"Health" and virtue aren't the same thing.

Amy,

You rock for posting this!

"We do not have the right to hold down another human being and subtract healthy tissue for non-medical reasons,..."

Like abortion?

Oh, wait, abortion's voluntary.

But don't pretend there are no benefits to getting cut.

Some religious rituals have a basis.

(Good luck Raddy, I fought this one here a few months ago.... There are people who very badly want to spend their time worrying about this.

Heres a slight re working of the article at radwastes link

The benefits
Circumcision may have health benefits, including:

Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections is reduced, after all if your daugter gets no pleasure from sex she'll have it less often
Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.

Prevention of gigantomastia. Occasionally, the breast my reach gigantic proportions keading to back problems.

Decreased risk of breast cancer. Although cancer of the breast is common, it's never been diagnosed in a woman who had had the breast bud removed before puberty.

Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised women may have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Radwaste,

Some people deny the benefits. I don't because it would be unwise and, more importantly, unnecessary. The potential benefits exist. So what? Circumcision isn't necessary, which is the proper standard for surgery by proxy consent. Everything circumcision may help is preventable and/or treatable without circumcision. (Usually... Circumcision can be medically necessary.) That is ethically indefensible.

If an adult male wants to have himself circumcised for those benefits, so be it. No one's interested in stopping him because it's his body. But a child owns his own body, too. Altering it, with the inherent risk and no need, is unacceptable.

Crid:

Yes. That doesn't mean we're wrong.

I am for circumcision. The benefits are there and I, personally, think an un-circumcised penis is unattractive.

That being said, I will not have my son (If I ever have one) circumcised as an infant. (Let my very Jewish mother throw a fit; I can hear her kvetching now.) I've listened to my husband about this. He was circumcised as an infant and he feels like he was mutilated. I don't want my child to feel the same way.I do NOT want my son hating me 36 years later for mutilating him! (He can hate me for some other reason.)

My husband tells me he doesn't feel whole and had self esteem issues for years because of that. He's over the issues now, but still doesn't feel "right" about his penis. He still resents the hell out of his mother for doing it to him. And it was her choice. His father didn't care one way or the other.

I will explain to my son, when he's old enough, the benefits, the history, the "look" factor, the supposed increased sensitivity, and leave it up to him. (I don't really know about the increased sensitivity part, I've heard both yay and nay on it.) I'll even pay for it, if he's an adult when and if he decides to.
If he doesn't, it's his choice, and I can't make him. I'd have no right to do so.

I will educate him on how to keep it clean and take care of it, if he decides not to. Cleanliness is of utmost importance, esp. with an uncircumcised penis!

I was very close with a guy who wasn't circumcised and he didn't keep it clean. It wasn't his fault- he had never been shown how to clean himself properly.

After I had to assure him, that it wasn't "normal" for a penis to smell that bad, he went to the Dr.

It turned out, he had a small bedsore like infection under the skin due to not keeping it clean. He had no clue about it and didn't even feel it. He had left himself open to a nasty infection and he could've picked up something really nasty w/ that open wound.

He ended up getting circumcised and is much happier now. (He's one that claims increased sensitivity.) He tells me that it wasn't that bad. He had a local and was in and out of the Dr's. office in no time. It took about two weeks before he could have sex, but he claims it was worth it.

Anyway, I don't think any parent has the right to do that to their son. They should educate him and let him make his own choice. Of course, I feel the same way about getting little girls ears pierced. (Why the hell do people do that to babies??!!)

If people were slicing up female baby genitalia on the basis of the dubious claims made on behalf of male circumcision, college campuses across America would be hosting nightly vigils about the Great Mutilation.

Women would be speaking onstage on Oprah about the barbarity, tragedy and horror of this practice. Every botched procedure in the past 60 years would be detailed for consumption and thrown in society's face. Womens rights advocates would be holding forth in congressional hearings, literally shaking with rage at the idea that people must cut their infant's labia or clitoris shortly after birth.

And those reactions would be appropriate.

But it is boys' junk getting cut, so we instead hear a mix of mockery ("get over it..."), aesthetic concerns (imagine justifying female genital cutting based on *that*), thinly-proven claims of health benefits (those European men are dropping dead daily, don't ya know), and traditionalist hokum ("Yahweh said unto Abraham...").

If you wanted a symbol of how society views its men, slicing up their perfectly healthy and normal genitalia soon after delivery is a pretty good one: in sum, you guys are here for us to change and chop as we wish. Remember that, and to help you remember it,...

If people were slicing up female baby genitalia on the basis of the dubious claims made on behalf of male circumcision, college campuses across America would be hosting nightly vigils about the Great Mutilation.

They are slicing up female baby genitalia, and for worse reasons (chastity and cultural inertia). Protests are infrequent. I agree that it's deplorable.

Before my son was born, I researched the pros and cons of circumcision, and the only objections I found came from kooks. The strongest non-hysterical argument against it was "the claimed benefits have not been proven." Some men blame their adult problems on their circumcisions, but other men choose to get circumcised as adults for various reasons. Of the second group, some reported less pleasure during sex and some reported more. What swayed us was the possibility that our son would someday have a lower risk of spreading a sexually transmitted disease and the reduced risk of foreskin-related problems in late childhood.

And dont forget there is a multi million dollor industry supported by all the stolen foreskin,

Skin grafts grown in nutreint baths, face creams

Good news Pseudonym, there are a couple of studies that show girls who have their outer genitila removed also have a lower risk of contracting and spreading ADIS,

So, do you still find it deplorable?

And will you have it done to your daughter?

My son was born back in December 2008 and my boyfriend and I went through the circumcision debate extensively. He was totally against it, and I was for it, citing "doesnt everyone do it and isnt is medically beneficial?" I researched it so extensively, I ended up using circumcision as the topic of a position paper I had to write for my grad school Investigating Child Abuse class. (I am NOT saying circumcision is child abuse, although I do recognize the double standard when paralleled with FGM) I am saying that there is no medical reason to circumcise an infant at birth. There are medical reason for circumcision but they rarely, if at all, present at birth. Cleaning is not that difficult, although it is important. Technically the child will not know any other way to clean themselves. And yes, as parents you will need to remind your sons to clean themselves properly, but you will also need to remind them to wash behind their ears. In the end the decision is really up to the parents, and is usually based on preference and religion. I left my son intact, despite the fact that the nurses at the hospital tried to convince me otherwise.

As for the lower possibility of transmitting STDs, there is research supporting and not supporting circumcision. Then end rule, treat your penis with care, and dont put it in place where it might get sick. If you participate in risky sexualy behavior, sacrificing your foreskin is unfortunately not going to protect you from an STD.

> That doesn't mean we're wrong.

It has the odor of a disproportionate worry.

In the end the decision is really up to the parents, - Renee

And that is where you're wrong

Crid:

How so? There is a glaring oversight in applying basic human rights in our society. I have experience and knowlwdge with the topic. I can explain why I'm right and society is wrong. I should stay quiet to imply confidence? That doesn't make sense.

I have never understood circumcision. Although my husband is circumcised, I don't feel that I as a woman have a right to tell men what to do with their genitals anymore than they have a right to tell me what to do with mine. If I were ever to have a male child, I would leave him unmolested, teach him to clean, and allow him to make the decision at the appropriate age. In addition, the fact that it is done without anesthesia is astounding (and in the case of the bris, serve lunch afterwards). What a horrible thing to do to your infant!

-Julie

Good news Pseudonym, there are a couple of studies that show girls who have their outer genitila removed also have a lower risk of contracting and spreading ADIS,

Are there really?

In your opinion does that mitigate the massive negatives of FGM?

My husband is circumcised. My father was circumcised but I believe that it was done, not at birth, but when he entered the army in World War II. I dated a guy two years or so before I got married who was not. It did not seem to cause him any problems helped me make a decision not to have it done to my son. My son is now 23. He has never asked me about it one way or the other. My mother threw a big fit about it at the time he was born but I told her that she should ask my dad what he thought. After that, she shut up about it (which helped confirm my WWII theory). I lived in Germany for three years, and like one of the previous posters did not see the Germans dropping dead from the lack so I considered it a non issue. I also didn't any German women who seemed to lack sexual attention because they didn't shave their legs or under their arm pits. Amazing isn't it? Isabel

One additional argument; How about the fact that having a foreskin has been genetically selected for in the human population through millions of years of evolution? We used to think that the appendix had no particular use. Turns out, new research says it does, especially in populations living with poor sanitation where it helps protect the body from dangerous micro organisms such as salmonella. For the observant Jews and Catholics out there, if all powerful God thinks it is such a good idea not to have a foreskin, why did he put one on to begin with? Isabel

I also didn't any German women who seemed to lack sexual attention because they didn't shave their legs or under their arm pits. Amazing isn't it?

I am going on a limb here, but I see body shaving as a social convention. Doing so doesn't create problems physical problems, but lack of shaving doesn't cause real issues either. If you aren't into it,then you can probably find a spouse that doesn't mind.

Interestingly enough, in the Joy of Sex, it is recommended that you not shave to increase friction and pheromones. I don't know if I buy it, but just thought I would run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

-Julie

Are there really?

In your opinion does that mitigate the massive negatives of FGM?
-Pseudonym

Yes there really are

No, but hen again I at least have never participated in the sexual mutilation of a child

Do you even know the "benifits" of circumcision?

Other than a statistically insignifigant reduction in HIV in 20 to 50 yr old african males?

A study which was never even completed by the way

The Jewish practice of circumcision is different from circumcision performed in hospitals - to the point where the two cannot really be compared. (The attempts to equate male and female "circumcision" are even more specious).

Here in Israel, tens of thousands of adult Soviet emigres have undergone Jewish circumcision. There has been no backlash pf the "mutilated" - and no slowing of the circumcision rate 20 years on. Follow-up surveys indicate no great harm OR benefit.

That's probably the closest we'll ever get to really objective evidence.

Many ignorant, self-doubting Jews do not know what they are talking about in this matter. And devoid of religious commitment, they let the argument slide into pseudo-medical, pseudo-ethical discussions.

The only people "troubled" by this issue are navel-gazing Americans raised on the milk of victim culture.

Ben! So good of you to join in.

Totally of subject, but have you come up with any of those vaild secular reasons against gay marrige yet?

The point isnt if grown men enjoy circumscision, the point is its needlessly creul to preform on helpless infants.

Given that at such a young age doctors and men traind in mythology have no way of kowing what shape, length, of girth a child's penis will attain - how do they know how much to cut off?

What happens if the cut of too much? Or too little?

People use the "well it easier to clean if its cut" excuse all the time. Well how does some one incapable of using soap react if they dont cut off enough skin and the skin tries to re attach its self.

You think showing a child how to wash himself is embarassing, imagine him asking why his penis hurts whenever it gets hard.

Incedentally Ben there are studies showing childern cricumcised as infants have a greater pain response

tens of thousands of adult Soviet emigres have undergone Jewish circumcision.

Adults, making their own decision for their own bodies. What is your justification of cutting off parts of the genitals of an unwilling child without anesthetic? What is wrong with allowing your son to submit himself to the procedure if he wants when he reaches the age of consent?

This has nothing to do with victim culture. This has to do with evaluating a long standing practice and asking if it is just.

-Julie

"I am going on a limb here, but I see body shaving as a social convention. Doing so doesn't create problems physical problems, but lack of shaving doesn't cause real issues either. If you aren't into it,then you can probably find a spouse that doesn't mind."

I think the point here is that in my mind circumcision is a product of the same social conventions. People have come to see it as the norm and then want to boot strap it into a medical issue in order to justify it.
In Germany there are a sub set of women who regularly shave their body hair for aesthetic reasons. They are called prostitutes. Historically some of the same things that women do routinely now were practices of a very small sub set of women in the past. In the early 20th century, in the US, very few women had pierced ears. Those who did were the very rich who wore diamond earrings and did not want to lose them, and again, hookers. It was considered unseemly for a middle class woman to have pierced ears. Anyone who thinks that most men would not find an otherwise good looking woman who had not shaved her legs sexually attractive (same for makeup by the way) does not know much about men.  Isabel

I think the point here is that in my mind circumcision is a product of the same social conventions. People have come to see it as the norm and then want to boot strap it into a medical issue in order to justify it.

Isabel, I believe that we are making the same point. Circumcision of infants is a cruel practice justified as a medical procedure simply because it has become commonplace. Removal of body hair, the wearing of makeup or jewelry are all things that are common in the US now, but they are social conventions that come and go with fashion and fad. If someone came to me and said that I needed to get a bikini wax for medical reasons, I would tell him/her to fuck off. However, people attempt to have discussions about circumcision as if it is truly needed medically for all infants, and that is sad.

-Julie

Ben-David:

The example you give is useful, but only because it shows that adult males are willing to undergo circumcision for religious reasons. I don't know of anyone trying to prevent that. However, it isn't objective proof of anything related to infant/child circumcision.

Specific to what you wrote, harm must be viewed as an objective and subjective evaluation. Objectively circumcision without medical need is harm because it's a surgical procedure. Subjectively the individual can evaluate whether that's good or bad, whether the gains outweight the drawbacks. But because no need exists, only the individual himself should decide.

I'm curious what you mean by Jewish circumcision being different from hospital circumcision. I agree that physically they're often different. I don't agree that that is relevant to the ethical question, but it's worth noting. Is that what you mean?

