Not sure that's kind of a dicey one. Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children. However there are parents that would opt for the female version which is and should be illegal. The two procedures are not really comparable, as both the out come and the purpose are completely different. One was a symbol of unity with god (and has medical benifits) the other is for the purpose of fidelity and control (and has negative medical affects). Just cause it was done for religious reasons shouldn't make it some how worse in the modern day either.

If there is a medical reason to perform the procedure which apparently there is I don't think banning it is appropriate.
http://tinyurl.com/2jvxkt

Just an aside -- in the Philippines, baby girls often have their ears pierced within hours of birth. I don't know why. Does this fall along the same lines as what we're talking about here?

So, the kid can unite with God when he's old enough to do so.

Cutting off bits of genitals to unite the kid with God when he's a baby is just wrong. What if he doesn't want to be that religion when he grows up?

Old RPM... I'd say yeah. Pierce her ears when she's old enough to ask for it.

Old rpm daddy, they do it here in the USA too. Maybe not just hours after birth, but I've seen babies as young as just 2 months with their ears pierced. And that's just wrong. No one needs more holes in their head than what nature gave them! o.O

I'm against any sort of mutilation of children who cannot speak and have no choice in the matter: ears, genitals, or other.

Yes, perhaps it exists because of religious beliefs, but let's not pretend that's the only reason it happens. The majority of the population is not Jewish, after all, but the majority are circumsized. Christian people are doing it for aesthetics and because they think its hygenic. How about educating doctors and parents? That will probably be more effective in the US, at least at first. And I must admit, as rational as I try to be about it, I have a kneejerk reaction against banning it, and I don't think I'm alone. Though I've read the opinion of men who believe they were mutilated, I guess I don't see the loss of ability to get pleasure that is the hallmark of FGM. I dont think they're very comparable.

Either way it's a tough call;

Ever hear a newborn boy shrieking hysterically immediately after wetting his diaper? You hear this most in the neonatal units. That's how you can tell he's been circumcised. Hot urine in the wound. >>>shudder

Then again, consider trying to circumcise a 15 year old (or older) boy. Tell 'em you're gonna come at their Precious with a scalpel? Good luck. How often do they adjust themselves or have an erection? Good luck again, keeping that wound from reopening.

I'm for parents being able to judge for themselves what's best for their children and how best to raise them. Some parents may make irrational choices based on religion, tradition, misinformation or vanity, but as long as the child isn't being killed, then it's nobody's business if you do. Don't look to the beating-the-child counter-argument, because that would endanger the child's life.

Such punitive actions against parents for raising their children the way they see fit is part of our nanny-state problem. If it's all for children's welfare, then who decides what's best for these millions of children? Would such invasive kindercare ever stop before the state simply assigns who can have children and then remotely monitors every child by computer with implanted chips?

Sure it sounds like a paranoid fantasy, but we're moving fast and furiously into a big brother future, and I'm sure homeland security would be greatly improved if every citizen could be monitored.

There can be very good medical reasons for circumcision (beyond the HIV potential and hygiene guff) and in those cases it would be good for the chap in question to understand the situation.

As someone who was asked at the age of 4 if I wanted to be circumcised (what kind of a stupid question is that?) and then spent a month in bed at the age of 18 I know whereof I speak.

It's not fun, sometimes it is required, but I wouldn't recommend it to my friends.

Though if the choice is between that and an EMERGENCY circumcision I know what I'd choose.

I love it. Denmark is really progressive.

"Big-Daddy-In-The-Skies" always seems to be focused on genitals. I don't know why but all the sins of the world seems to be linked to naughty bits.

I think "Big Daddy" needs therapy and to leave us the f*** alone.

Donkeyrock:

...but as long as the child isn't being killed, then it's nobody's business if you do. Don't look to the beating-the-child counter-argument, because that would endanger the child's life.

Are you certain that circumcision doesn't endanger the child's life? Every surgery involves risk. How many examples of death are necessary?

It's difficult for me to understand why anyone who gave half a second of rational thought to this subject would continue to not see male circumcision for the genital mutilation it is. People will often say, "Oh, it's not nearly as bad as female circumcision; in female circumcision they remove everything that lets a woman experience a clitoral orgasm" (or something along those lines). Well, there are different degrees of female circumcision, one of which is simple removal of the clitoral hood. I'd say that's very comparable to male circumcision. But let's say for the sake of argument, that all of the nerve endings that allow an individual to experience sexual pleasure are located in the hand, and that all female circumcision is the equivalent of cutting off the whole hand, while male circumcision is the equivalent of only cutting off 40% of the hand (two fingers or so). Is that okay? Just because it's not quite as severe, it should be allowed?

Go take a look at what all is lost when you circumcise a baby boy: http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html

Then again, consider trying to circumcise a 15 year old (or older) boy. Tell 'em you're gonna come at their Precious with a scalpel? Good luck.

Isn't that an indication of just how barbaric a practice circumcision is, and precisely why it should be left up to the individual male to decide for himself when he's an adult?

Another argument I hear (which really pisses me off) is that "Women prefer circumcised men", as if that's a good reason for mutilating a child's genitals. If men preferred circumcised women, these same people would still be against circumcising their daughter. Furthermore, perhaps women wouldn't prefer circumcised men if we didn't do it to most men in the first place and it wasn't considered the norm.

Circumcision is child abuse, whether done to a male or female, plain and simple, and should be banned as such.

"Such punitive actions against parents for raising their children the way they see fit is part of our nanny-state problem."

Yeah, the state sure mistreated Andrea Yates over nothing. Her children, her choice of how she treated them, I guess. here's a clue for you - children are the responsibility, not the property of their parents.

Cutting pieces off of someone's body without their consent is mutilation. Period. Ethnic superstitions are no excuse and deserve NO respect.

There are rare cases when circumcision is medically required. Rare, and it almost never is apparent at birth or 8 days after or any time before puberty. At that point it becomes the person's own decision, so no problem.

As for the risk of infections for lack of circumcision, there is as much reason for routinely cutting off the foreskin as for routinely cutting off the outer labia - none at all.

There is likewise no basis for saying that female genital mutilation is horible and male genital mutiltion is acceptable. That position is simply incoherent and baseless.

It is important to remember that this law is being considered for adoption in Denmark. Denmark. Circumcsion is not part of Danish culture. Denmark is an ethnic homeland, and if non-Danes cannot abide by the norms of that culture, they should leave. The Chief Rabbi declares that every Jew will leave Denmark (to the extent he speaks for anyone besides himself) - that is regrettable, but not very, not anymore than every Dane leaving Israel - some loss, but nothing society won't recover from. But the real target here is the Muslim community, who have made it quite clear how much they respect Danish norms - not at all - see the flap over the Muhammad cartoons. These are the "Children of Abraham" this move is directed against.

From a source biased one way:

" Male circumcision might only reduce infection by the last method [female-to-male heterosexual transmission], so the overall influence on the HIV epidemic in Africa, at best, would be likely to be slight, however, the risk of male-to-female transmission is much higher than that of female-to-male transmission, so a means of partial prevention that targets only the second means at the expense of the first would be counterproductive.

There is no indication that male circumcision would protect women. Viral load is the chief predictor of the risk of HIV transmission.28 Malaria infection increases viral loads, so enhances infectivity.29 Male circumcision would not reduce viral loads and would not reduce infectivity to the female partner. One study, however, has shown female circumcision to be strongly protective.30 "

" Risks, complications, and drawbacks. The reported complication rate of 1.7 percent seems unreasonably low. Williams & Kapila estimated the incidence of complications at 2-10 percent;22 In the survey by Kim & Pang, 48 percent reported decreased masturbatory pleasure, 63 percent reported increased masturbatory difficulty, and 20 percent reported a worsened sex life after circumcision.23 "

On the studies that "prove" HIV is reduced...

"All three studies found that non-circumcised males contract HIV infection more quickly than circumcised males.11-13 This may be because the circumcised males required a period of abstinence after their circumcision. All three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group. Mills & Siegfried point out that early termination of such studies cause the benefits to be exaggerated.16 Dowsett & Couch (2007), even after publication of the RCTs, found insufficient evidence exists to support a program of circumcision to prevent HIV infection.17"

The arguments in favour of male circumcision are pretty weak, and would definitely not be allowed to "fly" were they used to justify carving up the genitals of little girls. Only when we mutilate little baby boys is it OK.

I guess I can take solace in these same groups (well, some of them anyway) arguing that female circumcision should be allowed too. Maybe then people will do something about it.

You're still wrong about this.

Dammit, I was talking to YOU!

The "way it looks" argument for circumcision is just about the stupidest possible reason to do it, even worse than the sky fairy. That's the same as saying girls should have parental mandated boob jobs, liposuction etc. to be more attractive to men. BTW you all know you can pull it back and it looks the same right?

As far as the parents over the state for making the decisions for the child. There has to be a limit found at which point the state must step in. If snipping the tip is ok what about ritual scarification, branding, tattooing etc. Giving that state complete control is a bad idea but giving every pair of dip shits with motile sperm and functional eggs complete and unquestioned autonomy is equally bad. The assumption that all parents have the best interest of the child in mind is sadly not correct.

"Dammit, I was talking to YOU!" Can't read the whole comment stream which aspect are you referring to, that you can't compare FGM and snipping the tip?

Vlad's point that the ability to procreate is hardly a qualification or guarantee of competent, intelligent thought by parents is true. Parents have their own interests in mind when they circumcise.

They speak of how beautiful they find the bris. They speak of how much easier the circumcised penis is to keep clean because they don't want to exert themselves in learning how (easy it is) to care for an intact penis. They speak of how happy dad is with his sexual pleasure, which somehow demonstrates that circumcision doesn't affect sensitivity even though different is not same as better or worse. They speak of aesthetic improvements because they find the circumcised penis sexier, even though it's only the boy's opinion that matters. (And his partner's opinion, if he considers that a sufficient reason for him to change his body.) It is always about the parents.

