Dad's until long after little boys have decided that they need privacy and don't let ANYONE look at their private parts.

And some of these people are the same ones who denounce the African countries that practice genital mutilation on girls

What hypocrites!

Circumcision helps in the spread of disease and prevents infection in later life. I have never known any man to have emotional problems because he was circumcised as a baby.

It's cosmetic surgery on the genitals of a newborn baby. That's a tough sell.

TheOldMan, is that a picture of Darwin in your profile? Don't you think there's an evolutionary reason that human males (and other male mammals as well) are born with a foreskin?

after reading the medical research and consulting with your physician.

No, but that doesn't describe the majority of the people who I know who have had the procedure done. Almost everyone has said they're doing it "so that he'll look like dad."

To be fair, it doesn't sound like that's what happened in your case and given the family history of UTI.

"look like other boys" because our state was ahead of the pack in discouraging circumcisions -- it was about 50/50 even twenty years ago.

The health issues -- including the issue of pain from the circumcision -- were what we focused on. It was especially hard for me the first time, not knowing what to expect. It was easier the second time around. My son appeared a lot more upset by the blood draw from his foot (routine state-required testing) than he did from the circumcision.

I think the fact that you researched it carefully and made sure to use anesthetic helped mitigate a lot of the problems. It probably wouldn't be such a big issue if more people would just give it careful consideration instead of going with the flow.

you wrote: "I have never known any man to have emotional problems because he was circumcised as a baby."

I suspect that most circumcised males cannot consciously remember the procedure, yet I find myself wondering if one of the sub-conscious or perhaps un-conscious memories of the pain from it explains part of the puritan ethic regarding sexuality in the U.S. and perhaps is part of the discriminatory behavior exhibited in many places towards gays and lesbians. There does seem to be an abnormal mass-manifestation of the injection of another's beliefs into the sexual practices of an unrelated human couple, almost a feeling that sexual conduct between two consenting adults should have the equivalent of a legal chaperone in the room, approving or disapproving of certain sexual conduct, or even against the appearance of it.

Anyway, I wonder if any of that feeling of a right to regulate another's sexuality has to do with pain experienced, though likely consciously unremembered, in the first days after birth: a pain which is associated with the male sexual organ, and one in which the subject of the procedure had no choice in the matter.

not the case.
In fact, it might even be just the opposite here in the US.

more or less subject to infant pain than anyone other human?

So, how many reform jews are there? (again, may not be reliable)


Are Jews homophobic, in general?



It would seem your hypothesis is in some doubt.

Very OBJECTIVE source, as indicated by their use of the term "male genital mutilation" to describe circumcision.
Among its sponsors:
Website of the Association for Genital Integrity (Canada).

Ridged Band
A site focused on anatomy, and the role of the foreskin's
ridged band in sexual arousal.

http://www.cirp.org/library/history /
The practice of male genital mutilation is far older than recorded history.

http://www.arthurhu.com/index/jewish.htm
from 1996?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism
Did you read beyond the first pararaph?

If you go back to my first post, you'll find that I wrote, "I wonder". How "I wonder" translates to absolutism, I'll never understand. You'll also note that I noted that the reliability of two sites was in question, so what do you do? Point that out in bold--snarky--as if it was the first discovery of it.

I needed to learn something quickly about the Jewish faith, quickly, since I wasn't taught about them in school except for how horribly slaughtered they were by Hitler, and those were some of the first sites returned from search engines that seemed close to my intent behind the first iteration of keywords chosen.

The history of religions and anti-gay fervor is indeed sordid, my quick study last night of Judaism, since you made such an incredulous statement (incredulous to me), confirms this. It is, I suppose, "progressive" of some in the Jewish faith to be discussing the issue among themselves these days, and to have divisions amongst themselves, and their religious version of court proceedings, etc., but it is hard to deny where they have come from. They should be commended for questioning their own policies.

I did wonder why you brought up religion into the discussion, as I was writing and thinking from a secular mindset. Is it personal?

:eyes:

And stats have shown there is less of certain diseases/conditions among cultural groups that practice circumcision and those who don't. While there may be other mitigating factors such as genetics and cultural pressures on behavior, there seem to be some medical reasons for circumcision that are soundly based.