"They are slicing up female baby genitalia, and for worse reasons (chastity and cultural inertia)."

Not in America, they aren't, and if it does occur among some immigrants bringing that practice here, they are prosecuted when discovered.

Genital circumcision is a freakish, barbarous assault against infants, but the behavior is widespread enough that people refuse to see it when boys are subject to it. Here, people sip wine and chow down cheese to celebrate.

I say outlaw it and wait 18 years. Then start telling teenage boys they have to undergo the procedure for religious or cultural reasons their parents feel are important. Watch what happens. It will be quite a show as we watch that "tradition" disappear fast.

Yes there really are

Cite?

Do you even know the "benifits" of circumcision?

I listed the ones that affected our decision in my
original post. The link you parodied listed more.

Objectively circumcision without medical need is harm because it's a surgical procedure.

Why? I think you need evidence, or at least argument, to support the assertion that every non-medical surgery is harmful.

The only negatives to circumcision I see are a small amount of pain (minimized with medicine) and the risk that later in life, the adult will blame his problems on his circumcision instead of facing them and growing as a person.

Genital circumcision is a freakish, barbarous assault against infants

Equating male and female "circumcision" is not accurate.

Equating male and female "circumcision" is not accurate.

Why? Both are involuntary genital mutilation with sketchy justifications (at best). One is actually seen as the horrible thing that it is. The other is done to the majority of infants of its sex born in this country and many others before the child ever leaves the hospital without anesthetic.

-Julie

"The only people "troubled" by this issue are navel-gazing Americans raised on the milk of victim culture."

What a stupid and parochial comment. People in Europe consider it a disgusting and barbaric practice, and in fact have alwys considered it the mark of barbarism, as far back as Classical Greek times. Hindus recognize it for what it is: a disgusting custom practiced as a part of Islam, which marks a man as a Muslim" - the mark of a conquering, genocidal religion with a very bloody history in India. In China only Muslim groups such as the Hui and the Uighur practice it, and there it elicits the same amused contempt as the their other culturally distinctive practices.

The only people ignorant of this are dishonest people with an agenda.

Oh, and this: " the milk of victim culture." is a little rich coming from an Israeli. Watch your mouth about Americans, boy; an ungrateful dog bites the hand that feeds it.

"Why? I think you need evidence, or at least argument, to support the assertion that every non-medical surgery is harmful."

When it's involuntary, that pretty well fulfils the definition of harm.

Gee, I post a Mayo Clinic article and nobody seems to read it.

"My husband tells me he doesn't feel whole and had self esteem issues for years because of that. He's over the issues now, but still doesn't feel "right" about his penis."

Self-esteem? Wow. Can you say, "fixation"? It's truly amazing that he can remember having had it before it was cut. And you need to think a little bit, because "over the issues" doesn't NOT concur with "doesn't feel 'right'".

I'm not missing anything. And, although my experience is limited, I have not seen an uncut porn star.

I'd like to see the argument that doing what the professionals do is a bad idea.

Ick. Does not concur. Sorry.

I'm not missing anything. And, although my experience is limited, I have not seen an uncut porn star.

If you haven't seen an uncut porn star, then you haven't seen much porn. There are plenty of them out there.

I'd like to see the argument that doing what the professionals do is a bad idea.

And I'd like you to point out how many circumcised porn stars made the decision to get cut as adults in order to help their career. I would wager that all cut porn stars were cut as infants, just like the rest of us. I seriously doubt their career choice had anything to do with it. You really think mom and dad thought, "We'd better get him cut so he can be the best porn star ever!" ?

Now, as far as doing what the professionals do not being a bad idea, here are some other things the professionals do:

• A guy switching back and forth between anal and vaginal penetration without doing any kind of wiping or washing of his penis. AFAIK, it's generally a bad thing for stuff in the rectum to get transferred to the vagina - hence the "Always wipe front to back" advice that women get.
  
• Women shoving enormous objects into their vagina, ass, and urethra. Even saw one chick have a guy fuck her in her urethra.
  
• People pissing on each other and/or drinking each other's piss (Germans sure are fucked up).
  

The bottom line is very simple. The prepucectomy of male minors -- to use the clinical terms -- is wrong because there are no objective grounds for granting it the special unique exclusion from the normal rules of ethics and law that it must have to be performed as a matter of routine or ritual.

The default standard is that we do not amputate healthy, functional, non-pathogenic tissue without a direct medical necessity. We may make case-by-case exceptions to this, such as extremely rare occurrences of preventative mastectomies, but they are just that: rare, individual exceptions.

The justifications given for the routine and ritual prepucectomy of male minors are clearly demonstrated to be invalid rationalizations simply by attempting to apply them to any other healthy, functional, normal human body part.

The intactivist movement does not have to document special extra harm for "circumcision" to be unjustifiable. It is already automatically as unjustifiable as the amputation of any other body part.

Those of you attempting to defend this mutilation do not get to devalue the male foreskin relative to other body parts simply by mere presumption. You need to present objective facts which demonstrate why your unique, exclusive devaluation of its fundamental, inherent worth as a healthy, functional, non-pathogenic body part compared to all others should be accepted. The onus is upon you to prove your special, unique, exclusive, and radical claim.

And that's why your positions are invalid. You simply can't do it; the evidence simply does not exist. You have no objective grounds whatsoever for your inherent, necessary devaluation of the male prepuce compared to all other body parts.

Overcome that, and we might have reason to consider your views. Without it, however, you are, as a rule, just disgusting apologists for the mutilatory torturous abuse of innocent children on the basis of nothing more than your own moral cowardice and rank chauvanistic bigotry.

Pseudonym:

Why? I think you need evidence, or at least argument, to support the assertion that every non-medical surgery is harmful.

I'll go further: every surgery is harmful. But I'm being intentionally basic on the point. Surgery involves cutting the skin. In the case of routine/ritual circumcision, it involves removing healthy, functional tissue. There is no criterion where that isn't objective harm.

While I'm being basic, I'm not trying to be obtuse. If we assume the circumcision is medically necessary, it still involves harm. Tissue is cut. There is bleeding. Nerve endings are removed. There is scarring. The useful fact where need exists is that the harm is being offset by an attempt to correct/alleviate a medical need. There is an objective goal the patient and doctor expect to achieve that outweighs the harm.

Routine/ritual child circumcision only has the objective harm. There is no objective benefit that results. Sure, as I stated earlier, there are potential benefits, but they are potential. And their perceived value will differ by individual, particularly since there are less invasive ways to pursue prevention and/or treatment for each. Personally, I'd rather use condoms. Circumcision isn't protecting me from any STD.

The only negatives to circumcision I see are a small amount of pain (minimized with medicine) and the risk that later in life, the adult will blame his problems on his circumcision instead of facing them and growing as a person.

Pain is a legitimate issue. If the fear of that pain is enough to make adults choose otherwise, we shouldn't assume children would want it. "He won't remember it" can be abused in ridiculous ways. It's irrelevant, overridden by the lack of need.

Every surgery has an inherent risk of complications. Bleeding, infection, etc. That exists for every circumcision. Do the males who encounter these complications find it harmful beyond a little pain? I don't mean this as a tie-in to your last point about an adult blaming his problems on circumcision. I mean those males who have results outside the common results of circumcision. Do they count? Parents can't know that their son's results will be what they expect.

The nerve endings in the foreskin matter, as well. I won't make a declarative statement that sex with a normal penis is better than sex with a circumcised penis. I don't know. However, it's clear that some men like the results and some men don't. The individual's subjective evaluations are all that is relevant to the conclusion. His parents can't know which he'd prefer. The opinions of the men who do not like being circumcised are not invalidated just because you think they need to grow up.

Acksiom:

You make some great points. Let those stand on their own because they are enough. The name-calling and insults aren't helping us.

Yes, well; my experience differs, Tony. It differs hugely. One of the things that has been made abundantly evident to me during my years in the intactivist trenches is that some people just categorically refuse to get it unless and until they get schooled hard. Another is that some people will attach more respect to your points and outlook the more forcefully you express your position.

Furthermore, you may not realize this, but some people actually do respond to the high road in communication, and gentleness and compassion and lovingkindness and so on with. . .contempt. They actually "function" that way; when other people are nice and considerate to them, they develop a lower opinion of them and become more likely to objectify and abuse them. You need to show a dominant hand with these types; they tend to only respect force.

An additional and highly important and valuable lesson I've also learned is to not waste my limited time and energy on people who don't "get it" reasonably quickly. As a result, I'm just not interested in working hard to convince the jerkoff holdouts, regardless of whether they're like that due to basic butthead character or because of suppressed crippling guilt, or because of tribal loyalty powered by deep-rooted personal insecurity, or whatever other "reasons" they may have.

Basically, I'm an r-strategy intactivist, not a k-strategy one. I'm not going to labor over each and every contrarian pissant I encounter; I get much better returns with an r-strategy of informing dozens, hundreds, thousands, and then moving right along to the next group of potentially informable folks, rather than expending tremendous amounts of time and energy trying to win over the most intransigent, irrational, unethical, and otherwise Just Plain STOOO-PID opponents I encounter. Screw 'em; they're not worth it. The potential returns from enlightenting far greater numbers who simply lack information rather than consciences vastly outweigh those of sweating bullets to wring some kind of minimal concession out of a handful of frigging tools who wouldn't recognize introspection or integrity if they descended from on high and showered them with gold and silver.

And last but not least, many people respond positively not only to the sincere expression of an advocate's passion but to seeing someone else get a well-deserved good hard beatdown in the process.

In short, Tony, you would be a lot productive if you focused more on your own efforts instead of wasting your time on trying to slap UR DOING IT WRONG captions on those of other intactivists.

And if you still don't understand, here's a modification of my preferred response to conceited attempts to order me around such as yours, which bluntly lays out what's really up with that:

No, I don't like your style; you change to suit my personal preferences.

Equating male and female "circumcision" is not accurate.

Why?

FGM removes the clitoris, and there is a consensus that this significantly reduces sexual pleasure. Male circumcision does not remove the frenulum, and there is no consensus about any effect on pleasure.

I'll go further: every surgery is harmful. But I'm being intentionally basic on the point. Surgery involves cutting the skin. In the case of routine/ritual circumcision, it involves removing healthy, functional tissue. There is no criterion where that isn't objective harm.

OK, I'll grant you that it's harmful, if we define harm that loosely. Let's look at the magnitude of that harm.

A cost/benefit analysis looks something like this:

cost: sum of the the magnitude x probability of each element of risk or harm

benefit: sum of the magnitude x probability of each risk or harm that is avoided

So: cm1*cp1 + cm2*cp2 + ... + cmN*cpN - bm1*bp1 - bm2*bp2 - ... - bmN*bpN

In these terms, you appear to be claiming that the magnitude of the act of circumcision itself is infinite, or at least very large. I claim that when it's done right it's finite, and actually fairly small--somewhere between getting pierced ears and having a root canal. I think we agree that it dominates the other cost components of the equation.

By "done right" I mean something resembling what we chose for our son: with anesthetic, in a hospital, by a doctor, who had done lots of them, using modern tools to reduce complications (a plastic ring type apparatus) and so on.

Based on this conversation, I don't know that I'd make the same decision for my son as I did. I'm still not convinced that it was the wrong decision, though, and I am intensely interested in having my mind changed.

Am I surprised that a blog post about the tallywhacker draws more comments than anything on this blog for weeks? Not at all. It's the kind of topic that gets people coming out of the woodwork. As a matter of fact, if I go searching for all of the people that posted here in the rest of the blog, I'll warrant a great deal of them won't be found. This is the kind of post about which news quickly gets around on boards that cater to the issue in question, thus drawing the people who know a lot more about than the average reader, and before you know it, the page if full of thinly veiled (much like the tip of the hamptons in question) propaganda in both directions.

I am ever fascinated with the number of men who claim they were in some way diminished as men via their circumcision. To be honest, I'm ever fascinated with exactly how much of men's self esteem are directly connected to their Johns Thomas.

Contrary to popular belief, they don't cut off the tip of your dick (let alone enough to make a difference to its size), they trim off the flap of skin that partially cover the tip. It's a flap in which things like sand and dirt get lodged, and now that we wear clothes which keep those things away, it gets lint and hair trapped in it, and rubs against the inside of our underwear and can get infected.

Yes, it is unnatural to do, it goes against the way our bodies are built. So does women shaving their armpits. But our culture has been educated (in the latter case, by the Gillette corporation) to prefer the shaven pit, and by years af art and photographs to prefer the cut weiner.

This is, like so many things, a case of us as a people not having enough to do with our lives. Fifty years ago we were too busy growing crops and fighting wars with furriners to worry about whether we were lactose intolerant or had issues with our mothers and needed to attach little dumbbells to ourselves to grow back our little sheaths. (look it up.) We were too busy not dying. Now that we have the not dying part better handled, we're suddenly able to start worrying about the size of our special purposes and how it affects the rest of the world.

I will save you the time of researching the answer. It doesn't. It may affect your wife or other of primary significance, but if the prodigy of your penis is all they have in the credit column for you, your dick is the least of your worries.

What am I saying...your dick IS the least of your worries.

Acksiom:

You're behaving like those you criticize, responding with contempt by insulting me. It reinforced, not changed, my opinion about the validity of my earlier statement. I doubt anyone invested in defending circumcision would respond differently to similar treatment.

> I should stay quiet to
> imply confidence?