The ban under consideration in Denmark is probably targeted at Islam. That was my thought when I first read it. But it ultimately gets the substance correct. It does not seek to ban religious circumcision, only non-medical circumcision of male children. Upon reaching the relevant age, the child can choose circumcision circumcision for himself as an act of his faith. Or not. If gender-neutral human rights are to mean anything, the "or not" must be an available choice.

Haven't read the comments yet, but most post AMEN AMY!!!!!! Circumcision is barbaric. I would not chop of my daughter's clitoris, why would I chop off my son's foreskin? If currently cooking baby is a boy, there will be mushroom clouds over here b/c dad is very much a "good enough for me" kind of guy. But it will not happen. The rate in the US is slightly under 50% now, so the "looking like everyone else" argument holds no water either.

I've been with a few uncircumsized guys. It was great, actually. One in particular, mmmmm. great memories! I just can't see how it would turn off future sex partners.

If you're not using condoms, you need to worry about HIV foreskin or no. ANd personally, my idea of protecting my son's health will be to teach 1) choosy sex and 2) condoms condoms condoms.

I understand that jews are ordered to do so by the bible. I find it odd, but hey, religious rights are tricky. I'd respect it more if it came at bar mitzvah time. One really should have the say in whether one loses a body part. I will let my girls get their ears pierced when THEy want it, for the same (if less invasive and traumatic) reason. It's their ears.

OK, I know more about circumcision than I wanted to know. And I did have my son circumcised as an infant.

Maybe it was bad, maybe it was wrong, and maybe I don't know what I am missing while missing part of my junk. However, as far as sensitivity and general horniness goes, I have more than enough of that to go around, and without my self-imposed control, the crack of dawn would not be safe around my house. Just saying, I would hate to be more horny and/or sensitive than I already am. Girlfriend would agree if she could catch her breath long enough.

And requiring it by the government? Well that is, as Kramer would say, just kooky talk.

My nephew wouldn't stop bleeding. He was 5 weeks premature, they chopped off part of his anatomy, and yes, it darn sure could have killed him. I had all sorts of words for my bro and SIL about that. Cruel and irresponsible.

She's got another boy cooking right now. I've already started working on them. "remember the terror? The guilt?"

"However, as far as sensitivity and general horniness goes, I have more than enough of that to go around," Of sensitivity and horniness are not related. A paraplegic can get horny and feels nothing. As far as a loss of sensitivity there isn't any reasonable way of telling. Getting snipped as an adult would turn most men off to sex for a long time. The fact that the damn thing burns all the time and the idea of peeing makes you cringe would kill any scientific study.

"He was 5 weeks premature, they chopped off part of his anatomy, and yes, it darn sure could have killed him." Wait after a few week or right there with him being premature? Um, that's not just barbaric it's dangerous. The doctor who did it should have his head (and license) examined.

Before he left the hospital, so say 2 weeks after birth? Unreal.

Reasonable minds will differ on this subject, which is why I prefer to keep the law out of it. But minds that conflate mutilating a female clitoris with male circumcision are not reasonable. Your opinions will be discounted.

Q: How many examples of death are necessary?
A: A statisticlly significant number.

"I'm against any sort of mutilation of children who cannot speak and have no choice in the matter: ears"

I've never had my ears pierced, but don't the holes grow back in if you take out the studs? This is what I'm talking about with the reasonableness. It's a fucking ear piercing and you want to compare it to actual, real, cruel female genital mutilation.

do the islamists circumcize? I thought that was a Judeo-Christian thing...

Beyond that, I think most of the arguments pro/con are ciphers. It's a pain to keep the inside foreskin clean initially, and my son had several infections when he was a little kid, even though my ex and I were diligent. She was the one who couldn't bear to have her son cut, traditions or hygiene be damned.

On the other hand the whole HIV thing? In countries that would make such laws, HIV is generally about behavior of people who are likely to know better. It is unlikley to be an unknown, and they are making a decision. They are unlikely to use protection either, so the circ/non-circ argument isn't going to make a difference.

It all boils down to tradition and convenience. I wouldn't call tonsilectomy mutilation, and there have been pro an con over the years about if it should be routine [which it was in the 50's] or not, which it is now. I know a number of adults who have had it [including myself] and for us it's painful, you have to take off work, and it's expensive. I can already tell it helps to have them gone. But if you poll 3 doctors you'll get 3 different answers if it should be done.

Circs will probably have much less medical payoff, because either you do it as a baby, or not, and you can never tell later if it is a help or hinderance. When you are a baby there is very little differentiation of the foreskin, so the surgery itself is much easier, and children heal much, much faster, and they don't remember. There on in, it has been done, so who can tell if it's a help or not.

If you don't snip, then other things will be. Has to be kept clean, it does NEED to be a medical issue to do the circ later, because as the boy grows it is more difficult to deal with, and will be much more painful to heal. To the point where a doctor will advise against. Mechanically there are simply more issues that I never even have to think about that my kid does every day. The unsnipped would have to speak to the question of ease of use of a condom if that extra skin is around.

So for all that this seems to really be a non issue the pros and cons seem pretty lightweight. This is n't abuse, it's a traditional medical decision.

The question I'd have to ask, is how much of this furor is completely related to this being a Judeo-Christion Men's tradition. I don't seem to hear much outrage on some of the traditions in aboriginal tribes, which is a coming of age ritual, but nonetheless not a choice for the boy. On the other hand the most populous nations in the world don't practice circ, and it doesn't seem to do much harm.

It's an aweful lot ado about not much. However. My son is now somewhat unhappy that he isn't like everyone else. That decision was made for him after quite the large argument by a woman who will never know what the issue actually means.

> Can't read the whole comment
> stream which aspect are you
> referring to

Read the whole comment stream at the link I can't be bothered by inquiries without punctuation or inquisitors who won't do the reading or won't take a point even when they do Duwayne does that too but nobody has the time to make an entire customized argument for every lazy-assed reader who stops by Amy's blog if you wanna pick a fight with someone you oughta have the time and the candlepower to determine whether your perspectives have already been considered knowutimeanjellybean?

smurfy:

Q: How many examples of death are necessary?
A: A statisticlly significant number.

Those boys were human beings. They were healthy when their parents decided to surgically mutilate their genitals. They died. You and I have a very different understanding of ethics and rights if you think their deaths under those conditions are acceptable merely because they aren't statistically significant within the population.

As for comparing male and female genital mutilation, they are morally/ethically the same violation. Cutting the healthy genitals of a person who cannot or does not consent is a human rights violation. The outcome determines the severity of the punishment only, not the validity of the act.

Also, not all FGM involves cutting the clitoris. A pinprick to draw a symbolic drop of blood from a female minor's genitals is illegal, as it should be. Slicing off as much foreskin as parents or doctors choose is illegitimately permitted. That's hardly consistent, yet you ignore this possibility in choosing only data that is convenient for what you want to believe. If we're discounting opinions, let's discount those based on a refusal to consider all facts.

For example, if I suggest that a surgeon who removes the foreskin of a male should receive an equivalent punishment to a surgeon who removes a female's clitoris and labia and sews up what's left, that would be insane. But to pretend that the former should be ignored (or encouraged) because the latter is more severe is a ridiculous indifference to the existence of a spectrum of possible violations. Individuals do not lose their humanity and basic rights because they lost the genetic lottery when they received a Y chromosome. Or, rather, they do not gain humanity only if they receive two X chromosomes. That's the logical conclusion if a healthy child's death from a surgery he did not need is irrelevant because not enough of his fellow male humans die during the procedure.

If someone punches me, have I been harmed? Or do I have to wait for my attacker to kill me first to have a legitimate claim? Only if enough other people die in a similar way? What if the punch breaks my arm and reveals bone cancer that can be treated, thus saving my life? Hey, it's a medical benefit, so I have nothing to complain about, right?

If a person wants to become a parent, he or she must be expected to accept all that comes with it, as Amy says. If that entirety of the task is unacceptable, including the likelihood that the child will have normal human genitals, buy a plant. Feel free to prune it as much as desired. But humans have rights derived from their existence, not granted to the extent their parents wish to grant them by virtue of providing DNA or the extent society wishes to grant based on socially accepted behavior.

Saying that a foreskin interferes with condom use is just plain silly. Even been with someone with one? When you get an erection, the foreskin naturally, as it was DESIGNED TO DO, pulls back as the penis lengthens, exposing the tip of the penis. Very hard to tell an excited guy is uncircumsized. The skin that's been hidden under that foreskin, not subjected to chaffing, is much more sensitive to pleasure.

Foreskins don't pull back (unless the parents forcibly do it attempting to "clean") until puberty. Until then, they do a great job of keeping the penis perfectly clean and safe. AFter then, one assumes that a boy can be told to pull the loose skin back and wash, just like they are told to wash behind their ears.

I have to separate my daughters labia when wiping them. Should I cut them off to save myself the trouble?

Any child dying from an unnecessary surgical mutilation is too many. Tonsils often do need to come out, if a child has lots of infected throats. Some foreskins would need to come off, if a child had certain medical issues. Neither organ should be whacked off every kid willy-nilly. See if it's needed, which can not be told in babies.

SwissD, where do you live that he's not like everyone else? Over the last 20 years, circumcision rates have gone from around 85% to about 45%. By the time my kids are in gym class, cut boys will be the minority.