Of course there has been circumcision for thousands of years, but it wasn't widespread in the West outside of Jewish communities until the 19th Century. And what, exactly, are your sound medical reasons for routine circumcision?

Did you know that a masectomy virtually eliminates the risk of breast cancer and that castration is 100% effective in preventing testicular cancer? These could be practiced preventatively, as well. At the very least shouldn't we routinely cut out the tonsils and appendix from newborns to prevent the associated diseases?

It's an absolute myth that there's any medical benefit to circumcision. Period.

Much easier to get if the urethra is covered. Yes, it can be avoided if you keep clean, but kids aren't the best in keeping that up, and I don't plan on checking my 6-year-old's genitalia every day - it gets kinda creepy.

And for people who say it makes the penis more sensitive, so it makes sex better - I'd say women would rather us NOT be more sensitive for obvious reasons. :-)

I'm thankful that my parents had me circumcised - that way I don't have any memory of it and it's been fine.

Make your own decision, but know what is really myth and what is truly fact.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis?

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is 1 in 600 in the US. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.

and

Is it easier to care for the penis circumcised or uncircumsised?

The circumsised penis is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his penis with care. Cleaning of the penis is done by gently, not forcibly, retracting the foreskin. The foreskin should be retracted only to the point where resistance is met. Full retraction of the foreskin may not be possible until the age of 3 or more.

What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?

The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that males predominate among infants with urinary tract infections (whereas females predominate later in life) and that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. Studies in US Army hospitals involving more than 200,000 infant boys confirmed greater than a tenfold increase in urinary tract infections in uncircumcised male infants compared to those who had been circumcised.

What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.

What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases?

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

What might this connection between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.

What is the correlation between sexually transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix?

There is a strong connection between sexually transmitted diseases and cancer of the cervix. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 are strongly associated with cancer of the cervix. Herpes simplex virus type 2 has also been associated with cervical cancer.

The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. Cervical cancer is virtually unknown in nuns and virgins.

What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?

Circumcision protects the mate from cancer of the cervix by removing the foreskin which harbors sexually transmitted viruses that promote this common form of female cancer.

Medical benefits - THERE ARE NONE! Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits. A recent review by the American Academy of Pediatrics looked at all the data from the past decades to see if there truly were any medical benefits. Their conclusion - NO. There are no significant medical benefits that make circumcision worth doing. Here are a few benefits that we used to think were true, and now know are not.

* Cleanliness - although it is true, a circumcised penis does not collect any white stuff underneath the foreskin like an intact penis does, THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL BENEFIT. It is really just one less area to wash in the shower.

* Decreased risk of STD's - this was a myth that we now know is not true.

* Decreased risk of penile cancer - it used to be thought that circumcised men had a much lower chance of cancer of the penis. We now know that this benefit is much smaller than previously thought. The AAP determined that this benefit is so tiny, it is not worth circumcising for this reason.

* Avoiding infections in the foreskin - it is true, occasionally intact foreskins get irritated. This is easily treated with warms soaks and washing. Rarely, the irritated foreskin becomes infected. This requires antibiotics to clear up, but is easily treatable. Even if this does happen once or twice in a person's life, it is not a reason to circumcise at birth.

* Avoiding the need to do it later on - very rarely, someone has a problem with recurrent infections in the foreskin that need antibiotic treatment. Some of these men then need to be circumcised in an operating room under general anesthesia. This is extremely rare, however, and is not a reason to circumcise everyone at birth.

* Avoiding bladder infections - it used to thought that circumcised boys and men had a much lower chance of bladder infections. The AAP now knows that this benefit is very small, and is only true for the first few years of life. After that, there is no difference in the number of bladder infections. Again, not a reason to circumcise.

source: http://www.askdrsears.com/html/1/t012000.asp

Aside from the fact that the site in my post was not so one sided, here is an example of the very latest research:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55065
Circumcision May Protect Against HIV

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Circumcision reduced the rate of HIV infection among heterosexual men in South Africa by 60 percent, according to a study that provides the first published data about the effects of male circumcision on HIV infection.