No, you should stay quiet by a sense of proportion.

Also as a courtesy to me.

I debated this issue months ago, and did a lot of research. There is, like it or not, pretty compelling evidence that circumcision prevents diseases, such as AIDS and penile cancers...and unlike female mutilation, does not destroy sexual feeling and sexual enjoyment in males.

Let's be clear - there is NO COMPARISON between male circumcision and FGM, which typically destroys the entire clitoris, not just the hood (which some women claim actually enhances sexual pleasure, just as many circumcised men claim also). Arguably, removing the foreskin, just like removing the clitoral hood, allows for greater stimulation and sensitivity of the genitals. It is not an act, like FGM, meant to destroy and control sexual response. There is no question that male dominated societies would have never alowed circumcision if it inhibited sexual pleasure for males.

In addition to the health benefits, and the overall ease in cleanliness (which despite all these parents saying how easy it is to "teach," remains largely up to parental supervision, which isn't very reliable, and quite poor in most cases) the reason this practice persists is because females in this culture find it more desirable, and the procedure is much easier and less painful to perform in infancy.

Girls go through breast implant surgery now, at inceasingly earlier ages, for the same reason. Yes, they are of age to "consent", and it is dependent on what size breasts they might have already grown by age 17 or 18, but the underlying reason that parents even allow such "mutilation" is because it is preferred and makes their child more socially "marketable".

I have American friends who have been with uncircimcised men, and they find it distasteful because of the cleanliness issue. That may be fine for Europeans, who clearly have a different version of hygiene - unshaved armpits, legs, pubic area, etc - but not here in America. We don't like hairy armpits, unshaved legs, or foreskins. We don't even like pubic hair, which in most modern American porn is shaved, or waxed, or (like I have done) lazered permanently off.

We Americans are an OCD, very clean society, and therefore circumcision for males is viewed as preferable and without many drawbacks. Just as with breast implants, there will be rare complications, but the overall goal of being desirable by the opposite sex is one that is prevalent in every culture and will ultimately triumph. Unless the uncircumcised penis becomes en vogue here, circumcision will remain a popular choice, and I think along with the health benefits, it will not go away.

Am I surprised that a blog post about the tallywhacker draws more comments than anything on this blog for weeks?

Um, 45 comments by 8pm is moderate, not a big deal, and most of the people posting here are regulars.

Pseudonym:

I don't think I'm defining harm loosely because the harms I listed are real in every circumcision.

However, I am not saying that the costs of circumcision outweigh the benefits. They may, or they may not. The male himself is the only person who can legitimately decide when no medical need for the circumcision exists. I am saying that need is the only objective variable in the analysis of routine/ritual child circumcision. Without need, it is appropriate to preserve the male's choice rather than move to further considerations, such as disease prevention.

Still, society considers those potential benefits as a substitute for need. It's important that we factor the likelihood of many of the potential benefits. For most of the risks circumcision affects, circumcision offers a large reduction to a small risk. Circumcision reduces the risk of a UTI in the first year of life from 1.0% to 0.1%. But it's still only 1% for intact males. UTI risk for females in the first year of life is approximately 3%, yet we treat them with less invasives measures. I know the anatomical differences matter here, but with a higher risk, no one proposes investigating whether some genital cutting could help female minors. That's the correct approach, but it's also the core, regardless of gender.

The same applies to HIV. No one suggests that men may now have sex without a condom. Nothing has changed in how males should approach sex. So where's the added benefit? And the studies found a reduced risk only for female-to-male transmission, the least common form of infection in heterosexual sex. This risk is distinctly different from the U.S. HIV problem.

Personally, I don't value any of the potential benefits. I don't need most of them, and the few that might've mattered (e.g. UTI) had lesser treatments if problems arose. I weigh the costs much more than the benefits. My parents assumed I'd think differently. I have to live with their incorrect guess. (I don't mean that as a melodramatic statement. I mean it as I wouldn't have made that choice.)

With the comparison of male and female genital cutting, there are multiple forms of FGM. Not all of them include the clitoris. Type 1 not involving the clitoris is easily the least common method, a point I don't miss. But the comparison is about ethics, not physical damage. Type 1 is at least analogous, if not less severe, to male circumcision. We outlaw all forms of non-medical female genital cutting, rightly calling it mutilation. We make no exceptions for what parents prefer, for whatever reasons they may cite. Treating individuals equally, the comparison is genital cutting on a non-consenting, healthy individual. It's an ethical claim without any implication that the level of damage is the same in the most common forms.

Finally, there are doctors who remove the frenulum. The doctor who circumcised me removed mine. The intent wasn't to harm pleasure. Maybe it didn't, although I can reasonably infer that it did, given what I know about my anatomy. But I'm only trying to prove that intent is separate from the action. I can accept that parents try to do what they think is best for their sons. What they intend may not be what they get.

Every time I see the hygiene argument in favor of this practice, I have to laugh. All the crevices and nooks and crannies on the human body, and THAT'S the one that will make or break a man's overall standards of cleanliness? It's not any more difficult to pull back the foreskin and clean a penis than it is to clean labia or an ass crack or between the toes. Something that does strike me as a potential health issue is the raw edge of a wound tucked inside a full diaper.

I see this as an issue of personal choice, and one not to be compared to hair removal--hair grows back, foreskins do not. If an adult chooses to have his foreskin removed, I say let him slice away. The practice should not, however, be practiced upon cognizant

Shit, hit the wrong button, there. To finish the thought:

Such a permanent procedure should not be practiced on barely cognizant infants when it is not truly medically necessary.

Psudeonym, the article I was refering to was out of tansinia - I posted it last time this subject came up, do a google search and you'll find it

As the the benifit you described a lower chance of HIV, the african study that is touted shows a less than 5% decrease in risk.

All the other 'benifits' could be just as easily handled(pardon the pun) by washing properly

AS for the cancer risk? Well women are far more likely to get breast cancer, but we wait for them to reach an age where they actually get cancer and then let them make their own treatment options.

And as for the risks of circumcision?

There have been soe deaths, complete amputatons and subsequent gender re-assignment, an increase of cortisol levels 4 to 5 times normal levels.

Having an open wound - and it is a wound as the skin is literally riped off in a dirty daiper. I dare you to shave the skin off of you finger and stick it in urine or shit, just to see what happens

Assuming nothing "goes wrong" with the sugery what happens if they cut off too much skin?
The doctor has no idea how long a penis might get, if they cut off too much skin.

Or not enough? And part of the loose skin reataches itself to the glans?

And back to the HIV thing, apparently an analysis of the African randomised controlled trials reported that 72 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one HIV infection.

And with a serious complication rate at between 2-10% That means for every two prevented cases of HIV betwen 3 and 14 children have mild(requiring a second or third surgery) to serious(loss of sexual function) complications

A meta-analysis of 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies and seven case-control studies) representing 402,908 children determined that circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). However, the authors noted that only 1% of boys with normal urinary tract function experience a UTI, and the number-needed-to treat (number of circumcisions necessary) to prevent one urinary tract infection was calculated to be 111. Because haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%, assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, the authors concluded that the net clinical benefit of circumcision is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection

but there is no way to predict in the first week of life which children are more thikley to get UTI's

Guys, worry about this!

Become terribly impatient, and grow as angry as you possibly can about living in a world of primitives who just can't be grateful for your righteousness!

Go for it! Go now! Let's do this!

Crid while it may be nothing more the a mild annoyance, or simmering resentent that it was done to us without our will for the most of us, for those who truly were scared it isnt a easily dismissed matter.

I kind of agree with Lujlp, that the arguments for reducing the risk of illness are somewhat exaggerated. There are all sorts of situations where removing body parts might reduce the incidence of illness, but there are usually better and easier ways of preventing illness.

If I was castrated, my chances of getting testicular cancer would fall dramatically. If I had a prostatectomy, my chances of getting prostate cancer would fall heavily. If women had masectomies, the incidence of breast cancer would fall heavily.

Thanks for posting those videos Amy. Now, I don't make a huge deal about being circumsized but there is no way I'd support it being done to any son I might have. I've learned why my folks did it (was the health fad in the 70s for many of the reasons listed in this thread) and its not hurt my self esteem.

lovelysoul:
"Arguably, removing the foreskin, just like removing the clitoral hood, allows for greater stimulation and sensitivity of the genitals. It is not an act, like FGM, meant to destroy and control sexual response. There is no question that male dominated societies would have never alowed circumcision if it inhibited sexual pleasure for males."

Yeah, that sensitivity can actually be painful for me at times, as in don't touch the head/tip please. Get back to me after you've had some of your bits trimmed off and you realize years later that those three scars you've occasionally wondered about are likely from when you were cut as a baby.

As for the not controlling sexual response bit, what about all that supposed victorian era nonsense of "it'll stop them from floggin the bishop as much!"?

Also, don't get me started about the lines of thought about "it looks better", the "I don't want him to look different from other boys in the locker room" and the most amusing, "I want him to look like his father". Yeah because I'm sure dad and junior are gonna go out and toss the ol football around and then compare dicks as they whizz on a tree. Penn & Teller did an interesting show on the topic a few years back. IIRC, they had one mother interviewed using the "I don't want him to be shamed by his peers" notion as justification for circumcision.

As for the religious side of it. If it is a covenant with God, why not let them make that choice at 18 or at their Bar Mitzva?

Lovelysoul,

So, in sum, the arguments are (1) there is (uncited) evidence that AIDS and cancer is reduced by male circumcision (hotly disputed evidence, FWIU), (2) it is not as bad as full clitorectomies, (3) adult females opt to get breast enhancement surgery, (4) girls have a preference for how men's junk should look.

I doubt you would support slicing up girl infants' bodies on the basis of any of the things you list.

BTW, nice takedown of the whole "There is evidence..." thing, Lujlp. Things will get quiet on that front, I suspect.

I have American friends who have been with uncircumcised men, and they find it distasteful because of the cleanliness issue.

I'll be frank here. I am American and the first penises I had intimate contact with were intact. They looked perfectly natural, and their owners must have practiced good hygiene because there was nothing distasteful to be noted. Actually, I hardly even registered it. Only later did I have close encounters with circumcised penises and, uh, recognize the difference. I hardly found the circumcised version superior, just different.

The very slight medical and, in my opinion, pretty much nonexistent aesthesic benefits of circumcising don't come close to justify forcing the procedure on a helpless baby. But people who would normally get tears in their eyes when their little one bumps his head just buy whatever their doctors or cultural leaders tell them and order an excruciating cutting away of healthy tissue in their newborn's most sensitive body part. Strange.

My parents had it done to my brother, and I know they were not bad people for doing it. But there's really no reason for it to continue. Even with the most modern techniques and anesthesia, it is medically unnecessary alteration of one's most intimate anatomy, without consent.

That may be fine for Europeans, who clearly have a different version of hygiene - unshaved armpits, legs, pubic area, etc - but not here in America.

An aside, but the Euro-hygiene stereotype is outdated and silly. Yes, I've encountered some men who could use a little more deodorant here and there, but hardly what you seem to be envisioning. I've lived here the past few years. Some people shower daily, some every other day if they're not getting dirty or sweaty. By the way, that's been my own habit my whole life, even in the states, and is healthier for your hair and skin. And the women all have razors in the their showers, just like us, and I have not once noticed a "hairy" lady at a pool, sauna or anywhere else--though I wasn't looking too closely!

I don't have any onjection to making it a choice later in life. I'm just saying that I think it will a remain popular one, especially if the studies hold that show it prevents AIDs.

Guys don't like to wear condoms. I was single for 4 years quite recently, and it was always difficult to get men to wear one after the first few times. Once they feel they "know" you, and you them, it becomes more difficult to enforce condom use. And this was with men 35 and over, so I don't have this naive idea that young men are ALWAYS practicing safe sex, and I also don't think they're all having their partners tested.

The male himself is the only person who can legitimately decide when no medical need for the circumcision exists.

Until someone is old enough to make decisions for himself, it's legitimate for his parents to make his medical decisions. Similarly, if I'm incapacitated, my wife makes my medical decisions for me. If we're both incapacitated then the person we've legally designated makes those decisions for us.

Personally, I don't value any of the potential benefits.

It seems like this cuts to the core of our disagreement: different weighing of the magnitudes of the costs and benefits.

In retrospect, I think I mis-estimated one of the benefits: I was under the impression that surgical correction of phimosis or paraphimosis was needed more frequently than it actually is. A friend's son had to be circumcised around age 10 because of one of those problems, and I rated the magnitude of that harm much higher than the magnitude of the harm from an infant circumcision. Probably, the personal connection made it seem more common. (As it turned out our son had a higher risk of phimosis, but we didn't know that in advance.) According to wikipedia the incidence rate of phimosis ranges from 1% to 50%, depending on the definition; clearly 50% don't require corrective circumcision. 1% might, but I was under the impression that it was more like 10%.

I rate very severely the impacts of some of the other rare conditions that circumcision affects. For example, HIV is at least a thousand times worse than circumcision, and the rate of HIV infection in the general population is about 0.6% in the US (that's 6 out of 1000). Non-fatal STDs are not that bad, but are more common: 1.9% of US adults according to one source. A New Zealand study reported here says that circumcision halves the STD infection rate. That article is full of biased quotes from biased organizations, illustrating how difficult it is to find unbiased information.