Saying a baby doesn't remember the pain, so what does it matter, is absurd as well. They darn sure do feel it. And get nothing for it. Older people can get painkillers. Circumsized baby boys are fussier, feed more poorly, and sleep less then their uncut counterparts. Hurting something that can't tell you in words that it does hurt does not mean it's ok.

Amy asked;

Why? Not why consider it, but why do it?

My dad was circumcised out of medical necessity when he was twelve. He got an infection and would have lost his entire cock if they hadn't circumcised - indeed it was close even then.

When he was sixteen he fell off the loft of a barn and broke an arm, a leg and several ribs.

By far, the circumcision was the most traumatizing experience of his life. He is 73 and still shudders when it comes up - which it has because neither of my sons are circumcised.

The only reason there was a problem for him, is that no one explained the care he would have to take to keep it clean and avoid infection. No one explained anything about it at all. We do know about it and are taking care to ensure that the boys will be fine.

I am not pro-cutting, but I wish it were possible to tell if someone will need it in the future, because like my dad, I am cut. Only I was cut as an infant and have absolutely no memory of it - no trauma.

I am also surprised to find that I pretty much agree with everything that momof3 had to say on a topic, with a minor nitpick. Click on my name for the post by a doctor who has actually performed a great many circumcisions (and who comes out neither for, nor against - just provides actual arguments and evidence or lackthereof for said arguments, on both sides). It is now the piece that I will point to, on the odd occasions when the topic comes up.

In short, they actually do use anesthesia and pain relievers in most places.

I'm at risk of crossing a boundary described by Welch: "[T]here are few things as eternally annoying, in any direction, than the criticism of 'why isn't this one dude blogging about THIS THING I'M TOTALLY LASER BEAMING RIGHT NOW!!'"

Harshing Amy about her topics --as I'm about to do-- is kind of like moonwalking over that boundary, but it's still an incursion. I'm guilty as charged!

Male circumcision, especially as conducted under anesthetic by modern practitioners, is a trivial thing. As I understand it, it somewhat reduces the incidence of cancer and greatly reduces the incidence of stenosis, but these are both statistically trivial threats anyway. To call it "surgery" is grandiose, as would be so describing any number or routine dental procedures.

But to call it "mutilation" is just crackers. Saying that is just nuts. It's looney... Looney tunes. It's bonkers, it's whack, and it's rude and dumb.

It's like the abortion thing: If you really think this is "mutilation", than anyone who's done this to their child should be imprisoned, correct? Answer carefully: You mean it or you don't. Some language, especially the language for criminal conduct, is more precious than jewelry, and ought not be pilfered. You shouldn't call abortion "murder" unless you mean it, and you shouldn't call modern male circumcision "mutilation" unless you mean it.

And if you really mean it, I think you should find better things to worry about with children.

There are some pathetic young women out there who are too concerned with their appearance. They fuss loudly over clothes that make them "look fat", and pester their families with noisy dramas of high school isolation, and go to college and whine about Hollywood and women's magazines and a cruel culture that doesn't care.

Really loving families don't let that happen. They teach their daughters what beauty can and can't do for their lives, and don't let them tumble into a pattern of anti-social navel-gazing (aka "somatic preoccupation").

But a man, of any age, who gets all fussy and distracted with his unit is just as pathetic. Proper circumcision has no meaningful effect on the pleasure he can give or take... I've never, ever heard a woman say she has a preference. (And even if a woman does, so what? What if you're Irish, but she likes black guys? Women have preferences about a lot of things. How much whining do you want to encourage men to do? What would you think of parents, or a government, that made it a point to tell teenage daughters that they really do look fat in those pants?)

Parents do so much to form the character of the sons that to worry about this --and to legislate a ban on it-- just seems like a waste of time. Do you really think they have nothing better to worry about in Denmark? Even if you think religion is a problem over there, as Amy certainly does, is this the manifestation that's most troubling?

So crid you have had sex both before and after a circumcision then?

Because if not how would you know there is no difference?

Just as a minor bit of input: outside of the USA (and presumably Israel), circumcision is very unusual.

I live in Europe. Being fairly active in sports, I am in the public showers of gyms or whatever a couple of times a week. While I haven't exactly made a study of it, I don't recall ever seeing anyone who was circumcised.

The idea that one has lots of infections, or other problems with an uncircumcised penis would be met here with stares of incomprehension. As a parent, one teaches a boy to pull back his foreskin once in a while when bathing, rather like one tells him to wash behind his ears. End of story.

Frankly, I find non-religious defenses of circumcision hilarious. Who knows how circumcision became established in the USA? It started back in the late 19th century: One wanted to discourage teenage boys from masturbating so much, and the theory was that the head of the circumcised penis would rub on the boys clothes, thereby becoming less sensitive, thereby making masturbation less attractive. Any justifications made up since then are whitewash or wishful thinking.

Yes a good dr will use anesthetic, now. That's recent. The child gets no painkillers after the fact though, and it doesn't stop hurting 10 minutes after.

Good point Bradley, on why it even got started here in the US.

And since you brought it up Yes, some parents-LOTS, actually, DO need to tell their daughters they look fat in those pants (as if that's comparable to chopping off a body part). America did not get this fat on accident.

No one's encouraging men to whine. We're encouraging parents not to chop off children's body parts for no reason.

Crid:

You do a very good job of explaining your subjective opinion on circumcision. You don't value the foreskin. Congrats. But that makes you no different than the central planner who dictates exactly how many widgets will be made this year and the price at which they're sold. You don't want widgets, you'd prefer whatsits? Nonsense, you'll love widgets.

Subjective value is fine, as it pertains to you. I do not care what you do to yourself, or even how you evaluate what may have been done to you. It's irrelevant. The problem is not circumcision. The surgery - and it is surgery - is neutral. The imposition of that on another is not neutral. Proxy consent must require medical need.

But you dispose of any such consideration of facts. WebMD is generally very bad on circumcision, but they explain some risks of the surgery. (They call it surgery because it's surgery.) These risks and complications are rare, but they occur. Should the males who suffer those at the whim of their parents ignore the reality of their bodies because you do believe circumcision is trivial? When you trivialize circumcision to a circumcised male, do you know that hasn't suffered one of those complications?

You also ignore the plain meaning of words. The Merriam-Webster definition of mutilate (no link because 2 links will spam the comment):

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

You seem to ignore any possibility that the circumcised penis has been made imperfect. There's no difference, you say. You're wrong, but fine, I'll concede it for the sake of the argument and toss definition 1 out.

Definition 2 is clearly in play. The foreskin has biological functions. It protects the glans. It maintains the moist mucous membrane of the normal penis. It provides sexual pleasure. So, circumcision cuts off an essential part of the normal human penis, generally from a healthy child who can't consent (that being the crux of the problem). Statistics suggest he wouldn't if given the choice. Whatever his opinion of it after the fact, the act itself is mutilation.

Regarding your question of whether or not anyone who does this to their child should be imprisoned, I'll answer carefully: Yes.

It is battery, a violation of the rights of a human being. We can see that clearly for girls, making any such genital cutting for any reason a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment. I won't make an exception based solely on gender. Reality matters, and equal protection is more than just a fuzzy concept to apply to tasks such as voting.

Think of all the money you save from not having to buy a lifetimes worth of hand lotion. You're reducing your carbon footprint. All you pro-circumcision people are destroying the planet!!!!!!
I never asked why but I'm damn glad my parents left me alone.

If anyone (stranger or relative) walked up to me after my daughter's birth and suggested taking a knife to her genitals for any reason except to save her life or otherwise implement some similarly breath-taking and indisputable benefit, I suspect I would have reacted with immediate rage and, likely, violence. I then would make sure that person was never alone with my daughter, ever. I think that is a proper response.

I suspect many fathers not burdened by stone age-era prejudices would react similarly.

In light of that, I am always puzzled why people who feel like I do about their daughters shrug when family and strangers suggest mutilating a son's genitals. But the agreement to let it happen? Unbelievable.

> how would you know
> there is no difference?

Because you can't tell the difference between men who are circumcised and not by their behavior. With a sample as large as the one available to us, we'd know if there were a difference. Before telling sex jokes to guys at football parties, we don't have to ask "You guys are all circumcised, right?..." They'll get the punch line anyway.

> You do a very good job of
> explaining your subjective
> opinion

Thanks! I work hard at it. I think my "subjective opinion" is worth more than other people's "subjective opinions", so it's important to share effectively... And I do it all for you, babe!

(Anytime someone says "Opinions are like assholes", you know you're dealing with someone who hasn't spent much time discussing policy. It's self-defeating bluster from a seventh grader with no confidence in his principles... Did you ever hear a politician say it, even the council member in a small town? If the beliefs of adversaries have no value, then they can never join you as allies... But people change opinions about things all the time, so persuasion is worth more than haughty dismissal. And anyway, opinions aren't like assholes: Opinions can be backed up with something besides shit.)

> that makes you no different
> than the central planner
> who dictates

For fuck's sake, Tony, aren't you the ones supporting national legislation to "dictate" the private behavior of families? You picked a weird hour to complain about "central" authority.

> The surgery - and it
> is surgery -

Says who? Again, it's no more surgery than is a dental filling with local anesthesia. If you came up to me during lunch at work on Thursday demanding weepy sympathy because you'd had that kind of "surgery" in the morning, I'd laugh in your face. And I'd tell you what I'd say to any healthy grown man who gives more than twenty seconds reflection to a circumcision from his earliest hours: "Grow up!"

> is neutral.

What does "neutral" mean? Between which opposing forces is it poised?

> WebMD is generally very bad
> on circumcision

It's usual considered poor form to denegrate the authorites one's about to cite. The only reason you consider them "very bad" on this is that they disagree with you. Of course there are risks, but there are risks in everything. Children riding in buses to schools risk horrible accidents in glass and steel shells without seat belts. Parents nonetheless think the risk is worth it for teaching the little buggers how to read. The fact that you can imagine a horrific outcome in a venture doesn't tell you whether to worry about it or not. The medical professionals, knowing best what can go wrong, say not to worry.