The study was led by Bertran Auvert of the French health institute INSERM and included 3,274 young, sexually active men divided into two groups. Men in one group were immediately circumcised while men in the control group were to remain uncircumcised until the end of the study.

The circumcised men were asked to abstain from sex for six weeks after the operation. Both groups were to be tested for HIV at three, 12 and 21 months.

After 18 months, the researchers detected 20 HIV infections in the circumcised group and 49 in the control group. The researchers concluded that because circumcision was so effective at preventing HIV infection, it would be unethical to continue the study for the planned 21 months. They halted the trial and offered circumcision to all the men in the control group.

Results of the study, which will be published Oct. 25 in the journal PLoS Medicine, were first reported in July at an international AIDS conference.

While the authors of this study have called for male circumcision to become part of AIDS prevention efforts in Africa, other HIV experts say the findings must be confirmed by other studies before such action can be recommended.

-- Robert Preidt

Seriously, isn't it easier to put on a condom than to cut off part of your penis?

that pushes abstinence.
Any international healthcare org that menntions condoms or birthcontrol won't get funding from BushCo.
Condoms won't help keep the tip of the penis clean and infection free.

to get circumcisions.

Good hygiene is easy too . . . if you live in most places in the U.S.

But yes -- condoms are still extremely important. The WHO wants to find a way to promote circumcision WITHOUT doing anything that would cause people to cut back on condom use. It also wants research to continue on a vaccine and on biocides.

penis and circumcision. Some early studies failed to take into account they were looking at different age groups. The same is true about the cervical cancer information. I would advise a woman to have annual pap smears before I would advise a woman to only have sex with uncircumcised partners. 80% of people will be exposed to HPV within their lifetime, and circumcision isn't going to change this.

Even if the claims you pasted in were valid:
We don't amputate other body parts to prevent any possible infection/disease transmission. Why are we doing that with the foreskin of a little boy? The foreskin is far more than a fingernail that can be snipped away. It's full of nerves and blood vessels, and protects the part of the penis that's under it. It plays a sexual role (cutting it off could be likened to a clitorectomy: the clitoris as merely a nubbin of tissue to be snipped away).

www.circumcision.org will tell you more about foreskin anatomy.

They wouldn't have wasted all that money on the large scale studies they've been conducting in Africa. Early results have been showing a 60% reduction in HIV transmission. Sounds like a medical benefit to me.

You've just presented a decent argument for circumcision in Africa. What is your reason for supporting it in the United States? After all, they don't circumcise babies in Scandanavia and there's a miniscule HIV rate in those countries.

I think it's a toss-up in the U.S. Some people, like me, will think the medical benefits outweigh the risks. In our case, due to my daughter's kidney damage, reducing the risk of a symptomless UTI in our sons' first year of life was worth it to us. But we did make sure that our sons got a local anesthetic for the procedure, which I think everybody should do. If a couple wants the procedure and their own doctor doesn't use anesthesia, they should find someone who will.

Also, I could envision plenty of situations (for example, during military service in a war zone) where good daily hygiene practices would not be easy.

But IMO the risk/benefit calculation in the U.S. is close enough that people could make a reasoned decision either way.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

Circumcision -- Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance

Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

those studies don't show if the difference is based on the culture and hygiene of those who received circumcision vs. those who don't, or show an actual medical difference. At this point, with HIV, we'll do anything that might help. And there is no justification for acting as if this justifies circumcision in the US or Europe.

See post #15.

There's no evidence that there is anything but a correlation, making it just as likely, if not more likely that whatever differences noted were due to culture, not to circumcision.

I went to go and visit her in the hospital after she had her son. Her son was gone. I asked her where he was and she said he was getting circumcised. I was rather surprised/shocked.

A few minutes later the nurse came in with a bundled up screaming infant that had blood coming out of the diapers. It sickened me.

I don't have any children myself, but I thought it was horrific!