Psudeonym, the article I was refering to was out of tansinia

Sorry, the article I thought you were parodying was this one from the Mayo Clinic site that Radwaste posted. That's the one that listed a bunch of possible health benefits from circumcision.

If it is a covenant with God, why not let them make that choice at 18 or at their Bar Mitzva?

In the Jewish religious tradition, God told them to do it on the 8th day (IIRC).

"However, the authors noted that only 1% of boys with normal urinary tract function experience a UTI, and the number-needed-to treat (number of circumcisions necessary) to prevent one urinary tract infection was calculated to be 111. Because haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%, assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, the authors concluded that the net clinical benefit of circumcision is only likely in boys at high risk of urinary tract infection"

On circinfo.net...

"..it was found that of 354,297 infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, only 0.20% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [114]. Most of these ‘complications’ were minor and readily treated. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [114].

Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [324]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P

I think the complication rate is indeed more like .2% not 2%. But, as I learned when we debated this before, it's hard to get non-biased information.

From the CDC....

"Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants’ risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.

In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised."

True, Amy, but we have just been lucky not to have a major HIV outbreak except in the gay community. Gay (male) sex is different, of course, but although this was argued last time, I don't see how African heterosexual sex can be so different from our heterosexual sex, and therefore this protective benefit is important.

Yes, we have better condom usage and availability, but certain populations, like seniors, are getting HIV at increasing rates in this country.

As I said, I don't think male condom usage is really that reliable. It's just that hetero males in this country are not yet facing a high percentage of female partners with HIV.

The fact that male condom usage isn’t reliable doesn’t mean circumcision is right. It means we should be teaching and promoting condom use, rather than saying "oh well, my son wont take care of his penis and practice safe sex, let me go ahead and remove this foreskin thingy before it gets him HIV."

Notably, circumcision while still common is on the decline. While you may not come across many intact adult males, your sons will.

"As for the not controlling sexual response bit, what about all that supposed victorian era nonsense of "it'll stop them from floggin the bishop as much!"?"
-Sio

You are right Sio. They thought it would stop boys and men from masturbating and avoid phimosis. They started performing circumcision on newborns since even with the pain and issues associated with phimosis, adult males were not lining up for the procedure. I wonder why...

Pseudonym said:

A New Zealand study reported here says that circumcision halves the STD infection rate. That article is full of biased quotes from biased organizations, illustrating how difficult it is to find unbiased information.

And a much more recent New Zealand study found no benefit at all when looking at STDs. Their results match the results of large surveys in Australia and the UK to name a few.

Pseudonym said:

and the rate of HIV infection in the general population is about 0.6% in the US (that's 6 out of 1000).

Actually, there are two problems with that. First the rate of HIV is not evenly distributed through the population. Second, the only type of transmission that circumcision is thought to possibly affect is Female to Male (Hetero). Now, the rate of Female prevalence is only about 30% so the risk is perhaps about 1/800 (give or take).

Knowing that, and a few other things, let's see what circumcision really bought us. One can estimate the probability of not becoming infected with following formula:

(1 - [chance of transmission from sex])^[sexual encounters]

In a recent publication in the Lancet of Infectious Diseases and reported at Aidsmap, the risk of an HIV infected woman infecting her male partner at 0.04% in first world countries. According to Aidsmap this included places like the US and Europe so it would seem that the average, circumcised or not is somewhere near 0.04%. Let's assume that there is a risk reduction of 50% for circumcised men.

From Aidsmap:

Researchers conducting a meta-analysis of studies of the risk of HIV transmission during heterosexual sex have found that, in high-income countries prior to the introduction of combination therapy, the risk per sexual act was 0.04% if the female partner was HIV-positive, and 0.08% when the male partner was HIV-positive. However these rates were considerably higher in lower-income countries, if the source partner was in either the very early or the late stage of HIV infection, or if one partner had genital ulcer disease, write the researchers in the February issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They continue:

Pooling the data from studies in high-income countries, the researchers calculated that the risk of transmission from an HIV-positive man to his female partner was 0.08% per sexual act: in other words, it was likely to occur once every 1250 sexual acts. When it was the female partner who was HIV-positive, the male partner’s risk of acquiring HIV was 0.04% per sexual act – in other words, once every 2500 sexual acts.

(and this is for lovelysoul too since she is putting so much weight on 50% and all)

So based on that, we'll start the estimate that the chance of infection is 0.06% a bit higher than published in the Lancet article. That means a male having unprotected sex with an HIV positive women has about a bit more than 1 in 1800 chance of being infected. Base line risk intact men vs circumcised men 1 heterosexual contact with an HIV+ partner.

[1 - 0.0006]^1 99.94% ~= 0.06% ~= 1/2000
[1 - 0.0006 * 0.5]^1 ~= 99.97% ~= 0.03% 1/3300

So using your prevalence number (which includes women and men of all sexual orientations) you're looking at about probability of A (finding an HIV positive partner) vs probability of getting infected.

1/200 * 1/2000 ~= 0.0000025

1/200 * 1/3300 ~= 0.000001515

A difference of 2 ten thousandths a percent, if I counted my 0s right.

Using more realistic prevalence number (women only)

1/800 * 1/2000 ~= 0.000000625

1/800 * 1/3300 ~= 0.000000379

A difference of well, you figure it out.

Even if you allow a man to have 1,000 random sexual partners you don't really even get within a few tenths of a percent. I think 7 is the average lifetime.

This is a quick post so sorry for any mistakes.

One more thing lovelysoul, you're going to have to do better than we are just lucky. Africa is really the only place where HIV is obscenely bad. Even among similarly poor and underdeveloped countries it isn't close to as bad. There is something different there and it has nothing to do with men's foreskins.

So if 77 circumscisions prevents 1 case of HIV, what about breat cancer?

It is estimated 1 in 8 women will get it at some point in their lives

1 in 77 is less than 2%

1 in 8 is 12.5%

If a woman is 6 to 7 times more likey to get cancder than an uncircumcised male is to get HIV why are we not removing infant girls breast buds?

Well, if you really think about what the African studies are suggesting - even though they try to couch it in PC talk about receptor cells, etc - is that the uncircumcized penis is more likely to trap pathogens, which is another way of saying it is less hygenic. And, if true, then it is not only AIDs that is potentially a threat.

I believe circumcision is increasing in places like Germany, and certain Asian cultures too, although Asians generally perform it around age 11 or 12.

But the main reason, really, is hygiene, and the knowledge that better hygiene generally equates to better health in all areas, whether it's preventing UTIs, phimosis, cancer, HIV or other infections.

Certainly, you can stress cleanliness and hygiene, but boys being boys - daring, adventurous, camping and hunting for days, rolling around in dirt kind of boys - many parents make the choice that it's best to avoid those issues altogether. And their choice is equally valid, because any real negatives of circumcision are extremely rare and/or unproven. Probably statistically much lower than the negatives of vaccines, for instance, which are chosen for the same reason, to keep the child healthy, even against statistically rare diseases, or generally innocuous ones, like chicken pox.

"If a woman is 6 to 7 times more likey to get cancder than an uncircumcised male is to get HIV why are we not removing infant girls breast buds?"

Because men find them appealing. Women do not find the foreskin particulary appealing, or visually necessary for us to get aroused. If breasts held no such sexual connotation, and could be viewed as disposable tissue, such as tonsils or foreskin, I bet we would remove them as a preventive measure.

Yet, as it is, doing so would put a woman at a decided sexual and marketable disadvantage. That's not true with circumcised men, who are statistically more desired by most women.

Because men find them appealing. Women do not find the foreskin particulary appealing, or visually necessary for us to get aroused. If breasts held no such sexual connotation, and could be viewed as disposable tissue, such as tonsils or foreskin, I bet we would remove them as a preventive measure.

This is silly. Breasts serve more of a function than causing erections, and foreskins serve more of a purpose than 'disposable tissue'. In addition, tonsils aren't removed until they are causing problems. Why remove foreskin before it causes problems?

Yet, as it is, doing so would put a woman at a decided sexual and marketable disadvantage. That's not true with circumcised men, who are statistically more desired by most women.

Frankly that is all that most US women have seen. I had never seen an uncircumcised man until I watched Sex and the City on cable a few weeks ago. And I am 34! We can't assume that women would find intact men undesirable...they found them desirable for thousands of years before then and that which is desirable is contingent upon what is available in many circumstances.

Pseudonym:

I don't think our core disagreement is in weighing of the magnitudes of the costs and benefits. My goal isn't to convince you that the costs outweigh the benefits. You've reached a different conclusion, a reasonable position. Rather, the core of our disagreement is here, I think:

Until someone is old enough to make decisions for himself, it's legitimate for his parents to make his medical decisions. ...

In its text as written, I agree with you 100%. However, there has to be a higher standard indicate a need for medical intervention than parental risk tolerances. (When the decision includes such consideration, as it often does not.) When there is medical need, yes, parents must decide among multiple, uncertain solutions. Such decisions are agonizing, I'm sure. But this is not that.

Prophylactic circumcision seeks to cure risk alone. Life is full of risks from our healthy bodies. That can't be enough to justify intervention on another, or it would be equally valid ethically to suggest that parents can remove the breast buds of their daughters, to pick an (intentionally absurd) example. There is a significant lifetime risk of breast cancer in women, after all. But we know that's a ridiculous path because it falls outside the norm of what we accept. We can analyze it with the facts and logic tied to the person involved, not the decision-maker. As a society, we only believe that the same incomplete thinking on cost-benefit for healthy foreskins is valid because we've circumcised for so long. It seems normal, rather than what it is (i.e. a common, unnecessary bodily modification on a child).

I accept the potential benefits of circumcision for many reasons. Primarily, denying them makes it easier for people to carelessly accuse an opponent of being anti-science, which I am not. But it's also not a detriment to my argument to accept them. We must include ethics in the discussion. I think society believes it is doing this in good faith. My claim is that it is wrong on the implementation. "I like it so he'll like it" is weak.

Choosing circumcision to reduce the risk of STDs, for example, is fine for what it is. I wouldn't have chosen it, but that's me. Still, by the time it's relevant, males can offer the consent necessary (or not) to satisfy the ethical questions. Until then, there is no need - and less invasive treatment/prevention methods for all risks. As you point out, not all cases of phimosis require circumcision. Why should we choose the most radical solution to prevent the risk?

As I said, I'm not trying to convince you that the costs outweigh the benefits, but only as it applies to what you should do with your body. What anyone thinks about the healthy body of another is irrelevant to what should be considered acceptable. The key factor in proxy consent is health, not familial relationships. There is a more complex analysis necessary for what parents should do when there is a medical need. But proxy consent must have some objective medical need as the standard. Prophylactic bodily modifications by proxy consent can't meet any such standard.

lovelysoul you just traopped your self, given boya adventourous nature and rolling around in the dirt example highlights a NEED for forskin dont you think?

After all it was designed by nature to protect the head of the penis.

As for it not being physically appealing, its pulled back durring an erection.

Or are you saying you find a rough dry, cauliflowering effect on the heads of penises to be appealing?

Also while cricumcision may pervent men from cinstracting STDs it causes more women to conract them, the sex is dryer as the man no longer has his own natural lubricant witch causes miro tears in the wall of the vigainal lining leading to a greater likelyhood of infection.

Many doctors do believe that there is a medical need for circumcision in preventing painful issues or risks, which is weighed against the value of the foreskin itself.

Julie says it serves a purpose, but that is in debate and has never been proven. It certainly does not serve a purpose like breasts do. The foreskin cannot nurse a child.

I had my daughter's tonsils removed because they were enlarged and caused her to snore. However, it was a tough call. I mean, she could've lived with snoring, although it was effecting her socially, as other girls didn't want her at sleepovers. And one could presume that she might've had a harder time finding a romantic partner who could deal with a dainty girl snoring like a truck driver every night.

So, I, as a parent, made the call, and I daresay there was more risk involved in the major surgery of a 14 yr old than there is in circumcision of an infant.

But I weighed the potential benefit against the necessity of having that tissue in her throat, which, though some claim it has some health benefits, I didn't find those claims persuasive enough to believe that tonsils are necessary.

In fact, tonsils seem, just as foreskins do, to be major germ trappers...causing more sore throats and strep infections. Yes, you can treat those with lozanges and antibiotics, but WHY?

I mean that's the whole issue. It gets down to whether or not you believe a foreskin is truly necessary or not. And I don't see any conclusive evidence that the benefits of having one outweigh the benefits of not having one.

Waaayy back on this thread, Tony wrote:
I'm curious what you mean by Jewish circumcision being different from hospital circumcision. I agree that physically they're often different. I don't agree that that is relevant to the ethical question, but it's worth noting. Is that what you mean?
- - - - - - - - - -
Two important differences:

1) Jewish circumcision preserves erogenic tissue - the entire inner skin of the foreskin. Considering how much anti-circ literature revolved around the fixations of circumcised males, I think that's relevant.

This also leaves more loose skin to accommodate normal function - again, one complaint in the anti-circ literature is that the skin is drawn painfully tight when it's party time.

2) Jewish circumcision is performed by a trained professional, who is not let near a live baby for quite some time. Also this training typically involves topical and subcutaneous anesthesia - in fact, the Chief Rabbinate of Toronto requires anesthesia for all circumcisions.

In contrast, most hospital circumcisions are performed by interns who open a kit and try to follow the instructions. (One of the reasons modern hospital circumcision removes more skin is the need to replace free-hand surgery with an idiot-proof procedure.)