> complications are rare, but they
> occur. Should the males who
> suffer those at the whim of
> their parents

Who says the parents are whimsical? In a well-functioning regimine of innoculations, a small number of children are certain to experience complications from improbable reactions and misadministration. But it's silly, and disproportionate, and childish to say that they "suffer those at the whim" of parents. Bad outcomes can come from anything you do in life.

> You also ignore the plain
> meaning of words.

Yeah?

> 1 : to cut up or alter radically

Right. I say it's not radical, so it's not mutilation.

> so as to make imperfect

Don't go all Jean-Jacques Rousseau on my ass. Circumcision improves a child's unit, just as mild flouridation improves his dentistry.

> ignore the reality of their bodies

For a guy so eager to cite science and logic, "the reality of their bodies" is a deep incursion into teenage poetry.

> the foreskin has biological
> functions.

No more than does the appendix, which nowadays just kills people. Our bodies aren't perfect: If you ever knew anyone who got sick, then you know this is true.

> It provides sexual pleasure.

Oh, puh-leeze. You can't know that it does any more than I know that it can't.

> whether or not anyone who
> does this to their child
> should be imprisoned, I'll
> answer carefully: Yes.

If you'd put that at the top of your comment, I wouldn't have bothered writing all this out. You're exactly the sort of wounded, narcissistic ally I was afraid Amy would attract to her cause with this argument.

Good luck out there. In a world with real demons to be defeated, you're going to have a tough time finding people with free time to fight on behalf of your "rights."

> You're reducing your
> carbon footprint.

At last- An argument perfectly proportioned to the topic. Sean wins the Advice Goddess travel mug.

> I suspect many fathers not
> burdened by stone age-era
> prejudices would react
> similarly.

It's a lot of fun to call other people names, isn't it? It's so much fun that sometimes people will do it for no good reason.

> how would you know
> there is no difference?

Because you can't tell the difference between men who are circumcised and not by their behavior

So, Crid, how often do you watch circumcised and non curcumsicised men having sex - that you are so easily able to tell that there is no difference between them?

crid:

It was clear that I was not arguing that "opinions are like assholes" in order to discount your opinion. Your opinion is correct for what you choose for yourself.

I am the one supporting national legislation to limit the behavior of individuals within families against each other, specifically genital modification imposed on a healthy child. Are laws against assault illegitimate because they limit the private behavior of families? Laws against child abuse? Or, to stay on topic, laws against female genital mutilation? Those limit families. Even though you disagree in conclusion, surely you see the difference between a law limiting your behavior to act upon yourself and a law limiting your behavior to act upon another.

... it's no more surgery than is a dental filling with local anesthesia.

We're not dealing on the same level of intellectual seriousness if you refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Perhaps accepting that circumcision is surgery need not change your opinion. But it's simply undeniable that it's a surgical intervention.

Circumcision is neutral. The circumstances where it is applied give it it's subjective evaluation. Circumcising a child to adhere to something God demanded is negative. Circumcising a child to correct a medical need that can't be corrected with less invasive interventions is positive. An adult choosing circumcision for himself is positive or negative, depending on his own interpretation. If he has himself circumcised to adhere to what he believes God demanded, I do not care. I imagine it's a positive ritual for him. I do not seek to limit that because that circumcision is neutral for public policy.

You're correct to demand clarification when I criticized WebMD. I forgot a key explanation. My point was that it states the commonly accepted story on circumcision. It is generally very bad on the ethics of circumcision. It conflates potential benefits and parental whims with ethics. That is flawed. But it's merely fact to state complications and risks, or even potential benefits. I can acknowledge the latter at the same time I expect society to respect an individual's willingness to risk life with a normal body.

The medical professionals, knowing best what can go wrong, say not to worry.

Medical professionals evaluate the risk according to their own preferences for risk. That evaluation is subjective. Each individual has his or her own risk aversion. I value risk and potential benefits differently. You're saying medical professionals are right in their estimate, just like you're saying that your evaluation that circumcision is trivial is correct. Again, the problem is the imposition, not the circumcision.

Medical professionals have also been wrong throughout history. The history of infant circumcision in America demonstrates this.

But it's silly, and disproportionate, and childish to say that they "suffer those at the whim" of parents.

Circumcision and vaccination are separate issues. There is no public health risk from leaving a healthy child intact. No one else's rights are at stake.

If you honestly assess the reasons parents give for circumcising, you'll agree that it is nothing more than whim.

Circumcision improves a child's unit, ...

Circumcision improves a child's penis, according to you. Whose opinion are you ignoring? Maybe some men don't find a scar circling the penis aesthetically pleasing. Maybe some men don't find shaft skin asymmetrically reconnected to the remaining foreskin aesthetically pleasing. Maybe some men don't find painful erections resulting from a tight circumcision an improvement. All tastes and preferences are subjective. Subjective means not necessarily synced with crid's opinion.

Strike "the reality of their bodies" if it's too emo for you. I meant it as facts and science. Replace it with "skin bridge", "meatal stenosis", or any other complication I implied based on the link.

No more than does the appendix, ...

Maybe not.

I readily admit that I don't like being circumcised. However, I'm not saying circumcision is bad. I said the act is neutral. I've even said it's fine for parents to circumcise if there's a genuine medical need. I'm only demanding that each person be permitted to choose which medically unnecessary procedures he undergoes. I'm arguing for individual rights, not outcomes. All you've done is argue that parents should be free to circumcise their children because you think the outcome is acceptable and good. I'm arguing for choice, you're arguing for imposition. I'm not the narcissist in our discussion.

I agree that parents can't be given carte blanche to do whatever they want to their kids regardless of harm or risk. But the degree of harm and risk caused by circumcision is much too low to justify government intervention, especially since there are possible health benefits to the procedure.

The anti-circumcision posts above concede that circumcision can reduce the risk of certain infections, but they discount this benefit by saying that proper hygienic practices will also prevent those. Well, let's take another example. Birth control pills carry a risk of harmful side effects for some few users, and they're totally unnecessary for anyone who avoids certain obvious behaviors. Does that mean that parents should be forbidden to have them prescribed for their 14-year-old daughters?

Crid's post above mentioned the appendix, and that's another good example. Suppose there was a medical procedure that allowed the appendix to be removed from a newborn with no more pain or risk of harm than now exists with circumcision. (I wouldn't be surprised if this was a reality in the not-too-distant future, perhaps using nanobots armed with lasers.) Would you forbid parents from having that done on the grounds that it was unnecessary surgery (after all, most people go through life with no trouble at all from their appendix)?

For the record, my parents were atheists, but I and all my brothers are circumcised. My parents believed in the health benefits of the practice.

You know most people only need one kidney, imagine if we had everyone remove on kidney at birth and just saved them for later.

After all not everyone need both kidneys, or their entire liver.

ANd we could all aviod infections by being forced to live in hazmat suits.

Who about, brring any medical NEED, you let a child make up his own mind before you force something on him.

Because no man really needs a penis at all we could harvest sperm directly from the testicles and by removing the penis at birth no one will ever get their dich stcuk in a zipper of pee on a toilet seat again

You know most people only need one kidney, imagine if we had everyone remove on kidney at birth and just saved them for later.

This whole topic is one on which reasonable people can disagree. However, I'm seeing rather more unreason on the anti-circumcision side in this thread, and this one's the cherry on top. Circumcision is like removing a kidney? That's far sillier than anything the religious nutters have used to justify the practice.

> It was clear that I was not
> arguing that "opinions are like
> assholes" in order to discount
> your opinion.

It was precisely that. You need a primer.

> Your opinion is correct for
> what you choose for yourself.

That's three second-persons in one short sentence, and you still won't let parents (even loving Jewish ones!) raise kids the way they want. Don't pretend to be freedom-loving and open-minded.

> Are laws against assault
> illegitimate

Circumcision isn't assault any more than dentistry is.

> to stay on topic, laws against
> female genital mutilation?

Your likening of these two procedures is grotesque. If you offered it to a woman who'd suffered 'circumcision', she'd spit in your eye, but you'd deserve far worse. It's an infantile, transparent, and counter-productive land-grab of the pain of another for your own sniveling purposes. Your rhetoric doesn't make male circumcision seem worse; it trivializes the horrifically violent disfigurement of women.

> surely you see the difference
> between a law limiting your
> behavior to act upon yourself
> and a law limiting your behavior
> to act upon another.

An inexcusable power play. Were it to be successful, there's no doubt you'd soon find other ways to interfere with the traditions by which children are raised. You ought not be trusted with that kind of authority.

> We're not dealing on the same
> level of intellectual
> seriousness

One way to recognize an intellectual is that they don't put the word "intellectual" in front of things... Intellectual honesty, intellectual seriousness, 'thinking critically', etc. What's the difference between intellectual seriousness and regular seriousness?

> it's simply undeniable that it's
> a surgical intervention.

These are all grade-school manipulations of language. OK... Sure, it's surgery. It's a wickedly disruptive invasion of the fleshy integrity of a human being. But if you set the standard that low, we will (as suggested above) never again be concerned when you approach the forum with medical concerns. You're The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and you're close friends with Chicken Little. Your sensitivities aren't refined and alert, they're untested and uncalibrated. You've got no idea how much pain can be brought into a human life, let alone how much is likely to eventually reach your life, if you're typical.

> Circumcising a child to adhere
> to something God demanded is
> negative.

Well golly, I know Jews who don't feel that way about it at all.