There are many men that aren't circumcised. I see no real good reason for it as long as the young boy is taught how to keep him clean and practice good hygiene.

being a circumsized male since shortly after birth, that the only thing barbaric about it is not having it done. Think about it graphically. Why would anyone make their kid go through life with a piece of skin that they would have to peel back, exposing almost raw meat, in order to clean themselves, when they could avoid this problem, and lead just as happy and healthy lives as the next guy. I couldn't imagine living with that kind of pain in the ass. And just because the procedure looks painful to the adult NOT going through it, is no reason not to have it done. I probably felt it when I was a baby, but believe me, I have thanked my mother more than once for having the insight to spare me the misery. Just my circumsized opinion. Thanks.
quickesst

"Why would anyone make their kid go through life with a piece of skin that they would have to peel back, exposing almost raw meat, in order to clean themselves, when they could avoid this problem, and lead just as happy and healthy lives as the next guy."

"And just because the procedure looks painful to the adult NOT going through it, is no reason not to have it done. I probably felt it when I was a baby, but believe me, I have thanked my mother more than once for having the insight to spare me the misery."

Huh? You've just argued that genital surgery on a newborn without anaesthetic is a good idea because you think a foreskin is yucky.

This almost sounds like satire and maybe it is and I shouldn't read it straight.

Taa daa! Argument refuted.

And enough with the "genital surgery." You're making it sound like Third World genital mutilation and you're way off base.

"And enough with the "genital surgery." You're making it sound like Third World genital mutilation and you're way off base."

Ah, true. First World genital mutilation. I feel better already...

" Huh? You've just argued that genital surgery on a newborn without anaesthetic is a good idea because you think a foreskin is yucky."

Editing this post because my first response was a little much. My apologies. As far as your statement, let me just say that in all of my fifty-four years on earth, I have never wakened in the middle of the night having a nightmare about circumsision, nor any variation thereof. I doubt seriously if there is a lasting effect when done at birth. I have two brothers, both uncircumsized. Both wish they had been. Growing up with both sides of the issue has definately influenced my position on this issue. Thanks.
quickesst

Had my own reply, but then read your MUCH better one. :yourock:

There's also the good reason from the South Park episode "Ike's Wee Wee:"



Dr. Schwartz: We're not going to cut it off! We're just goin' to snip it, so it looks bigger.

Stan: Oh, hey, that doesn't sound like a bad idea!

Cartman: Heyeah, I want to get a circumstision, too.

good hygiene. Until they hit the magic age of 6th grade or so!

Luckily, based on the decision I had made earlier to get them circumcised (to reduce the chance of UT infections), I never felt I had to follow them into the bathroom to make sure they were cleaning themselves properly.

(the NHS won't pay for it; when the NHS decided not to pay for it, the circumcision rate dropped immediately).

but there are still hospitals that have permission to circumsise in the admitting papers you sign when you check in for delivery. You don't know it until it's too late most of the time because you are just a bit busy and distracted from reading the fine print.

Will be interested in following the case. Have long opposed hospital treatment of people when they disregard people's decisions.

But would also like to hear the medical case for the procedure. Have read there are cultures where cervical cancer is just not common. Circumcision of very strict sexual codes of behavior? Would like to know what all the factors are.

Why not let your child decide whether or not to be circumcised when he is old enough to make the decision for himself?

themselves whether to get vaccinated?

:shrug: and a ;)

Kids are so good at making lifestyle choices at a age that is pertinent, what with all their life experience and all. Want peas or candy for supper?

No, parenting is not democracy. It has to be a benevolent dictatorship for many years if kids are to thrive.

My one year old child might contract pertussis or diptheria, but he's unlikely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. Here's two other good reasons, if that's not enough for you. First, the infant mortality rate from currently preventable diseases was atrocious in years past, far beyond the incidence of AIDS in the United States. Second, giving a child a vaccination involves a shot and some discomfort, while circumcision involves removing part of a child's genitalia.

But let's say that you are a supporter of circumcision. Why not wait until the child is a few months older instead more vulnerable as a newborn? Heck, they try to put off necessary surgeries until the child is older. Why not do the same with a voluntary surgery? Finally, only half the circumcisions in this country are performed under anesthetic. Isn't this somewhat cruel?

my OB didn't use anesthetics for the procedure, but he gave me the name of another very good doctor who did.