There is typically no anesthesia.

This directly addresses three major points of anti-circ propaganda: the rate of complications and unaesthetic outcomes, and the pain suffered by the child.

I wrote:
tens of thousands of adult Soviet emigres have undergone Jewish circumcision.
- - - - - - - -
and Julie commented:
Adults, making their own decision for their own bodies. What is your justification of cutting off parts of the genitals of an unwilling child without anesthetic? What is wrong with allowing your son to submit himself to the procedure if he wants when he reaches the age of consent?
- - - - - - - - -
1) As I pointed out to Tony, Jewish circumcision does usually involve anesthetic.

2) The point of the ritual is that the covenant is pre-existing, and binding, and specifically NOT a matter of personal choice.

I know that's hard for many moderns to wrap their heads around, but that is the truth.

When he's 13 a Jewish boy consciously, willingly accepts the "yoke of the commandments". And when he's older he can decide what being Jewish means to him - hopefully out of knowledge, community, and lived experience rather than ignorance.

That's not what circumcision is about.

The point of the ritual is that the covenant is pre-existing, and binding, and specifically NOT a matter of personal choice.

You were speaking of adult males volunteering for circumcision to fulfill the rules of the covenant. That is a choice that each of them made. Each of those men had the option of not being circumcised and paying the consequences. That is freedom of choice. These infants do not have that choice.

I know that's hard for many moderns to wrap their heads around, but that is the truth.

Actually I understand completely what you mean...you mean that the consequences of remaining intact(as you see them) are greater than the problems of circumcision and that to remain a part of your faith, this is a requirement. Many rituals in Christian religions (especially Catholicism) are based upon similar rituals in Judaism. To tell a Catholic that he/she could not baptize his her child is like telling them that they should allow their child to burn in hell. Catholics baptize ill children in the hospital minutes after birth for this very reason.

I needed to make one additional point Ben-David:

Something being 'culturally acceptable' or 'part of my religion' doesn't justify bad behavior. People have used that reasoning for generations to justify some of the most horrible things man has ever done.

I'm not saying that circumcision ranks up there with Hitler, however all cultural practices need to be available and subject to evaluation and justification beyond "Because God told me too". Unfortunately too many people have used that excuse too often with disastrous results.

What is the purpose of circumcision for the Jewish faith? (This is an honest question, not a smart-assed one)

-Julie

We do not live in Africa, and we have condoms readily available . . .

We intend to teach our son to avoid risky behavior, but that's easier said than done. We don't know what decisions he's going to make in the future, or even what his sexual orientation will be.

Using more realistic prevalence number (women only)

1/800 * 1/2000 ~= 0.000000625

1/800 * 1/3300 ~= 0.000000379

Math rules!

Don't forget that that's per act, not per partner. Is 1000 sexual encounters per lifetime a realistic average? If so, the odds of acquiring HIV are:

1/800 * 1/2000 * 1000 = 1/1600 = 0.063%
1/800 * 1/3300 * 1000 = 1/2640 = 0.038%

So the improvement from circumcision (given all the above assumptions) is 0.025%. Obviously if he's monogamous with a woman who isn't HIV-positive the odds are 0, but we don't know that'll be the case in advance.

That leaves us to figure the impact of getting HIV. It's more survivable now than it was, but it's still really really bad. I'm not sure how to quantify it, but in dollar terms, HIV/AIDS treatment costs thousands of dollars a year, generally increasing until death. Premature death can be quantified by looking at lost earnings. If the average infection age is 30, and the average time to death is 20 years (I'm being generous here), and retirement age is still 65 (see how ridiculous this gets), the loss of income is about 15 years' worth. If the median income is approximately $40k/year that works out to $600,000 + the cost of treatment; call that $100,000 maybe. (That's $5000 a year for 20 years.)

So: $700,000 x 0.025% = $175. I'm pretty sure the circumcision we paid for cost less than $175. But again, that's just the dollar comparison. To be completely realistic we'd also have to quantify the non-dollar cost of dying young and the non-dollar cost of circumcision.

And then repeat for other STDs... and adjust for future medical advances... phew.

The American Academy of Pediatrics found no statistically significant data that provided support for medically necessary circumcising of neonates. They state parents should make an informed decision on whether or not to circumcise (Google it. I have no idea how to do links). I am not trying to change anyone's mind on the issue. However, citing myths/misconceptions about the benefits of circumcision, probably means you arent making an informed decision.

Pseudo-the dollar comparison is interesting. But when faced with the decision, I didnt think about money. I thought "is it gonna kill him to keep it?" Probably not. "is it gonna kill him to loose it?" Probably not. "Is it reversible?" Nope. I was just glad he was ok, and was unwilling to subject him to ANYTHING that wasnt necessary.

I wonder how many people make an informed decision rather than just going with what they think everyone else is doing. The nurses pushed and constantly checked with me to be sure I didnt want my son circumcised. His doctor said he's fine and it was up to me. I can see how if I hadnt thought about it and done research before, as a new mom, I might have let them do it.

Pseudonym said:

We intend to teach our son to avoid risky behavior,
but that's easier said than done. We don't know what decisions he's going to make in the future, or even

That's the only thing that's going to help him though. If he gets that wrong, circumcision will be of no practical utility.

Pseudonym said:

Don't forget that that's per act, not per partner. Is 1000 sexual encounters per lifetime a realistic average? If so, the odds of acquiring HIV are:
...
So the improvement from circumcision (given all the above assumptions)

As you pointed out there are a lot of assumptions worst among them is the 1/800 which as you know is an average across the population. I am guessing that you (and your son) are in a demographic with a far lower risk. This is also a worst case, assuming he never puts on a condom changing never to occasional would likely push those numbers an order of magnitude lower.

Pseudonym said:

Premature death can be quantified by looking at lost earnings. If the average infection age is 30, and the average time to death is 20 years (I'm being generous here),

In the US, the average age of infection is at least 35 (which for a Western country is pretty young) I also think the average time until death is longer too (I'd have to dig into that). Though that's not the biggest problem in a cost estimate. The biggest problem is it's difficult to estimate the cost and effectiveness of medication. Even if there are no improvements, the cost will be much lower than today. However, the smart money would be on lower cost and far more effective. 15 years ago HIV was practically a death sentence. Today its a chronic, but manageable, disease. Three years ago the first 1 pill a day drug was introduced. In 15 years time I would bet there will either be a cure or a vaccine in 30 years time (approaching the average age of infection in the US for a boy born today) I am certain there will be better alternatives.

Pseudonym said:

And then repeat for other STDs... and adjust for future medical advances... phew.

Only if it is the case that there is any protection at all, perhaps you missed: Dickson et al. which, unlike Fergusson, produced results which matched those of large scale cross-sectional studies in developed countries.

lovelysoul said:

Well, if you really think about what the African studies are suggesting - even though they try to couch it in PC talk about receptor cells, etc - is that the uncircumcized penis is more likely to trap pathogens, which is another way of saying it is less hygenic. And, if true, then it is not only AIDs that is potentially a threat.

That's too much of a leap there and it is not at all known what the mechanism is. Dutch researchers found differently:

"A suspected entry route for HIV turns out to be a dead-end, report Lot de Witte, Teunis Geijtenbeek (VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands), and colleagues. Langerhans cells, rather than transmitting the virus to T cells, trap HIV-1 and thus act as a barrier to infection."

Have you ever considered what the real problems in Africa are? Why we don't see such a severe epidemic elsewhere? Perhaps poor government, war, poverty, lack of women's rights, misinformation/stigma about HIV and a lack of access to condoms, HIV testing and antiretroviral drugs just to name a few; too much foreskin on men's penises is not one of them. We all know what the problems are that have lead and continue to fuel the epidemic in Africa, we are just incapable of solving them.

lovelysoul said:

I believe circumcision is increasing in places like Germany, and certain Asian cultures too, although Asians generally perform it around age 11 or 12.

Having lived in Europe I assure you this isn't the case. Most of my European friends where stunned past the point of rational thought to hear we do this, they all thought it was just a weird religious thing; heck just last February Denmark floated legislation to ban the procedure when not medically indicated, which is virtually all circumcision.

The only Asian countries that do it are South Korea (thanks to our influence) and the Philippians and yes they 'do it' at around that age. Otherwise it's limited to the local religious groups (usually muslims).

lovelysoul said:

But the main reason, really, is hygiene, and the knowledge that better hygiene generally equates to better health in all areas, whether it's preventing UTIs, phimosis, cancer, HIV or other infections.

It is not more hygienic. That is a myth.

lovelysoul said:

Certainly, you can stress cleanliness and hygiene, but boys being boys - daring, adventurous, camping and hunting for days, rolling around in dirt kind of boys - many parents make the choice that it's best to avoid those issues altogether. And their choice is equally valid, because any real negatives of circumcision are extremely rare and/or unproven.

Boy that is an insult to men the world over, are you saying we are incapable of taking care of ourselves? If the foreskin was such a detriment why did it not evolve away? I mean people were hunting and rolling in the dirt with no hygiene to speak of for eons. One would have expected that if the detriment was actually significant in anyway, it would have evolved away or at the very least more societies would have picked up on the practice. Yet that didn't happen in most of Asia, Europe or the Americas.

And now that we're rolling around in the dirt much less, we don't hunt (I get my meat on a Styrofoam plate), we have both hot and cold running water, we have antibiotics, and much more somehow circumcision is now necessary?

lovelysoul said:

Probably statistically much lower than the negatives of vaccines, for instance, which are chosen for the same reason, to keep the child healthy, even against statistically rare diseases, or generally innocuous ones, like chicken pox.

Actually, not even close. Vaccine problems are far less common but vaccines provide a protection for a disease for which there are no reasonable alternatives. How else do I protect myself from Measles?

You know, given their relative dimensions it's funny the foreskin should be seen as a harbinger of putrification when women walk around with a far lusher petri-dish between their legs.

so the solution to HIV, STDs, and infections is to cut off body parts, rather than investing in education?

how 'bout a simple solution? KNOW YOUR PARTNER. :-)

and also a person has a very high chance of getting an STI or getting HIV if they are with someone infected with it. so the circumcision does not protect very much, if it does at all. also correlation does not equal causation. there are social, ethnic, and cultural factors to consider when comparing a developed country like the US to countries in africa.

oh...and also, again...jewish circumcision began by only cutting off a small piece of the foreskin (some radical rabbis decided that wasn't good enough), not circumcising as we understand today. and it was way before these "health" reasons were ever considered. circumcision only became the norm in the US as a backwards way to prevent masturbation. and a question: why does europe and south america have lower STI and HIV rates than the US when they don't circumcise and the US does?

"Using more realistic prevalence number (women only)
1/800 * 1/2000 ~= 0.000000625
1/800 * 1/3300 ~= 0.000000379"

Where did you get those numbers? What women?

Obviously, that isn't the case in Africa or there wouldn't be such a high infection rate. It may be the case here, for now, but it's naive to think the figures can't change. Gays, in the early 80s, were not aware that there was an HIV epidemic spreading among them. It was only after people began to get sick and die that the gay population realized that their sexual practices, and exposure to infected partners, were contributing to the spread of this disease.

The evidence is mounting that this flap of skin, which some of you seem to regard as indispensable, traps the virus, probably along with many other pathogens. If it was necessary for some reason I would say that this would be reason for debate, but it isn't a necessary tissue. It is a germ and virus trapper. You may not mind that for your child, but a lot of other parents legitimately choose otherwise.

why does europe, asia, and south america have significantly lower STI and HIV rates than the US when they don't circumcise and the US does?

lovelysoul said:

"Using more realistic prevalence number (women only)
1/800 * 1/2000 ~= 0.000000625
1/800 * 1/3300 ~= 0.000000379"

Where did you get those numbers? What women?

Obviously, that isn't the case in Africa or there wouldn't be such a high infection rate. It may be the case here, for now, but it's naive to think the figures can't change.

I've told you where those numbers come from in my previous post, clearly you aren't paying attention. The 1/800 represents the approximate prevalence of HIV among women in the US (the only sexual route a heterosexual man has to worry about) and 1/2000 vs 1/3300 represent the approximate chance of infection when having sex with an HIV infected women.

I've also told you what the problem was in Africa. Though that post got kicked to spam I won't leave you in suspense. The problems in Africa which have lead to and continue to fuel the HIV epidemic are: poor government, war, poverty, lack of women's rights, misinformation/stigma about HIV and a lack of access to condoms, HIV testing and antiretroviral drugs. Too much foreskin on men's penises is not one of them.

lovelysoul said:

The evidence is mounting that this flap of skin, which some of you seem to regard as indispensable, traps the virus, probably along with many other pathogens.

Not as much as you would like to think. And why shouldn't the person to whom it is attached have a say? What gives you the right to make that decision?

Ben-David:

We're working under the same assumption on the difference. This does not change the ethical analysis.

1. Rate of complications - The risk is inherent in the surgery. No amount of training and experience can eliminate that.

2. Reducing the amount of foreskin removed does not nullify the concern over aesthetics. The amount of foreskin removed is acceptable to you, but that's not the hypothetical penis we're discussing. Is this acceptable to the child being circumcised? The parents' (or society's) opinion on what constitutes an attractive opinion is a worthless standard.