> An adult choosing circumcision
> for himself is positive or
> negative, depending on his own
> interpretation.

I have no excuse for playing along with you on this... It's obvious you've never tried this thought out on any other person. But why would an adult choose circumcision for himself if it were "negative"?

> That evaluation is subjective.

It would be helpful for you to talk to people face to face about this matter, as well as other topics. Words like "subjective" and "neutral" don't mean what they think you do, and they certainly don't buttress your argument.

> Circumcision and vaccination are
> separate issues.

They're analogous: A child is unwittingly ("whimsically"!) subjected to a tiny risk in order to diminish another, somewhat larger (if still small) risk.

> There is no public health risk
> from leaving a healthy child
> intact.

First of all, "intact" is yet another example of teenage wordplay. I (presumably) know many, many circumcised men. Their lives are very much intact, and they have no complaint with their dorks. Secondly, there's no public health risk from a child whose teeth have rotted out of his head, either. But you don't admire a parent who lets it happen.

> "skin bridge", "meatal
> stenosis", or any other
> complication

That's bogus: Good numbers are available from lots of places, and it's essentially a draw. Partial protection from HIV, and almost certain protection from phimosis make circumcision worthwhile, if you ask me. (And you were asking, weren't you?) You'll never guess what the treatment for phimosis is: That's right! Circumcision!

> I readily admit that I don't
> like being circumcised

Far too readily. It's what makes me think this is a personal matter, and certainly no foundation for Europe's response to religious fanaticism. Your erotic "aesthetics" are your own beeswax. As with the creeped-out teenage girl described earlier, I'm pretty sure whatever's wrong with your love life is in your own heart, not with what's in your pants.

> I'm only demanding that each
> person be permitted to choose
> which medically unnecessary
> procedures he undergoes.

No. We will insist that parents be held responsible for the medical procedures for their children.

> I'm not the narcissist in our discussion.

Anybuddy else here got a complaint with their unit? (My own swingin' mojo machine has brought only gratitude and delight to all who've encountered it. And if it hadn't, I still wouldn't blame the parents.)

Actually there are good medical reasons for doing so, from my article : It has long been noted that nuns and Jewish women have extremely low incidences of cervical cancer. The one thing they have in common? They do not have sex with uncircumcised men...

I forgot to add, I am a circumcised Atheist Jew who does think that ritual circumcision is a primitive practice but am thankful that it was done to me.

I should add that circumcision does not in any way reduce the likelihood of masturbation since as a youth I masturbated even after sex.

As for washing off the smegma, that is contrary to its purpose which is to act as a lubricant between the glans and the foreskin. No such accumulation can happen in cut men nor is there any purpose to it since female smegma (among young women) is enough of a lubricant.

As for instructing children on how to fold back the skin during showers and how to properly peel off any cheese, there are too many uptight religious parents in this country to rely on parental instruction to facilitate good washing habits in that area.

Certainly if we as a society get to the point where sexuality is taught correctly and unashamedly in this country then perhaps doing away with circumcision might be a good thing.

Yes, it's mutilation, although in my case it did not rob me of anything I miss. I have a normal life. My only objection would be tying it in with FGM.

I am not saying that we shouldn't have a discussion about the pros and cons, however FGM should not even be part of the argument just as one can discuss whether one should ever pull out infant teeth but not have the discussion wander into the territory of "pulling out infant teeth is just like Muslims pulling out teeth of infidels."

The fact that Muslims do it for reasons different than ours means we should keep them in seperate categories because conflating the two only confuses the discussion as we have seen from the way the comments have threaded.

crid:

Neither you nor Mr. Bennett roamed my brain when I wrote my comment. If your interpretation is not what I intended, then the problem is with your interpretation skills or my writing skills. It's a minor point, so I'll consider it a draw with the likely flaw on my part.

Imposing surgery on a healthy child is an odd interpretation of freedom. Forgive me for thinking "raise kids the way they want" is a little too broad. Children are not property. Bodily integrity and self-ownership are not rights granted upon reaching the age of majority.

When I had my first two wisdom teeth pulled as a teen, my mother consented to the surgery. When I had the remaining two removed last year, I consented. In both cases, there was need. Need is the key.

I've spoken with women who had their genitals mutilated. They agreed with me.

Still, you bring up an interesting point I figured out long ago. Refusing to make a gender distinction in the ethical argument against genital mutilation bothers people because they think I'm suggesting that I don't have a problem with FGM. On the contrary, it's despicable and I can't imagine the loss of humanity a person needs to achieve to impose it on a person.

Nor am I suggesting that the results of MGM are the same as FGM in the typical cases. They're not. But that is not an ethical free pass on MGM. We can't ignore the margins of either, and we can't ignore the act in every case, the surgical alteration of a healthy individual who can't consent.

Is it wrong that the Female Genital Mutilation Act in the United States makes no distinction between lesser forms of FGM that are physically similar to MGM and the worst disfigurements of FGM? Is that a trivialization of the latter?

Surgery is an odd tradition, in my view. But I'm not rejecting that. Imposing surgery on another is an indefensible tradition.

As for who should have authority, I'm not the one who thinks surgery on healthy children is medically justifiable. If a standard that requires medical need before imposing medical intervention is somehow low, then yes, I'm setting it that low. Ethics, and all that.

I know Jews who feel that circumcision is a negative. So what? Some Christians circumcise because they think, if it was good enough for Jesus... My point is that imposing medically unnecessary circumcision on a child because God demands it is a negative. It's the ethics.

I find it highly unlikely that an adult would have himself circumcised because he thinks it's a negative. But the human psyche is a strange animal. (We circumcise healthy infants.) Hence my throwaway nod to the unlikely possibility.

I speak with people face-to-face about circumcision. Some people listen, some people don't. Teens are the most receptive because they're not defensive. They haven't had anyone circumcised, and they're willing to listen to views that don't fit what their parents have said. Teen girls are more receptive than teen boys, usually grasping the irrationality of circumcision and the ethical comparison that ignores gender.

Vaccination is a red-herring best left for later, if at all.

Using "intact" the way I use it is not teenage wordplay. The way you use it is a semantic diversion. I've said nothing about lives not being intact. "Intact" is a physical characteristic attributable to the penis. Everything that was there at birth is still there. I'm not pretending that up is down.

Would you remove portion's a child's teeth to avoid cavities? Or do you teach the child to brush them? Not removing a kid's foreskin is not the same as neglecting it. Teach a kid to brush. Teach a kid to clean his penis, including foreskin. I'd be thrilled if parents used the same amount of logic for each.

Phimosis is a medical condition to be dealt with if it appears. It rarely does. And circumcision is not the only treatment. Steroid cream and gentle stretching are the places to start. If those don't work, circumcise. I don't deny medical need; I merely require it for children. I've suggested nothing to the contrary.

For HIV prevention, condoms are far more effective. Cheaper, too. For the rest, take a look at the causes of penile diseases. Smoking, poor hygiene, stuff like that. Don't smoke. Bathe regularly. It's not complicated. Europeans countries where circumcision is rare have very similar rates for those diseases, sometimes having lower incidences.

I'm going to skip the next bit because it's just ad hominem. Interesting theory, though.

If parents are responsible, what about cases where religious parents refuse to provide medical treatment to their children when they need it? They have plenary authority to make that decision? If not, define the limits.

Immature banter about sexual prowess is neither an ethical nor a medical defense of child circumcision. Too many subjective variables involved, as well as a no-longer possible control to compare and contrast against. However, yay for you.

> I've spoken with women who had
> their genitals mutilated. They
> agreed with me.

I don't believe for an instant.

Bernie, are you SERIOUSLY implying foreskin causes cervical cancer? How on earth would that happen? Do they leave a little invisible trace on the cervix as they rub?

I would argue that nuns do not have sex, therefor are unlikely to catch the std that causes most cervical cancers. As for jewish women, well, I am unlikely to pass on tay-sachs or sickle cell. Every ethnic group has their genetic pros and cons. Maybe that's jewish women's pro?

Crid, many articles by women who have undergone, and now fight, FGM do mention the male form and are open to a gender-neutral law. That is what most people here want, right? gender-neutral laws? Because there's an awful lot of ranting here about VAWA and the like. If you don't have the right to mutilate, or hit, your daughter, you should not have the right to do so to your son. Seems simple enough to me. It's rare I don't agree with Crid, but I think he's off the reservation here. It's not trivial, or a cavity-filling.

Crid, as a woman, I can about assure you it's not always brought pleasure to everyone who encountered it. No matter what they said to you.

I'm still wondering how Crid knows that men who are circumcised and men who are not circumcised have no noticeable differences while having sex

> many articles by women who have
> undergone, and now fight, FGM do
> mention the male form

Link them.

> That is what most people here
> want, right? gender-neutral
> laws?

Who on Earth put such an idea in your head?

> there's an awful lot of ranting
> here about VAWA

And yet I had to Google the acronym: Nevah hoidavit.

> as a woman, I can about assure
> you it's not always brought
> pleasure

Your response to an obviously comedic passage is telling. We're compelled to imagine the moments of clumsiness you've endured in the company of men who didn't have your feelings at the forefront of their attention.

> men who are not circumcised have
> no noticeable differences

Loojy, the spelling errors are easy to ignore... We don't all have to be reading exactly the same paragraph at exactly the same moment. But it would really speed the process here if you gave some evidence of having reflected on the first answer to your question.

I adore Amy's blog and visit every day, but Reynolds has the best foreskin blog post of the weekend.

And as long as we're dealing with topics from our underwear, the image described on January 25, 2007 5:34 PM can be found here.

Is there anything Google can't do?