Five years later when my second son was born, all the doctors around here were using locals.

My husband and I watched both procedures and our sons had very little reaction. One of them only scrunched up his face. The other whimpered for about a minute.

highest in the first year of life.

My daughter has kidney damage due to a symptomless infection. I felt lucky that there was something I could do for my sons to lower the risk.

give permission for this? Did you not let the pediatrician know that you weren't going to let him be circumcised?

A majority infant boys in the United States are circumcised, while the practice is practically non-existent in most other developed countries such as Sweden, France, Japan, Italy, etc. Given that the medical benefits of circumcision are supposedly clear cut, why is it that the medical establishment of these other countries does not recommend the practice?

either way. So it should be up to the parents to weigh the evidence and make the decision that feels best to them.

But the new HIV studies about to be released by the WHO may change some minds, even in developed countries.

too young to have their foreskins retracted for cleaning. Urinary tract infections can occur without symptoms and lead to kidney damage.

There is no available procedure to reduce urinary tract infections in girls, whose shorter urethras make them more susceptible to infection.

Thomas E. Wiswell, who was a U.S. Army pediatrician, read this study; he was impressed by Ginsburg and McCracken's erroneous observations about circumcision and UTI. In a determined search to show an association between lack-of-circumcision and UTI, Wiswell et al retrospectively examined charts of a number of boys born at U.S. military hospitals.6,10-12,16,24,38 Intact boys were reported to have a slightly higher rate of bacteriuria (bacteria in the urine) than circumcised boys during the first year of life.

Wiswell's sensational statistic, that circumcision resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys," has often been quoted; however, it is misleading. In fact, UTIs are so rare in any case that, using Wiswell's data, 50 to 100 healthy boys would have to be circumcised in order to prevent a UTI from developing in only one patient. (Using more recent data from a better-controlled study, the number of unnecessary operations needed to prevent one hospital admission for UTI would jump to 195.48)

...

The National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Clearinghouse (NKUDIC), a service of the National Institutes of Health, maintains a comprehensive set of pages, listing the known causes of urinary tract infections in adults and children. NKUDIC does not suggest circumcision as a prevention or cure of urinary tract infection.

Conclusion

The notion that circumcision is a useful prophylactic against disease has been laid to rest by the 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision.52 Instead, healthy, natural alternatives such as breastfeeding and rooming-in must be given favour. Breastfeeding offers a wide range of benefits for both mother and baby. Circumcision is surgery, and as such it has attendant risks. Furthermore, circumcision causes a great deal of pain, entails permanent loss of sexual function and sensation, which raises serious ethical questions concerning informed consent.31 Circumcision is not an operation to be performed lightly.


Source: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

are now underway clearly show.

I agree that the operation isn't to be performed lightly. We actually consulted with a urologist about the research before we made our decision. But I have to disagree that the procedure in infants always causes "a great deal of pain" -- our sons showed barely any reaction (and that was to the needle poke, not to the actual circumcision). And as far as "permanent loss of sexual function and sensation" . . . well, I don't know. But I don't hear many guys complaining about too little sensation in their penises. It certainly isn't a universal complaint of circumcised men, as your article implies.

of the conclusion as stated in the document named, which leadsme to doubt the veracity of the entire article.




http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
POLICY STATEMENT
PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Circumcision Policy Statement

Task Force on Circumcision



CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND STD INCLUDING HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV)



SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It's not an automatic procedure and informed consent from one or both parents has to be obtained. Check that paperwork.

If it's too late and the op has been done, the good news is that there was a 60% reduction in HIV transmission reported in South Africa in circumcised males. Likely other diseases are similarly slowed.

The real bottom line for your son is how YOU look. Little boys want to look like their daddies, and unless you want trouble down the line, this should be your guide.

Circumcision is and should remain a private decision in this country. It's now being recommended in sub Saharan Africa because they are desperate for any way to reduce the spread of HIV. We still have the luxury of choice in this country, so let your conscience be your guide.