3. Of course we should use sufficient pain relief. Most do now, but some still don't. But that's merely an issue of humane treatment within the context of a larger problem. On the hypothetical above regarding prophylactic infant mastectomy, the surgery wouldn't become any more ethical through the use of anesthesia. Likewise, circumcision doesn't become ethical just because we use anesthesia. Again, it's the decent course of action if we undertake the surgery, but the child's rights are still being violated because the surgery is not medically necessary.

P.S. The word propaganda is loaded. It exists on both sides, so it's reasonable to call it out where we see it. But it would be helpful if you link to an example if you must use it here. Without a link, it appears to be nothing more than an unfair smear tactic. It suggests that those of us here against infant circumcision are arguing in bad faith.

Pseudonym & Joe:

The analysis on the cost of acquiring HIV is missing a necessary calculation to account for the present value at the time of the child's circumcision, not the cumulative dollar total of the child's hypothetically HIV-shortened lifetime. Given the parameters established for lost income and medical expenses, I used the current prime rate (3.25%) to discount the dollars. The $700,000 total over that stream is worth $122,618.18 today.

$122,618.18 x 0.025% = $30.65

If the circumcision costs more than $30.65, circumcision is not an effective solution, monetarily, under this line of thinking.

I've already said I don't have a problem with boys being given the choice regarding circumcision, ideally during early puberty, before they are sexually active.

But this sort of anti-science defense against circumcision makes no sense...

"The problems in Africa which have lead to and continue to fuel the HIV epidemic are: poor government, war, poverty, lack of women's rights, misinformation/stigma about HIV and a lack of access to condoms, HIV testing and antiretroviral drugs. Too much foreskin on men's penises is not one of them".

None of those conclusions have been listed by the CDC to explain the discrepancy between circumcision status in these studies. The difference between here and Africa is that most hetero men in the US are not yet exposed to many female partners with HIV. War, poor government, and lack of women's rights has nothing to do with it. Lack of condoms obviously does, but the studies clearly prove that when uncircimcised hetero men have unprotected sex with females with HIV, they are at a 50% or greater risk for contracting HIV. And the only reason this could possibly be is due to the difference in hygiene.

Uncircumcised males clearly have a higher risk of penile problems, infections, and diseases, and are not as hygenic as circumcised males, and this being the case, they also face a social stigma in this country.

Regardless of religious reasons, I still think a high percentage of boys would view the situation and choose circumcision, just as many young girls today are choosing the the HPV vaccine, even though they may not plan on engaging in risky sexual behavior. None of us ever "plan" on that, but with the realities of life, love, and spontaneity, it is wise to be cautious.

Uncircumcised males clearly have a higher risk of penile problems, infections, and diseases,

The reason for which seems to be personal cleaning habits and not an inherent feature of foreskin
And as I wrote eariler there is a study claim that girls who are subjected to various versions of female circumcision have lower rates of disease as well

and are not as hygenic as circumcised males,

Perhaps if parents were less concrened with little jonny playing with his penis and winding up in hell for it this 'problem' would disappear

and this being the case, they also face a social stigma in this country

That is the dumbest argument I have ever seen.
Girls in third world countries who dont have their crotches cut up suffer a social stigma as well
Does this mean you are changing you opinion on the stupidity, cruelty and barbarism of FGM?

Lovelysoul says "Yet, as it is, doing so would put a woman at a decided sexual and marketable disadvantage. That's not true with circumcised men, who are statistically more desired by most women."

That's true. But I doubt most parents who circumcise their sons are thinking about how they can increase his chances of getting laid later in life. I'm sure that wasn't the case with my church-going parents.

lovelysoul said:

But this sort of anti-science defense against circumcision makes no sense..

Anti-science, how do you mean? I have not necessarily said that there might not be an effect but I have shown that the effect is actually quite small. 50% sounds like a big number until you put it in context and find that in reality you're looking at a difference of a few hundredths or thousandths of a percent (possibly even less) over a lifetime.

Perhaps that's why the Australian Federation of AIDS Organization stated [1]: "African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way." And why the French National Council on AIDS (Conseil National Du SIDA) noted[2]: "The recommendations of the WHO state that this [circumcision] stratgy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as France or the United States." Or Keith Alcorn, from the HIV information service NAM [UK] said[3], "Male circumcision will have little impact on HIV risk for boys born in the UK, where the risk of acquiring HIV heterosexually is very low."

So please tell me how it's anti-science to demonstrate why everyone is saying this is a context-sensitive approach, if it can be used anywhere at all? That's what the French have said, the British, the Australians, the WHO, and other countries nearly all of which are fairing much better on the HIV front BTW. Perhaps we should be looking at what they're doing to improve our situation.

lovelysoul said:

War, poor government, and lack of women's rights has nothing to do with it.

Really, that's what you think? How can you suggest that the lack of women's ability to negotiate condom use has no impact on the situation in Africa? You really are ignorant on the subject. I've suggested this to you before but you should read, The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS by Helen Epstein. That will get you started.

But there is nothing like a direct report from the field. Fortunately, one was recently provided[4].

People are already willing to risk sex with people they know to carry the disease. You start telling them a simply surgical procedure will make them less likely to contract the disease and it will soon be widely understood that you CAN NOT become infected if you are circumcised.

Uncircumcised males clearly have a higher risk of penile problems, infections, and diseases, and are not as hygenic as circumcised males, and this being the case, they also face a social stigma in this country.

Which disease? How much, 2 one-hundredths of a percent? What are the alternative treatment options, are they less invasive? Are the more effective? Let's get specific lovelysoul.

The only reason there is a social stigma is because people in the US have been conditioned to believe that circumcision is ok. I assure you that is changing and most intact boys and men would never get a circumcision for the reasons you've put forward so far any more than someone would get their tooth pulled to avoid cavities.

[1] tinyurl.com/dyusnv
[2] tinyurl.com/deguyt
[3] tinyurl.com/can3zk
[4] tinyurl.com/kqfkbw

Let's play a game lovelysoul, how many heterosexual HIV cases (Male -> Female) were identified in Australia in 2006?

correction that was F->M

Warning naughty medical pic

http://stopthecut.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/12336060979711.jpg

Take a look at this and tell me which one "looks" better

"War, poor government, and lack of women's rights has nothing to do with it."

You guy are missing my point. I meant none of that has anything to do with the biological reasons an uncircumcised male would be more likely to contract AIDS from a female. And I've already said repeatedly that there is a difference in the prevalence of AIDS in our country (as well as Australia) than in Africa. Women here are not yet major carriers, for all the reasons you mentioned.

But the point is that being uncircumcised, as shown by these studies, obviously creates a physical situation whereby the penis traps more viral componants.

Same as a tonsil. It's a germ trapper. It has no purpose. It is not necessary, but it can result in complications.

The complications may be no more likely than my child getting smallpox in this country, in this day and age, but we continue to vaccinate due to the chance that a resurgence of the disease could occur. Some parents don't vaccinate, which makes it even more likely that a resurgence will occur.

Overly cautious? Many would argue that. But it's within a parent's right to be overly cautious about all sorts of potential threats. No one demands that a parent justify their choice to vaccinate for a disease that's all but been eradicated, so why should I have to justify my concern over a disease that is quite prevalent and killing thousands in other parts of the world? Just because it isn't a major threat here, it still is a threat. People travel, viruses mutate, things change.

From my perspective, if being uncircumcised increases the risk of acquiring one sexually transmitted disease, then it follows that it could increase the risk for others - maybe some that haven't been discovered yet.

And it isn't a necessary tissue. Its removal isn't a tragedy. If girls had a similar UNNECESSARY tissue that trapped pathogens and spread infections, such as UTIs to their partners, I wouldn't have a problem with removing it.

I know some of you guys feel angry over your circumcision. During the last debate, I heard about scars and tightness, and the imagined loss of sensitivity. I don't know how valid that is. I have never seen a scar on any man I've been with, who were all circumcised, and I've gotten pretty intimate down there. If there's a scar, it must be pretty unnoticable. And if there's a loss of sensitivity, then you could never tell by the men I've known. All enjoyed sex very much -some too much. If there was MORE sensitivity, I can't imagine how they'd get anything done all day.

However, I thought what Ben-David said was interesting, explaining the difference between the Jewish procedure and the hospital one. If too much skin is being removed, then that needs to be addressed, but I don't think male circumcision is going away. I discovered in the last debate, that the numbers haven't actually been dropping here. If immigrants are accounted for, the stats have actually stayed pretty steady in this country, and they're growing in others.

Oh yeah, Lujlp, the one on the right looks better....because it's made to be all pink and colorful, while the circ one is colored orange. Anybody can do that sort of trick photography. Good grief.

lovelysoul said:

The complications may be no more likely than my child getting smallpox in this country, in this day and age, but we continue to vaccinate due to the chance that a resurgence of the disease could occur. Some parents don't vaccinate, which makes it even more likely that a resurgence will occur.

Overly cautious? Many would argue that. But it's within a parent's right to be overly cautious about all sorts of potential threats. No one demands that a parent justify their choice to vaccinate for a disease that's all but been eradicated, so why should I have to justify my concern over a disease that is quite prevalent and killing thousands in other parts of the world? Just because it isn't a major threat here, it still is a threat. People travel, viruses mutate, things change.

Just a quick note because I don't have time for a full reply yet. We've been through this before lovelysoul, virtually nobody under about 35 years old was vaccinated for small pox in the US. We stopped vaccinating the general public around 1972.

I don't think you'll find a health care provider that will provide you a smallpox vaccine. As far as I know none is distributed except to emergency government facilities. This was actually a concern when the anthrax mail scare occurred because it would have been very difficult to ramp up a vaccination campaign.

Also, vaccines serve a medically therapeutic purpose, circumcision does not in most cases. For example, please tell me how else I can protect myself from Measles or Polio (for example) besides a vaccination?

Darn, I always forget that. I know we established that last time, but I couldn't remember which vaccine it was. The overall point is the same though. We vaccinate for a lot of fairly rare diseases, which is why many parents opt out, considering it unnecessary and potentially risky. They may be right, or wrong. Certainly, right now, there's not much threat, and just as with circumcison, parents could wait until there's an epidemic to vaccinate and provide protection, but by then, it's too late for a lot of people.

They are rare because we vaccinate. You can't say that about circumcision for anything. Which leads back to my question. Do you know how many case of HIV were recorded in Australia in 2006? F->M

Interesting stats:

http://aidsaction.org.au/content/hiv_sti_health/circumcision.php

-Julie

1 Tonisils are involved in anti body production - true they are not as usful in highly populated urban areas but they have a biological function.

2 you said if gilrs had a similar risk you would support the removal of such tissues.

I'll bring up breasts again, 1 in 8 women get breat cancer, women are more than 5 times likely to get cancer then an uncricumscised man is to get an STD, and with baby formula avalible in every grocerystore and a fari number of gas stations breast in highly populated urban areas are as neccesary as tonsils

And as for the piture? Screw the color, look at the texture.

I worked construction with my father ever summere form 8 to 18, I've cut my fingers on blades, burned them with solder and electricity, gotten frost bite, heat burns from utensils and after nearly thirty years of life the skin on my hands and fingers is smoother than the flesh(beacause it aint skin) on the tip of my penis and that has sat protected behind 1 to 4 layers of clotheing for my entire life.

Shouldnt that tell you something?

lujlp:
after nearly thirty years of life the skin on my hands and fingers is smoother than the flesh(beacause it aint skin) on the tip of my penis and that has sat protected behind 1 to 4 layers of clotheing for my entire life.

Shouldnt that tell you something?
- - - - - - - -

..that you don't use fabric softener?

or that you post your over-the-top hyperventilations here because you ain't getting any/enough?

or that - like many modern whiners - you're trying to blame less-than-satisfactory parts of your (love) life on something other than your own choices?

As an orthodox Jew, I am regularly asked about this issue. And this discussion has spun out into inanity like they always do.

The hair-splitting attempts to find/discredit actual harm or dysfunction should clue the thoughtful in to the fact that THERE IS NO MAJOR EFFECT one way or the other.

Circumcising and non-circumcising cultures have lived around the Mediterranean since time immemorial. If there really were serious harm or benefit to either status - we'd have heard about it by now.

That's also the evidence that comes out of Israeli studies of men circumcised in adulthood.

We might as well try to frame piercing little girls' ears as a major issue of medical ethics and autonomy - "sure I think girls should be offered piercing, when they reach the age of consent".

Parents make numerous irrevocable, intensely personal decisions for their children - most of which are of FAR more import than circumcision. So?

Only a narcissistic generation raised on Freudian its-my-parents-fault self-indulgence could pour such energy into this topic.

If I weren't Jewish, I wouldn't do it.

But I have no doubt that taking part in the covenantal community of Jews will be FAR more beneficial to my sons that having a foreskin.

lovelysoul:

Overly cautious? Many would argue that. But it's within a parent's right to be overly cautious about all sorts of potential threats. ...

As we went through in the last debate, I disagree on principle regarding parental "rights" here. But if it is within legitimate parental authority, why do you constantly claim aesthetic preferences as an acceptable justification? You open up the undeniable requirement that parents be allowed to surgically alter their daughters for this reason, as well. If their rights trump the rights of their children, which is what you're saying. Sure, most of society wouldn't do this and would condemn such thoughts as appalling, but if it's a parent's right to surgically alter their son to possibly make sex more appealing to his future partners, who are we to say that the parents' preference shouldn't matter for their daughters? The only way to reconcile this is to accept that you're discriminating based on gender without an objective basis (i.e. medical need).