Oh but Crid, it's not about me or what I may or may not have experienced (although, since I've been pretty open on abortion threads recently about my violent rape at age 14, you might be less frivolous than to call them moments of clumsiness). Whether or not a man had my pleasure at heart, wanting and doing are 2 different things. You wanna brag on your abilities, we're gonna call bullshit since that's exactly what it is. Comedic too, no doubt.

Or were you the first man on earth who was good right out of the gate?

I'm not going searching to find articles I've read at some point in my life. Illuminating your ignorance is not my job. You google.

crid:

Since it's clear you have no interest in anything that differs from your opinions about what should be facts, I'm even more curious how you'd answer this from my last response:

If parents are responsible, what about cases where religious parents refuse to provide medical treatment to their children when they need it? They have plenary authority to make that decision? If not, define the limits.

The core of our disagreement is probably expressed in how I think you'd respond to that paragraph.

I find it interesting people are assuring me that reasonable people can disagree over this issue.

Well, actually, whether you and I agree should be immaterial. The people who should be agreeing (or more likely, not agree) are too young to talk!

I can have all sorts of "reasonable" opinions about how I want to modify or otherwise impact other people's bodies, but when I want to act on them, I am pretty sure I should have their full, informed consent before doing so. And if they are too young to give that consent, I should wait until they get old enough, and then ask them for permission.

How is this hard to grasp, whatever body part you are talking about? If parents want to slice up their kid's junk for cosmetic, religious or negligible (perhaps illusory) health benefits, they should wait until the kid is old enough to explain his preference.

Of course, the problem with that is those kids will likely actually exercise their preference to avoid near-pointless suffering and say "NFW!" to the idea.

Hence, parents do it before the kids can state their preference. There are words for this behavior in other circumstances. Tradition is providing cover in this case, allowing people to pretend the procedure is not just a barbaric echo ringing in our ears.

This sort of human behavior isn't new, but I do hope it is increasingly out of style.

This is a very sensitive topic (pardon the pun). I had my son circumsized. His dad was - as well as every man I've ever been with (giving away my age here) - so it seemed right to me 18 years ago. I also believed that it was cleaner and might prevent cancer and infections, which seemed a reasonable precaution for a two minute snip of VERY TINY baby foreskin. It is NOT major surgery. It is quick - there's a few cries, and then the baby is back asleep.

Certainly nothing like the tonsillectomy that I, as a mother, also decided upon and authorized last spring for my 14 yr old daughter, who was getting sore throats and snoring so loudly that it didn't seem to me she was breathing well at night.

Not life-threatening either. She could've lived with sore throats and snoring her whole life. But her grades have gone back to all "A"s since the surgery, so I feel I made the right choice to "mutilate" her in that way, though it was optional...and much riskier than circumcision.

I don't know if my choice to circumcize my son was right or wrong - or maybe neutral. He's never had an infection, and I really think that it would've be tougher for him to keep that area clean during childhood. You can call it the parent's responsibility, but try bathing a 9 yr old boy! I couldn't go in and wash his penis for him - or be SURE he washed it properly! And I don't care how much you teach and lecture - about teeth brushing and hygiene - kids simply do not always follow your advice.

Actually, when he was around 11, he got stung by a bee down there - on the tip of his penis - and I actually had to go in the bathroom and try to treat it. MORTIFYING for both of us!

So, after the toddler years, there's no way a parent - particularly a mom - can check cleanliness down there without being obtrusive. And one certainly wouldn't want to always be asking a young boy, "Did you clean it?" Personally, I think that might cause more trauma than an early circumcision.

Crid,

You claimed there is no noticeable difference between men who are circumcised and men who are not - my question to you is who would you know unless you watched them - kind of a cheap shot but I enjoyed it.

There is also no noticeable difference between people with diabetes and those without it, but people without diabetes can enjoy things people who suffer from the disease do not.

The point is you can not say for certainty that foreskin is useless, it wouldn’t be there is it didn’t serve a purpose.

I have a rare view of tonsillectomies, as judging whether children feel less pain and heal faster. My DH got one (to solve the snoring that was keeping him out of my bed) electively 3 years ago, in his 30s. It hurt him. He stayed overnight with a morphine drip, then was sent home with loratab. A few days in bed of liquids and pain meds, he was back at work at most a week later.
My 4 year old had them out a few months ago, for the sore throats and snoring. Again, "elective". She did not get kept the night, was sent home with hydrocodone. She went 10 days eating nothing, screaming when I made her drink, laying on a the couch. 10 days. What age either had less pain, or was better equiped to handle it? Not the kid.

I doubt circumcision pain is different than tonsilectomy pain, as far as who can handle it better. Just because a baby stops screaming, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Snip off 1/8 of the your pinky finger, for a rough equivalent, and see how it feels with no pain meds after the fact. Not good, I'm betting.

I do believe in Amy's imaginary friend, but I don't think that really is in effect here, unless you're jewish. I'm sketchy enough on jewish law to not argue whether it's really required of them by their faith. I know they do it, and say it is. I still don't agree with it for unconsenting minors.

> kids will likely actually
> exercise their preference to
> avoid near-pointless suffering

They will respond similarly to fresh vegetables, household chores, and learning to read. Their judgment can't be trusted.

> it's not about me or what I may
> or may not have experienced
> (although, since I've been pretty
> open on abortion threads
> recently about my violent rape

So you're a fully dispassionate onlooker who happens to have a bunch of unignorably relevent experience. A handsome coincidence!

> Illuminating your ignorance
> is not my job.

If you wanna express beliefs but offer no reasoning to support them, persuasion will come slowly for you... But Amy's got nuthin' but disk space, so do whatcha need to do.

> If parents are responsible, what
> about cases where religious
> parents refuse to provide
> medical treatment

When parents are irresponsible, they're punished. Meanwhile, societies which believe in liberty give them latitude. You, Tony, aren't asked to sign off on decisions they make. And when considering all the things that parents do to fuck up kids --nutritionally, socially, educationally and even medically-- your fascination with circumcision tell us only about the weakness in your heart, not the hazard in theirs.

> The core of our disagreement is
> probably expressed in how I
> think you'd respond to that
> paragraph.

Wordy. The "core of our disagreement" is that you're wrong.

> because his parents believe in
> The Imaginary Friend

That's not a grown woman's appreciation of what religion means to people. You're so obviously eager to look down on someone that that reason you offer for doing so can responsibly be ignored; Thus begins a lifelong contest of didso/didnot, and you're perfectly content. A nobler enthusiast of human nature would accept the challenge to grow a little. Been to church lately? It's Sunday morning....

> kind of a cheap shot
> but I enjoyed it.

Tanquam ex ungue leonem.

> There is also no noticeable
> difference between people with
> diabetes

I've watched people I love die ravaged by diabetes: It's "noticeable".

> The point is you can not say for
> certainty that foreskin is
> useless, it wouldn't be there is
> it didn't serve a purpose.

In earlier expressions of our biology, it almost certainly did something useful. Your body is full of things like that, hazards that we'd prefer not to be bothered with given our present culture. See the discussion of the appendix above... When we walked on all fours and ate twigs from the dirt, it may have been essential, but now it only hurts us. We carry horrible baggage: to be human, women must walk bipedally; but giving birth atop such a contraption risks horrible maiming and death (for the child as well). And by that same reasoning, you need never trim you nails, either. They must "serve a purpose", right?

Especially, especially if you don't believe in God, you ought not walk around saying 'Everything happens for a reason....'

> There is also no noticeable
> difference between people with
> diabetes

I've watched people I love die ravaged by diabetes: It's "noticeable".

-Not until the end

> The point is you can not say for
> certainty that foreskin is
> useless, it wouldn't be there is
> it didn't serve a purpose.

In earlier expressions of our biology, it almost certainly did something useful. Your body is full of things like that, hazards that we'd prefer not to be bothered with given our present culture. See the discussion of the appendix above... When we walked on all fours and ate twigs from the dirt, it may have been essential, but now it only hurts us. We carry horrible baggage: to be human, women must walk bipedally; but giving birth atop such a contraption risks horrible maiming and death (for the child as well). And by that same reasoning, you need never trim you nails, either. They must "serve a purpose", right?

-Unless the penis contines to gow new skin, and I am the only person who didnt know that, your analogy is flawed

Especially, especially if you don't believe in God, you ought not walk around saying 'Everything happens for a reason....'

- Evolution says the same thing.

And as for the appendix - it seems to have atrophied on its own, if foreshin were truly as uselss as you belive it to be nature would have already started getting rid of it. But is hasnt, has it?

> -Not until the end

How about a round of Russian Roulette, Loojy? It's not really so risky until....

> your analogy is flawed

Again this thread reminds us that some people don't know what "analogy" means.

> - Evolution says the same thing.

Therefore, no horrible fate (or conduct) goes unexcused by Darwin? You and Tony should take this act on the road... You'd kill.

> nature would have already
> started getting rid of it. But
> is hasnt, has it?

You don't think so?

And that "not until the end" thing deserves a better towel-snap than I have time for before work. The suffering from diabetes goes on for years, and sometimes decades, before the end. That was a profoundly stupid thing for you to say,

Momof3, at least 2 doctors, including the surgeon, told me that recoveries for tonsillectomies are usually much easier for younger patients. They told me to expect my daughter to be in agony at least a week, which she was, because of her age. So, your experience with your son and husband seems to be an anomaly. Usually younger children bounce back more quickly than adults.

Which only makes sense. By the age of 14, the surface area being cut is much larger, whether you're talking tonsils or a foreskin. A newborn baby's foreskin is really tiny. I'm sure it hurts, but it's not nearly comparable to a tonsillectomy (or circumcision) at age 14 or 15. As I'm sure you know, the wound where the umbilical cord is cut may also hurt too - and it needs to be treated for weeks until it falls off - and sometimes hernias and infections develop. It's rarely painless to be a newborn.