Just be aware that there are benefits associated with the practice that you may not have considered, along with the risk that any surgical procedure, no matter how minor, exposes a patient to.

He gave a link to the article. The writer said that his wife had signed the form while in a groggy state, but that he got there in time to stop the procedure.

and I miss a lot. Thanks for pointing out the error.

However, the opinions I voiced are valid ones.

benefits as well as risks and each family has to make the best decision they can. Neither side has an open and shut case.

Those results in Africa are certainly interesting though.

"Little boys want to look like their daddies." That is the most ridiculous justification for circumcision I have ever heard. My dad was circumsized, but guess what? His dad wasn't. And he's A-ok. Since the circumcision rate is on a regular decline in this country, lots of boys don't look like their daddies, including mine, and they're doing just fine.

As for the Africa studies, those are very preliminary, and they do not take into account many factors that may have more to do with the difference in HIV rates than the act of circumcision. Certainly, those studies offer no justification for circumcision in the US.

I have brothers and sons that are both ways, and I have never seen it to make any noticeable difference. For this reason, although I myself was "cut", I say leave the poor babies' penis alone. They can always correct the matter themselves in later life if they choose, and the practical advantages or disadvantages of circumcision are of such small moment as to not be a proper basis for abrogating the childs right to make up his own mind in due course, or to justify the attendant risk that any surgical procedure holds with a newborn.

cancer, too (or even, wait until after she's done having kids, since we know breast feeding is so important for infants). Yet we don't do this.

I frankly see no good reason for circumcision, and look forward to the day that it will be regarded with the same horror that clitorectomy and other forms of female genital mutilation are regarded in the US today.

=========================
The foreskin isn't just a worthless flap of skin. It is full of nerves, which contribute to sexual feeling. http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm:

"Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor studied the foreskin tissue at the Department of Pathology, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Canada. They reported their results in the British Journal of Urology in an article titled “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision.” Based on the examination of 22 adult foreskins obtained at autopsy, they found that the outer foreskin’s concentration of nerves is “impressive” and its “sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole.” (1) The foreskin inner surface is different. It is mucous membrane similar to the inner surface of the mouth, also rich in nerves and blood vessels. Between the inner and outer layers of the foreskin is a unique structure they call a “ridged band” that contains “specialized nerve endings.” (2) The researchers conclude that the foreskin has several kinds of nerves and “should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more or less specialized parts. . . . The glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce.” (3)
The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. (4) The foreskin also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed. (5) Without the foreskin, the glans skin, which is normally moist mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure. This change reduces its sensitivity. (6) In addition, the loss of a secretion called smegma of the inner foreskin layer removes natural lubrication. Oral-genital sexual activity is more common in the United States than in many other societies. (7) Could the lack of natural lubrication of the penis due to circumcision be a reason?

===========================================

Infants have huge stress reactions when being circumcised, which can make them more susceptible to infection and other problems. It certainly causes pain - and most doctors don't think any kind of topical anesthetic is necessary. Just how is that justified? All you adults men: are you willing to volunteer for circumcision, much less without anesthesia? It's a myth that somehow an infant won't experience intense pain (just like some people still have the idea you can cause an animal pain and it doesn't matter much).

See http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm
Circumcision is a surgical procedure that involves forcefully separating the foreskin from the glans and then cutting it off. It is typically accomplished with a special clamp device ( see Fig. 2 ). Over a dozen studies confirm the extreme pain of circumcision. It has been described as “among the most painful performed in neonatal medicine.”( 2) In one study, researchers concluded that the pain was “severe and persistent.”( 3) Increases in heart rate of 55 beats per minute have been recorded, about a 50 percent increase over the baseline.( 4) After circumcision, the level of blood cortisol increased by a factor of three to four times the level prior to circumcision.( 5) Investigators reported, “This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.”( 6)