To put it differently, let's reverse the roles on the women prefer circumcised canard: Your breasts are too small. You need implants.

It doesn't matter that I have no idea the size and appearance of your breasts or whether you want to change them or whether or not you care what your partners think or whether they want your breasts to be larger. Your opinion isn't worth anything on the matter. I talk to men, I know they claim to like large breasts. I have the single data point I need.

Also, really, you need your labia trimmed. Most men don't like labia to be too long. I read it on a website.

Now I'd like to apologize for being offensive, because that was offensive and I have no right to demand that your body be different. I'm sorry.

However, is what I said any different to what you've said? I know you're not trying to offend, but should I not be offended that you deemed the body I was born with aesthetically unpleasing without knowing anything more than I was born an anatomically normal male? That you deem my foreskin unnecessary, a subjective term easily refuted? You have the right to prefer that, of course, but you're going further and saying that it was a legitimate choice for my parents to surgically alter my penis because it would make me "more socially 'marketable'". You're saying that I was generally sexually unpalatable from birth unless my parents consented to circumcision based on the imagined opinion of some future hypothetical woman's preference for surgically altered genitals. That's offensive, even though you don't intend it to be offensive.

In a relevant data point, my girlfriend agrees with me on circumcision. Ooops, mom and dad? That doesn't make it all better. They couldn't know, as no parent can. The choice was obviously uninformed, as it always is. Taking generalized notions of society don't account for the basic fact that we're talking about individuals.

"you said if gilrs had a similar risk you would support the removal of such tissues."

I said similarly "unnecessary" tissue, not risk. Breasts obviously serve an important function, breastfeeding, in addition to being very sexually appealing to men. If not for those two facts, I would want them removed, as breast cancer is a terrible risk. You keep making that comparison, and I keep responding the same way, Lujlp.

I think Ben-David is right. This issue isn't really important either way. The positives/negatives are subjective at best. This has only been elevated to some sort of importance - and parents condemed - for a kind of self-serving victimization.

In the same vein, we women could very well argue that we shouldn't have to keep our breasts for the sake of male visual appreciation. After all, there's bottle-feeding to replace the function of breasts. Why should we force girls to take the risk of breast cancer at all? Our parents, if they were truly loving, should remove them at birth, so we don't have to carry them around, often causing back pain and discomfort, in addition to the risks.

I'm surprised feminists haven't thought of this new level of victimhood. But, if they did, it would be just as silly as this argument.

This issue isn't really important either way. The positives/negatives are subjective at best.

So, why are we doing it? Why are we subjecting infants to genital modification when the 'positives and negatives are subjective at best'?

I'm surprised feminists haven't thought of this new level of victimhood.

Why is it that when it is done to little girls it is 'butchery' and when it is done to little boys it is 'victimhood'? If someone had cut off my clitoral hood in childhood without my consent, I would be upset about it!

Many women contend that cutting off the clitoral hood vastly enhances sexual pleasure. That is not at all what FGM is about. But if there was reason to believe that cutting the clitoral hood would a) cause you no lasting harm, and b) potentially prevent you from getting infections, deadly diseases, and even cancer, then your parents might legitimately and lovingly decide to do that for you at a time when it will be a less complicated procedure.

It is simply not right to villanize parents who choose circumcision for these reasons and equate it to FGM, which in its worst forms involves destroying all female pleasure and ability to climax by removing the clitoris.

That is obviously not the case with male circumcision. Circumcised men are fully capable of enjoying sex, as is evidenced by the many American circumcised men living normal, sexually-fulfilling lives.

There are just a few men who believe their sex lives would be *better* and more pleasurable if they still had a foreskin, but there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this. In fact, in the African studies, a higher percentage of males claimed to experience better sex after circumcision.

At any rate, they are all functioning sexually, having orgasms, and so whether you have a foreskin or not, it doesn't make that much difference from a quality of life perspective - or at least it shouldn't.

Ben-David,

Since you are an orthodox Jew, then you know that the covenant between God and Abraham means a promise. God requested a cutting ritual of animals(Genesis 15) and then with Genesis 17 (circumcision) - which was deceptively inserted during the priestly period 450 BCE. In return for this "cutting", God promised Abraham many lands and descendants. In your vein of flippancy, how's this going so far? Let's see 14 million Jews, 6 billion people on the planet. Land , up to 1948 -nothing, afterwords Israel (relatively speaking a very small piece of land). Since God reneged on his side of the deal, why are you still advocating the cutting of non-consensual babies? Tradition, culture, sounds like a good idea?

Many women contend that cutting off the clitoral hood vastly enhances sexual pleasure. That is not at all what FGM is about.

For many women (me included) any touch under the hoot is extremely painful. That would be a sexual catastrophe.

According to WHO ( http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm ), this is the definition of FGM:

"Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. "

Doing so because it is socially acceptable or more visually attractive (some of the reasons you provided) are non-medical reasons.

There are several types:

*Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).

(The prepuce is defined by dictionary.com as the following:

1. the fold of skin that covers the head of the penis; foreskin.
2. a similar covering of the clitoris. (i.e. the clitoral hood)

This is a circumcision at it's definition)

The other types are below:

*Type II — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision).

*Type III — Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation).

*Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

My only point is that we need to view this differently. I'm not going on a witch hunt for parents that did this, as many of them operated to the best of their knowledge at the time. What I am saying is that we need to get the word out so that new parents can make an more informed decision. This is the same as Type I FGM. If we shouldn't do it for girls, we shouldn't do it for boys.

-Julie

I agree that parents shouldn't be villanized simply because they chose circumcision. As it has been said, there are arguments on both sides. I do feel it appropriate to villanize parents who make the decision to circumcise because they think it looks better. My kid might look better with a smaller nose, but I am surely not going to cut it off so he will look better. Worse because I think he will look better to his future sex partners.

"Many women contend that cutting off the clitoral hood vastly enhances sexual pleasure. That is not at all what FGM is about."
-lovelysoul

"Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." (from the WHO website).

FGM includes the simpliest and severest alterations to the genitalia. Perhaps the simpler versions should be called circumcision and not mutilation. Any type of alteration to the female genital is illegal in the US. There is however NO regulation on neonate circumcision. It can be done anywhere, by anyone at any time.

Julie, realistically, how often is type 1 performed where it only involves the removal of the prepuce? It says "and/or", but I highly doubt it is usually just "or".

And, even assuming only type 1 was widely practiced, there is no known, or even arguable, medical need or preventative benefits to it, as there is with male circumcision. Debatable as it may be, the potential medical benefits are still a valid issue, one that many qualified doctors believe warrants circumcision. Some were even on the anti-circ side, but after reviewing studies, have changed their minds.

When you have a reasonable debate, and the scientific grounds for performing a procedure like this for preventive, medical reasons, then you have a parental intent that is very different from the mindset behind female FGM. One is done out of love, and one is done usually out of control or "purity".

lovelysoul said:

Many women contend that cutting off the clitoral hood vastly enhances sexual pleasure. That is not at all what FGM is about. But if there was reason to believe that cutting the clitoral hood would a) cause you no lasting harm, and b) potentially prevent you from getting infections, deadly diseases, and even cancer, then your parents might legitimately and lovingly decide to do that for you at a time when it will be a less complicated procedure.

Who says all types of FGM cause lasting harm. It is prevalent in many cultures including, apparently, the one that this [1] girl belongs to. Would you say she mutilated her daughter? I was apparently done by her doctor should she have been allowed to do that? Did she 'lovingly' subject her daughter to that procedure? Why or why not?

And when you say 'Potentially prevent x or y' do you know the real value of that protection? I've asked you to be specific and even gave you a ball park worst case estimate for HIV but you seem to be ignoring it. What's the practical benefit when at worst you're looking at a few hundredths of a percent difference?

Of course then you bring up the cancer. Somehow I think we've had this discussion too. Do you mean penile cancer, you know the one that the American Cancer Society has stated [2]

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.

or do you mean cervical cancer for which we've had a vaccine that is nearly 100% efficient against for at least 4 years? The availability of the vaccine would also lower the ridiculously low number of cases of penile cancer too BTW.

And there is no reason it can't be done in adulthood. The only reason it seems more complicated is because you have conscious individual who can complain. People done in infancy, if it gets screwed up, just assume that's how it is. How could they know differently?

lovelysoul said:

It is simply not right to villanize parents who choose circumcision for these reasons and equate it to FGM, which in its worst forms involves destroying all female pleasure and ability to climax by removing the clitoris.

What is not right to subject boys to something they almost never need and likely wouldn't choose for themselves. Girls are protected no matter what the degree and no matter what the reason why do you feel it's right to not provide the same protection to boys?

lovelysoul said:

That is obviously not the case with male circumcision. Circumcised men are fully capable of enjoying sex, as is evidenced by the many American circumcised men living normal, sexually-fulfilling lives.

Perhaps most but at the very least what do you say to the ones who got the worst kinds of complications? Sorry buddy there was no good reason to do that to you but someone's got to crap out from time to time.

lovelysoul said:

There are just a few men who believe their sex lives would be *better* and more pleasurable if they still had a foreskin, but there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this. In fact, in the African studies, a higher percentage of males claimed to experience better sex after circumcision.

Just out of curiosity how many unhappy men would it take for your ethics meter to start flashing? 1, 2, 100, 1000, 10,000 or is it easier to think of percentages? So long as no more than 5% are dissatisfied or somehow disfigured all is fine and ethical. What is your threshold lovelysoul?

And those African subjects where volunteers. They were getting it done for 'cultural' reasons anyway. When you have cultural or religious pressures like that these things tend to get over looked.

lovelysoul said:

At any rate, they are all functioning sexually, having orgasms, and so whether you have a foreskin

This is the bar you've set? I can see that ethics isn't part of your evaluation. That makes things clear.

1. hxxp://tinyurl.com/m8ujns
2. hxxp://tinyurl.com/mjbqmu

lovelysoul,

Read this article and try to keep an open mind. When you've finished reverse the gender and read again. This is why all people should be allowed to make their own decisions about cosmetic/"prophylactic"/ritual procedures. They are irreversible after all.

http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752

lovelysoul said:

And, even assuming only type 1 was widely practiced, there is no known, or even arguable, medical need or preventative benefits to it, as there is with male circumcision.

Really? I found one [1][2].

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

lovelysoul said:

Debatable as it may be, the potential medical benefits are still a valid issue, one that many qualified doctors believe warrants circumcision. Some were even on the anti-circ side, but after reviewing studies, have changed their minds.

Really, which doctors and under which conditions?

lovelysoul said:

When you have a reasonable debate, and the scientific grounds for performing a procedure like this for preventive, medical reasons, then you have a parental intent that is very different from the mindset behind female FGM. One is done out of love, and one is done usually out of control or "purity".

Here is why both are done: [3]

1. tinyurl.com/nn3slw
2. tinyurl.com/d9uom
3. tinyurl.com/y7nwav

Gumbee, it's funny, but I was going to add that I think we are on somewhat shaky ground regarding FGM because many women in those cultures don't WANT a sexual response, consider it repulsive and dirty. To them it's a horror to have a clitoris, and they want it removed. Thanks for forwarding the link.

lovelysoul,

You said, "On circinfo.net...

"..it was found that of 354,297..."

The above site is a pro circumcision site run by Brian Morris - a well known pro circ advocate. In his summary of circ versus not circ'd , his final reason for "cutting" is: "A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive" - imagine saying that about a "cut" vulva.

Here is a review by Basil Donovan
Director, Sydney Sexual Health Centre on Brian Morris.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=50

You'd be much better off getting information from http://www.circinfosite.com - a much more informative and balanced site.

Amy,

Yes, sadly their faith blinds them.

lovelysoul said:

Gumbee, it's funny, but I was going to add that I think we are on somewhat shaky ground regarding FGM because many women in those cultures don't WANT a sexual response, consider it repulsive and dirty. To them it's a horror to have a clitoris, and they want it removed. Thanks for forwarding the link.

Thank goodness we have information [1] that says that is not true.

Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria.

The interesting thing about this work was it was done to try and persuade people in those regions to stop circumcising women. They wanted to demonstrate that it didn't stop women's sexuality as was thought (which was the prime reason it was being done there).

So now we have a benefit [2] and [3]. And we know it probably doesn't interfere with orgasm or sexuality. So if we clean the process up a bit, do it in the hospital, it should meet all your ethical standards; is that right lovelysoul?

1. tinyurl.com/mrqxe9
2. tinyurl.com/nn3slw
3. tinyurl.com/d9uom

lovelysoul:

When you have a reasonable debate, and the scientific grounds for performing a procedure like this for preventive, medical reasons, then you have a parental intent that is very different from the mindset behind female FGM. One is done out of love, and one is done usually out of control or "purity".

I can find examples of parents and advocates claiming love as the motive for FGM. FGM is still wrong.

I don't question that parents circumcise sons out of love rather than a desire to harm. However, promising that the intent is good is not saying anything important on the ethical question of circumcision on a healthy child. Intent is separate from action in law. The objective result of the action is harm, as described early in this thread.

When you say that "potential medical benefits [of male circumcision] are still a valid issue," you are correct. But they are valid for adults choosing for themselves. That is the ethical issue, which can't be stripped away because of parental intent.