I think parents must be allowed to make medical choices for their children and take measures they feel are appropriate, as long as it is done out of love...not control or domination.

Female circumcision - at least as practiced by the barbaric cultures of the world - is not an act of love. It shouldn't even be called "circumcision". It should be called "castration". Removing the clitoris destroys all sexual pleasure forever, so it is only comparable to male castration.

That is obviously not what American parents who choose circumcision for their sons are after. They are acting out of love, usually in wanting their son to bear a minimum of risk for disease and infections, and in earlier generations, when it was more common, the desire for their sons to "fit in."

When she was born, if I had been told that my daughter would run a slightly lower risk for infection and cancer by snipping a tiny bit of the hood of her clitorus back - and it would NOT effect her future sexual pleasure - then I may have chosen that for her too.

That should be my decision as a parent, not the government's. To call it "mutilation" is as extreme as calling a tonsillectomy "mutilation". That, too, is elective, and some doctors are against it, but, as I said, my daughter's focus and sleep has greatly improved, so my instinct as a parent to choose that for her was right. I would not want my ability to make medical choices for my child taken away.

Surely, if less than 50% of parents in this country are choosing circumcision now - and there are really no greater risks of cancer and infections - then the practice will fall out of vogue on its own, as parents will want their sons to look like their peers.

I personally find a circumcised penis more attractive, but that's all I'm used to. I have heard from some girlfriends that they are more squeamish to "go downtown" with an uncircumcized man, feeling it's less clean. One friend of mine, who is uncut, told me his ex felt that way - that it was "dirty" - even though he showed her his cleaning habits and kept it pulled back (I guess you can train it! Who knew?:).

Hopefully, uncircumcised young men today are not encountering the same sort of squeamishness from girls, but in all honesty, that is one reason I'm glad I circumcised my son. I didn't want him to have any of those issues, then regret that he WASN'T circumcised. So far, he seems to be doing fine with girls in college, so I don't think it's an issue for him - or most guys - either way. I'm sure if he felt I'd ruined his life, I'd hear about it!

crid:

When parents are irresponsible, they're punished. Meanwhile, societies which believe in liberty give them latitude. ...

Do parents have the right to withhold medical treatment when their children need it? You skipped a direct answer, so I'm asking again. By your response, I assume you do not think they can because that would be "irresponsible". But your prior responses demonstrate that you have a limited view of what constitutes "irresponsible". Where does liberty end and irresponsible begin for parental actions?

You define liberty incorrectly. Children have the same human rights possessed by their parents. You won't clarify which, if any, rights you think children have, but your answer is obviously a subset of the rights afforded to all adults and female minors. I'm curious about your answer because your view holds that families - including those who "fuck up" their kids - deserve protection above the individual children within those families, even when the fuck up is medically unnecessary surgery. But only for boys. Only for boys, dammit!

That's not logical.

P.S. Keep offering your psychological evaluations of me, they're entertaining. I really liked "weakness in your heart".

Amy, tonsillectomies are not always considered a medical necessity anymore. Some doctors say tonsils don't need to be removed except in extreme cases, so the decision is usually left to the parent. One must weigh the frequency of sore throats and decide whether the risk of the surgery is worth the potential benefits.

It is somewhat different with circumcision, but I think most parents weigh it the same, based on what we know - or think we knew - about the benefits. At the time I did it, I read studies saying there was a higher risk of cancer in uncircumcised males. Now, maybe those studies were wrong. I don't know. But there is an obvious benefit in terms of cleanliness and minimizing risk of infections, and it isn't harmful to sexual enjoyment, so I don't see why it's such a big deal.

All the men in my life have been circumcised, and they've all enjoyed sex, and I've enjoyed it with them, so really, where's the harm? I could see the outrage if they were being castrated, like girls are, but this is, at worst, a hygiene preference, and, at best, a potential protection against disease and infection.

I think a parent has the right to make that choice - to play it a little safer - and to do it while the child is too young to feel or remember much pain.

And, in all my years raising kids, I haven't heard of one teenage boy coming to his parents saying he's upset about it either way. So, I don't know who is so incensed about this. It seems to be a battle waged by people who aren't personally involved...who just don't like the "sound" of it.

So, fine, if you don't like it, don't do it. But there's no need to make other parents feel like mutilating monsters.

I am all for allowing parents to make choices for their children, and it may seem unfortunate, but we have to make a LOT of them long before the child can voice a preference.

Maybe some now believe we should wait and ask our kid at 15 whether he wants the smallpox vaccination, but I don't.

Aaack. Okay,do drs KNOW it hurts less for kids? Or is kids pain just discounted? There are some fascinating studies on pain relief and kids, you can google if it interests you. Short answer, based on my reading, is kids aren't taken seriously, and neither is their pain.

Unbilical cords have NO sensory nerve endings! Let's say it again-NO sensory nerve endings! So no pain possible. Oh, and the fact cutting it is necessary for the kid to live on it's own. Hardly the same.

Circumcision is not comparble to vaccinating, either. There IS a very large and definable risk to being non-vaccinated, for the kid AND society at large. Foreskins, to repeat a phrase by someone earlier, are not a public health hazard. If you want to chop off some body part to lower the penile cancer risk form .00001 to .ooooooooo1, why not chop off your girl baby's boobs? Much higher breast cancer risk. heck, even cervical cancer is a much higher risk.

Best sex of my life has been with non-cut guys. Not to say it sucks with others, maybe it's coincidence, but they were the most open and most fun. Duwayne-type fun, really. Great stuff. If a girl doens't like sucking your penis, she's not gonna like it period. Many don't. Any excuse will do then. I'm not a huge fan, but I do reciprocate, cut or no.

I shan't be cutting any child of mine unnecessarily, ever. I think this will eventually be looked upon as barbaric and unneeded. As unneeded as all the douching women in the 70's did to be "clean" for men.

Momof3, I was talking about tonsillectomies in preschool age kids. Some moms told me their little ones were up playing around a few hrs after the surgery! But my daughter was like your son - screaming in pain for days. So, obviously, there are different pain thresholds, but the doctors seemed to agree that it was usually a much tougher recovery for teens and adults. You can ask any ENT specialist.

I was there when my son was circumcized, and it took less than 3 min. Then, he cried for about 3 mins, and it was unclear how much of that was just from being poked and prodded. I mean, they numb the area first. Babies get shots, blood drawn, lots of stuff in those early days that are just as painful and upsetting. It seems to me if it had been that traumatic he would've cried for days.

And, obviously, the umbillical cord has no feeling, but the point where it attaches can become aggravated. I remember that kind of oozing and being more of an issue to treat than the circumcision.

Cutting breasts off would clearly effect a girl sexually forever. That's an extreme comparison.

We're talking about a TINY piece of foreskin...just enough to keep it back and cleaner. I really think it's crazy to act like it's such an enormous "mutilation".

I mean, parents elect to pierce their baby daughter's ears, which is painful, removes flesh, and probably takes about the same amount of time. I didn't do that, mostly because, unlike circumcision, it can easily be done later.

Yet, I don't know any girl who has complained about her ears being pierced without consent, just like I don't know any boys who are upset about being circumcised. They grow up with it, and it's just normal. I don't think they feel their parents "mutilated" them.

It's a personal choice - one that will probably fall out of favor, then maybe re-emerge. I respect your choice not to do it. I simply don't think the government should tell either one of us whether or not to circumcise our children.

Do you all really discount these studies? It seems that circumcision is definitely more protective.

www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Given the dearth of studies on sexul enjoyment of men before and after adult circumcision how o you know there is no effect on sexual enjoyment lovelysoul?

I can see without glasses, but I see better with them. I enjoy sex but I might have enjoyed it more without a circumcision.

As for cancer being higher in uncircumcised males
The American Cancer Society (2006) stated the current consensus of most experts was that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer

3rd paragraph last sentence
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp

And lets be clear - every medical reson thought up to endorse circumcision was nothing more than a belated justification to continue a religious practice.

If female gential mutilation were a part of jewish of christian belifs most of you funides would be supporting that as well

Luji, if you read the link I just posted, it said that men who had circumicision as adults (as part of these studies) reported either better sensation or the same afterwards. That's good enough for me.

I've always wondered how men who are circumcized can conclude it would be better if they hadn't been. Those are usually the ones who seem most upset about it. Yet, how can you miss what you've never had? Really, only men who've HAD a foreskin and then lost it would know whether the sensation was better or worse.

And, once again, female genital mutation should really be called CASTRATION. Removing the entire clitoris is not the same as removing a bit of foreskin. I do not - and never would - support denying someone sexual gratification for life. There is no comparison.

But after reading about these studies, it's clear to me that the foreskin can trap a lot more bacteria and STDS. I am relieved that I circumcised my son.

I'm not religious. It just seems safer and more hygenic, and I think it's a parent's right to make that choice.

>Luji, if you read the link I just
>posted, it said that men who had
>circumicision as adults (as part of
>these studies) reported either better
>sensation or the same afterwards.
>That's good enough for me.

Liar - I hate saying that FYI- men in the three african stuides said that, but it has already been established that those trials were cut short and the data is unreliable. It also says there was a loss of senstivity, but that most men reported no change or improved FUNCTION, not sensation but function, which with out anyfurther data could just mean fewer instances of premature ejaculation

>I've always wondered how men who are
>circumcized can conclude it would be
>better if they hadn't been. Those are
>usually the ones who seem most upset
>about it. Yet, how can you miss what >you've never had? Really, only men >who've HAD a foreskin and then lost it >would know whether the sensation was >better or worse.