There is disagreement among physicians about using anesthesia during circumcisions. Prior to the mid-1980s, anesthesia was not used because infant pain was denied by the medical community (see Chapter 2). That belief has changed among many physicians, but an anesthetic (local injection, the best option tested) still is not typically administered due to a lack of familiarity with its use, as well as the belief that it introduces additional risk.( 13) Although there is indication that the risk is minimal, most physicians who perform circumcisions do not use anesthetics even after they are taught how. When an anesthetic is used, it relieves only some but not all of the pain, and its effect wanes before the post-operative pain does.( 14) Because no experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain, research in this area continues. Meanwhile, some physicians’ views about the use of anesthesia during circumcision grow more intense. In a recent medical article on the subject, the writers described circumcision without pain relief as “barbaric.”( 15) Another physician wrote that subjecting an adult to the same practice would be “unfathomable.”( 16)
**more on infant response at the link**

==============================================================
There was a recent study in African countries (sorry, don't know what countries were studied) suggesting that on a large scale, population basis, circumcision can reduce AIDS transmission rates. I'm not sure whether this study is questioned by experts or fairly well accepted. But guess what works even better? Condoms. (A limited number of partners reduces exposure, too).

About the procedure:


People on DU in other threads over the years have asked questions at times about where the seeming connection to sex and violence comes from. Female rape, for instance, where a male forces themselves on an unwilling female as an act of control and dominance, among other things, seems to be reflected in the doctor's circumcision of the male infant.

There you have it, the first instance of the connection between sex and violence, it begins in the first hours and days of life for many males.

Continuing from the same site, emphasis added:


In latter part of the procedure there appears to be a source of pain described which likely lasts for days, however long healing takes; pain that lasts long after any anesthesia that may have been used for the procedure wears off, and lets remember, that for millennia, anesthesia was not used, it appears there was no movement towards anesthesia until 1978 or thereabouts. So what kind of social results might this have?

MGM = male genital mutilation


How many times have you heard jokes told by women about men who don't want to communicate? Who are called "Joe six-pack"?

If the above hypotheses are accurate and scientifically truthful, it makes sense that religions that practiced circumcision for any historically perceived effect would also discover a need to indoctrinate its members against some of the above, especially the last two effects, for human breeding to continue in the mass way that emperors and rulers desired.

It would seem that the psychological and social effects of circumcisions on a mass of infants is indeed profound, though I would certainly expect there to be individual variations. Presumably, this effect would be different from the effect upon an adult having the procedure done of his own free will, where it isn't the 'first sexual experience' with another human wielding a knife and/or clamp.

It's no wonder that humans aren't like their more peace loving cousins, the Bonobos, who apparently use sex to calm each other and preempt interdispute.

Anger, emotional numbing, violence, these are precisely the qualities one would wish in a soldier whose purpose is defined by orders to kill the enemy.

As are these anti-circumcision threads.

Generally a bunch of half assed emotional arguments and loaded language.

The bottom line is that the latest medical research is very clear- circumcision reduces the likelyhood of catching (and therefore spreading) a variety of STD's. Most of this research is done HIV- but the indications are- and some of the data shows, that the process applies to infections as well.

Run a pub med search, and read the studies for yourself.

Generalized claims of ridiculousness can sometimes be classified as hysterical. Well-reasoned claims of ridiculousness may not be.

Whether the procedure has health benefits was not the argument of the excerpts, and any perceived or demonstrated 'health benefits' logistically lies outside of the question of psychological and/or social harm done, therefore it seems your argument is one of logical fallacy.

If the site's claims that I excerpted are accurate and truthful, and further if the procedure has health benefits, it means that a balancing of benefit/harm must be considered.

The arguments I've seen that express support for the procedure, when those arguments appear well reasoned, still do not appear to delve into the separate question of harm done either individually or en masse. Therefore, those arguments are one sided, at best.

Warning-- Documentary video of an actual operation. If you are squeamish or otherwise would suffer ill effects from viewing, then do not watch this video of an actual circumcision being performed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcc4XLfuimM

Here's another site where it is available, it appears to be the same documentary video as far as I can tell, in fact it appears as the source. Let's see if it gets removed there.

The same WARNING applies, it is not for the squeamish, or those who might get ill watching medical procedures, it is an actual circumcision being performed. The political advocacy of the site and their organization is obvious.

About the video:
http://www.intact.ca/vidintro.htm
Video:
http://www.intact.ca/video.html