I'm not impressed by the random, unsupported cries of "a kind of self-serving victimization", either. Sometimes there really is a victim involved. But we can ignore that. I'm not making any specific claim that circumcision has ruined my life or made me incapable of leading my life. I have a long-term girlfriend, two college degrees, a home, a well-paying skilled job, and so on. Saying that parents have no valid choice to consent to circumcision on a child when he is healthy and normal is only laying out the reasonable standard - medical need - for surgical decisions by proxy consent.

In the same vein, we women could very well argue that we shouldn't have to keep our breasts for the sake of male visual appreciation. After all, there's bottle-feeding to replace the function of breasts. Why should we force girls to take the risk of breast cancer at all? Our parents, if they were truly loving, should remove them at birth, so we don't have to carry them around, often causing back pain and discomfort, in addition to the risks.

I'm surprised feminists haven't thought of this new level of victimhood. But, if they did, it would be just as silly as this argument.

My mouth was agape when I first read this. This is the argument I and others have been making, that this is absurd and comparable to the thinking used to justify infant male circumcision. I have no idea how making my point proves yours. I'm genuinely curious about the step(s) between this argument and your conclusion, because I'm missing it.

But it's an interesting idea. Adult women are free to do what they want. Some already do this. [archived]

Unless you are Dr. Julie Miller or someone like her, it's hard to imagine lying down on a surgical table to have your two healthy breasts removed.

But until that day in 2004, Miller, then a mother of an infant and a toddler, had lived in fear of breast cancer.

The core difference here is that she's an adult. She can make her own decisions, regardless of what you or I think of it. As has been pointed out above, the risk of breast cancer is much higher than the risk of anything circumcision reduces. It wouldn't become ethical for her to extend her surgical approach to a daughter's healthy breast buds, even if she does so out of love.

lovelysoul said:

"Gumbee, it's funny, but I was going to add that I think we are on somewhat shaky ground regarding FGM because many women in those cultures don't WANT a sexual response, consider it repulsive and dirty. To them it's a horror to have a clitoris, and they want it removed. Thanks for forwarding the link."

Where in this article or any other did you read that women don't want a sexual response?

The article states:

"Thus far, the negative medical or health claims about various forms of FC have been disputed as grossly exaggerated by several independent medical researchers and practitioners. The claims that various forms of FC reduce or eliminate sexual desire and feeling in women have also been disproven by affected women themselves, the researchers who relentlessly question them and medical doctors who examine and treat them."

This quote refutes your claim.
I think you are missing the point of the article. We look at another peoples tradition or culture with barbarity but fail to see our own injustice. This woman is justifying FGM the same way an America justifies MGM. She reveals this hypocrisy, which should be a lesson for us, but some miss it. Only by making MGM illegal will we remove the hypocrisy and begin to eliminate both mutilations.
lovelysoul, without you realizing it, are actually giving this woman ammunition for continuing FGM when you attempt to justify MGM.

The article reveals this,

"As for those girls too young to give consent, we must accord to their parents the same rights we accord to the parents of boys in neonatal male circumcision and not discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, ethnicity or country of origin."

There's really too much for me to address all at once.

First, I do not believe, for a second, the study in Nigeria claiming women without a clitoris can experience orgasm just as easily as those with them. Hardly any woman, including myself, can orgasm without some clitoral stimulation. It's a male myth - and obviously now a Nigerian one - but it is a myth. Women need a clitoris the same as men need a penis.

Beyond that, I think this gets to be a very difficult issue when we, as westerners, start regulating the rituals and customs of other cultures and religious groups, replacing them with our own.

We discussed this in the previous debate. Other cultures do things in the name of beauty, like put enormous rings in young girls' lips, or around their necks to make them excessively long, and a host of other physical "mutilations". This is not our western idea of beauty, but it's their custom. What right do we have to impose our views on them?

Likewise, Jews have practiced this custom of circumcision for a long time. It is part of their group identity. I think, in general, groups have the right to maintain these rituals, as long as they are reasonably safe, and do not cause any major life-long effects.

So, ethically, my view is that snipping some skin, either male or female, is alright with me as long as the sexual response isn't permanently damaged. That's where I fall on the issue, at least right now. I don't want to see anyone's ability to orgasm destroyed, at least until they are old enough to choose that state of existence for thermselves.

As typically practiced, I don't find FGM meets that standard, but Jewish circumcision does. The sexual enjoyment factor is maintained.

I believe last time someone linked an article about how a hospital here in the US had to find some compromise with a large base of middle eastern immigrants who wanted their daughters genitals cut, at birth, because it was an important ritual to them, so the hospital agreed to do a very small cut, more like a nick, but this was enough to satisfy their custom.

I thought that was great because we are not likely to change their long-standing custom. It will only move underground and become far less sanitary and more dangerous for girls.

So, it's an interesting challenge to try to balance our desire to protect children, while respecting other cultures. We in the west have to be mindful that we are imposing our end-all, be-all view of sexuality onto populations that don't necessarily hold it in such high regard.

It is simply not right to villanize parents who choose circumcision for these reasons and equate it to FGM, which in its worst forms involves destroying all female pleasure and ability to climax by removing the clitoris.

That is obviously not the case with male circumcision. Circumcised men are fully capable of enjoying sex, as is evidenced by the many American circumcised men living normal, sexually-fulfilling lives.
-lovelysoul

What about those who dont??

Here is one quote
What really ticks me off is that someone decided that I didn't ever need to fully experience my own body in its natural state since that natural state is filthy, disgusting, too animal-like for us "highly evolved" humans to tolerate, etc. I had no rights then - I was just someone's property.
It amazes me that a whole society can blind itself to the fact that it willingly participates in the barbaric sexual mutilation of male babies.
Yes I am traumatized, and our society's blind acceptance of sexual mutilation isn't helping my recovery at all.

www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

lovelysoul said:

First, I do not believe, for a second, the study in Nigeria claiming women without a clitoris can experience orgasm just as easily as those with them. Hardly any woman, including myself, can orgasm without some clitoral stimulation. It's a male myth - and obviously now a Nigerian one - but it is a myth. Women need a clitoris the same as men need a penis.

That was a published study not some rumor or story, did you even read the article? It was done for the express purpose to demonstrate to them that they were NOT achieving their goals by performing the ritual and that it should just be abandoned. Believe it or not that's what the study found.

lovelysoul said:

I believe last time someone linked an article about how a hospital here in the US had to find some compromise with a large base of middle eastern immigrants who wanted their daughters genitals cut, at birth, because it was an important ritual to them, so the hospital agreed to do a very small cut, more like a nick, but this was enough to satisfy their custom.
I thought that was great because we are not likely to change their long-standing custom. It will only move underground and become far less sanitary and more dangerous for girls.

That was called the Seattle compromise and apparently you didn't read that one either. What happened was the doctors reluctantly agreed to do something simple, but when word got out the were besieged with protesters and eventually abandoned the effort despite the fact that the parents made it clear that if they couldn't get what they wanted here they would take the girls back to Somalia where they would face worse (of course they didn't say it like that they are loving parents you know who just wanted to follow their customs and cut their girls).

I am not sure what happened in the end but one thing is clear. Girls are protected no matter the degree, no matter the conditions, and no matter the reason. Boys apparently aren't entitled to that.

Link again.

www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

Those are pretty atrocious photos, I must say, Lujlp. I've never seen penises with these problems before. I thought you guys were mostly exaggerating the damage. Every circumcised penis I've seen has been smooth and lovely. Yet, if these are truly unaltered photos, they might be enough to make me change my mind.

And thanks for posting the Seattle proposal again, Joe. I'd forgotten how the story went. It's ironic that FGM opponents actually ended up putting girls in greater harm. I think the hospital really tried to provide the best solution, given the cultural conflicts.

I wouldn't exactly say that girls are "always protected". Clearly not. Maybe here, with regards to FGM, but in the rest of the world, they are obviously being subjected to much more brutal circumcisions...

"...which range from simple "sunna" circumcisions requiring "only" the partial or complete removal of the clitoris to complete "Pharaonic infibulations" requiring removal of all of a girl's external genitalia followed by the stitching together of the resulting wound."

lovelysoul,

Thank you for at least having an open mind.
To reiterate what I said earlier; whether we believe it or not, we are a product of our traditions, customs and personal preferences - these cloud our vision. We clearly see the atrocities of others while ignoring our own. Through education and an open mind we will see the truth - that takes courage. We need to step out of our box and try to look at this from an unbiased perspective. I can't speak for anyone else here but I will be presumptuous and assume that most of us are against non-consensual mutilations. However, if a person is of the age of consent they can do what they want, I really shouldn't and don't care. That is their right.
Yes, circumcision causes physical damage and death (not to mention psychological) but doctors are reluctant to report them.

http://www.circinfosite.com/41.html
http://www.circinfosite.com/42.html

Every circumcised penis I've seen has been smooth and lovely. - lovelysoul

Thats because the guys who were really fucked over dont have much of a sex life. You know the old saying right? Out of sight, out of mind.

Here are a couple of other pics from some woman in az

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#major
its a copy of a myspace post with pictures the mother took of her son

www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=19705

And here is a column from sex advice columnist Dan Savage

When I talk about potential complications, those are what I mean. They are not common, thankfully. If they were, this practice likely would've stopped long ago. But they do occur. That's the risk inherent in every surgery. We don't know ahead of time who will suffer one of these complications. I've argued that there are other harms, but even ignoring those, we shouldn't expose a child to this risk when no medical need exists because something other than the commonly perceived "good" outcome can result. It does result for some percentage of boys. That's the ethical argument I'm trying to make.

As above from Ben-David, it's easy to talk about training and experience. That matters. But it's an easy task to find reports of circumcisions by experienced individuals (doctors and mohels) with devastating complications for the patient, including death. This is not a harmless procedure. If it's legitimate to factor the risk of something like HIV, it's at least as valid to factor the risk of these complications. It's reasonable to assume that a child may place less concern on a tiny increased of HIV than on the inherent risk of surgical complications, if he's given the choice.

Lovelysoul, actually girls are protected in most western countries it is illegal no matter what the conditions, no matter what the degree, and no matter what the reason. In countries where there aren't laws, there are people working to pass them even were this is a part of the culture. Why should we deny boys the same protections?

Okay, I think you are right. One of the great things about this blog is how it forces us to challenge our own beliefs, even as we defend them.

I readily admit that I've only seen the positive results of circumcision. And, done well, it seems to be a benefit. But I had no idea that doctors were truly mutilating boys in this way. I thought they had really simplified the procedure to an almost foolproof result. Yet, if that is not the case, then I agree that no child should be subjected to that risk.

The skill of doctors varies greatly, as I well know, from things like plastic surgery. I have girlfriends who, after breast augmentation, have nipples pointing in different directions, horribly scarred areoloas, and breasts of different shapes and sizes. They still look sexy in their little tops, but I am always horrified seeing the disfigurement these incompetent doctors gave them.

Then, there are ones who have such a beautiful result you can't even tell they're not real. So, the skill of the doctor is so important.

I did not realize that it was the same with this procedure. I thought almost anyone could preform it and get a decent result.

I prefer my men whole, but if your tribe has odd customs such as cutting genitals, stretching your lip, stretching your neck, etc. that's fine by me. The bizarre tribal rituals of other cultures are really not my business.

What I DO object to is when people start saying the people who DON'T undergo these tribal rituals are gross. It's really laughable, actually... you do this crazy mutilation thing, and WE are the gross ones??? Please.

My poor dad was cut because he was born in the 40s, but thankfully my brother avoided the knife, and yes, my mom had to teach him to clean himself, and no, it wasn't a big deal. My husband is uncut, luckily.

I've had sex with cut men, (and once with a guy with twelve, count 'em TWELVE piercings. And one on his scrotum. Looked like a pincushion. Rather cool, actually), and it was perfectly good. It's easier to give a hand job to an uncut guy, though.

I would probably vote for a law that made people wait until they were of legal age to consent to tribal body modifications. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

My husband & I chose not to circumcise our son. Why? Because we did not, and do not, believe we have the right to make such an alteration to his body. That is something for him to decide for himself, if he would even want to in the first place, when he is older. We are merely the custodians of our son's body, not its owner.

Parents need to put themselves in their children's place and imagine what it would be like to be tied down against your will, and have your genitals cut at with inadequate, or no, anesthesia at all. How can people subject a newborn infant to such a painful, inhumane practice and defend it? Especially when it would be assault if it was done, without their consent, to an adult.

I think about circumcision this way... If I wouldn't want some one to mutilate and permanently damage my genitals, then why would my son want that done to him?

Just because it seems "everyone" is circumcising their sons doesn't make it the right thing to do!!! I believe that the nontherapeutic use of circumcision on male minors should be against the law. Just as it is against the law to circumcise female minors. Circumcision is not a parental right.

I feel a deep sorrow for any parent that has found out too late the truth about circumcision and the harm it causes, but I feel the most for the child that has no real choice but to submit to & survive through an experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

10 out of 10 babies oppose circumcision. Shouldn't you?

For more info about circumcision go to:

www.jewsagainstcircumcision.com
www.mothersagainstcirc.org
www.circumcision.org
www.noharmm.org
www.nocirc.org
www.cirp.org

Amy, among devout Jewesses, Miriam Pollack is probably the most eloquent critic of bris. She is challenging 25 centuries of tradition, and thousands of patriarchal rabbis. She witnessed the brises of her own sons in the 1980s, and that made her an enemy of bris for life.