We dont conclude it WOULD have been better only that it MIGHT have. How would you have liked it if a few yrs into pubery your parents had had yur breast tissue removed and replaced with silcone? You'd never get breast cnacer and most of the nerves would be left intact, you'd still feel somthing when a lover toughed you, but would you always wonder how ot might have felt to be natural?

And according to your arcticle most men reported a loss of sensation

>And, once again, female genital
>mutation should really be called
>CASTRATION. Removing the entire
>clitoris is not the same as removing a
>bit of foreskin. I do not - and never
>would - support denying someone sexual
>gratification for life. There is no
>comparison.

Would you be ok with removing some of the clitoris or the hood to promote a mild loss of sensation - but leaving enough to still feel most sensation?

>But after reading about these studies,
>it's clear to me that the foreskin can
>trap a lot more bacteria and STDS. I am
>relieved that I circumcised my son.

So you'll tell him there's no need to worry about condoms then?

>I'm not religious.
Dont care

>It just seems safer and more hygenic,
Its as effective as washing you hads ecery five minutes - it might help, but your still going to catch stuff

>and I think it's a parent's right to
>make that choice.

Thats the same argument nut jobs who refuse to let their kids see doctors or make their kids handle snakes make.

Its not your body nd ther is no medical need - and until there is a NEED that should be the end of the discussion

Also in first world contries there is no need for teeth, maybe we should just yank them all out to prevent cavites

Amy, if religious tradition was the only reason people had their sons circumcised, I'd agree with you on this. (I also think it would very nearly be a non-issue, as orthodox Jews are a tiny minority.) But these days, many (probably most) parents who circumcise do so because they believe there's a health benefit. This benefit is perhaps unproven, but it certainly is not disproven, and several expert opinions cited in this thread agree that it does exist. So a parent who believes in the health benefits of circumcision may be wrong, but is not irrational.

As for "medical necessity"--unless you've got a potentially fatal disease, no medical treatment is necessary. Short of preventing death, every medical procedure has benefits, costs and risks; you weigh one against the other and decide if it's worth it. In a free society, parents get to make those decisions for their children unless they are clearly and provably harming them.

So what you're saying, Amy, is that losing that little bit of skin is so harmful--that it so outweighs the possible-and-plausible benefits--that the State must override the judgement of parents in this matter. I don't think I've ever seen you set the bar for government involvement this low on any issue.

I hate to speculate on someone else's unexpressed opinion, but I think your antipathy towards religion is clouding your judgement on this issue. (I'm an atheist too, BTW.) I have to believe that if circumcision hadn't originated as a religious practice you'd be on the opposite side.

Rex what research have you seen which lays out benifits?

The african study that everyone keeps pushing, the one that was shut down before the reaserches found results they didnt want.

The data suggested that over 70 circumcisions would be needed to prevent one case of HIV.

Meanwhile another reprt suggests that circumcised men are more likley to get warts.

ANd yet another shows no difference between the two groups for the odds of catching STDshttp://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html

THe only way to remove all the vaiables (un reported anal sex with men, high risk behaviors, diet, general heath, etc)
Would be to isolate a few hundered newborns circumcise half, and when they reach puberty and sexual function bring in women suffering from various STDs and see which group is more likey to catch what, then circumcise the half that wasnt and follow up with them to see if they liked it better before circumcision or after

I've lost the will to fight. A grown man is arguing that the "aesthetics" of his dork (his very own, he concedes) are worth risking state intrusion into intimate family matters; he follows up by questioning the "maturity" of those who contest the point.

Lunacy.

Lujy, if I were a man, and could orgasm, I don't see why I would wonder if I could have MORE sexual sensation. The men I've been with - all circumcised - could have plenty of satisfying sex. My ex had sex 2 or 3 times a day (that I knew about!) for 20+ years, so if he could've had MORE sensation, God help me, I'd be in a wheelchair by now!

It seems to me to be the whining of a very self-absorbed type male. No one took away their precious penis or filled it with silicone. A tiny foreskin was removed to keep it cleaner - to protect from urinary tract infections, the spread of chlamydia, cancer, and STDs.

Because most parents, unlike those who aren't parents, understand that, as diligent as you are, you cannot make your children do everything you teach them - from washing their penis properly to wearing condoms.

My son is a fine young man in his first year of college. Hopefully, he uses condoms if he's having sex, and hopefully, he uses great judgment in his choice of partners, but there's no guarantee.

So the way I look at it is that I've done the best I can to help protect him. Even if the risks are very slim, you don't want your child to be the .05% that has penile cancer or HIV. I'm sure that's a small consolation.

And circumcision helps protect him for almost ZERO side effects. That is how I weigh things. Benefit vs risk. If there's a benefit, even a small one, for no risk, then it's a reasonable thing to do.

Now, we have the HPV vaccination, which I am considering for my daughter. They are marketing it like every girl her age should have it or run the dire risk of getting HPV. Many of her friends have already had it.

Yet, in this instance, there are reported side effects that worry me. And the scary statistics of HPV are largely attributable to inner-city girls who are sexually active at 12 or 13. So, I'm not convinced it is the right thing to do for my daughter, at least at only 14. I will wait and see.

That's what we parents must do - weigh benefits and risk - to try to best protect our children.

For instance, the chance of being abducted by a stranger may be even less than getting penile cancer, but almost every parent I know takes precautions against it.

Therefore, choosing circumcision as an extra precaution against some very serious diseases..and even minor but painful ones like urinary tract infections...does not seem unreasonable to me.

Fair enough lovelysoul - the only problem is all the reaserch regarding the "benifits" is incomplete, inconculsive, and designed to justify a cultural/religious practice.

And if your son does use condoms, and showers regularly - then there was really no point was there?

Well, he likes to camp in the wilderness a lot, so I'm sure there are missed showers at times.

Do you really think the CDC has a Jewish conspiracy going with this?

crid:

I've lost the will to fight. A grown man is arguing that the "aesthetics" of his dork (his very own, he concedes) are worth risking state intrusion into intimate family matters; he follows up by questioning the "maturity" of those who contest the point.

If that's what you've gotten out of my comments here, I'm revising my early statement that it's a draw between your interpretation skills and my writing skills. I'm arguing that the identifiable risks of surgery demand that proxy consent is only valid when there is an identifiable medical condition present in the child. When the child's body is healthy, surgery is not medically indicated. To a point lovelysoul made, sure the stats show that circumcision reduces a boy's risk of UTI. But his risk with a foreskin is still significantly less than the risk to a girl. Yet, we treat girls with medicine, not surgery. Medical intervention should be the least amount needed to resolve the existing problem. The normal foreskin is not a medical problem.

I've posted links about boys who died from circumcision. I can dig up links about boys who've suffered lesser, still horrific fates, if you'd like. Those possibilities, a violation of rights I've identified, warrant state intrusion. As we've intruded on all forms of FGM. You're not being consistent.

And I haven't said my objection is based primarily on aesthetics. It's not. The physical results of circumcision are bad. Thousands of nerve endings are removed. Generally the frenulum is removed. How much foreskin is removed is the surgeon's guess. Maybe too much, causing tight, painful erections. Maybe too little, causing the skin to adhere again, leading to other potential problems. Again, I can provide links.

Also, circumcision is different for infants and children than it is for adults because the foreskin hasn't detached yet. The foreskin must be forcibly separated from the rest of the penis. This can cause further damage to the glans and remnant foreskin. (In America, the naturally adherent foreskin is commonly - and incorrectly - diagnosed as phimosis in early childhood.)

With adults, the foreskin has separated. Perhaps not until late puberty, but it will have separated. It's also fully developed. That removes the guesswork. And the male himself can decide whether he wants it tight or loose. He also has the capacity to understand what's happening, as well as receive sufficient pain control.

So, yeah, it's about aesthetics, but only if you're actively ignoring facts.

As for questioning your maturity, I only stated that bragging about your sexual prowess as a sign that circumcision is good is sorta pathetic and irrelevant. Euphemisms like "dork", "unit", and "swingin' mojo machine" don't help your maturity claim much, either. Referring to me in the third person in the end also suggests that you're performing rather than debating.

And you still didn't answer my question about whether or not parents can withhold medical care since they have the right to make all medical decisions. You're inviting state intrusion if you think that should be prevented and/or punished. You're being inconsistent.

If you don't think that should be prevented, then you're treating children as property. That's hardly consistent with any imaginable principle of liberty.

Well, Tony, it's long been accepted (and legislated) that parents are responsible for their offspring until said offspring are of age. Most states, that's age 18, I believe. So until my daughters are 18 years old, as a repsonsible parent I get to make the "big" decisions for them. Children do not have the same "liberties" as adults because they're children. They don't have enough life experience to make certain decisions. And while it can be argued that some children are more mature than their parental units, the law still does not give them the right to make those decisions for themselves. o.O

HPV is most common among college age women. I wonder where you get your stats, lovelysoul. My daughters sure as hell will be getting that vac, assuming no one finds a reason to yank it in the next 6 years. HPV is actually close to be declassified as an STD and reclassified as part of the vaginal flora, it's THAT common. ANd it causes cervical cancer. Having it, and the paps every 3 months that go with it, I have a pretty good insight as to what I'm preventing with that vac. And I used condoms!

Have you ever heard of any man with penile cancer? I haven't. No one I know ever has. Yet parents think whacking off a body part to POSSIBLY lessen the risk SLIGHTLY is ok? Penile cancer isn't a .5% chance. If it were, one out of every 200 men would have it, and I think we'd hear a little something about that, don't you? Given that men's erection medications take up almost all the primetime ads anymore.

The AAP, the people in charge of treating kids, does NOT recommend routine circumcision, stating there is not enough evidence of medical benefit to make it worthwhile. And given that I think the medical community tends to be too conservative, especially with kids, the fact that they are willing to buck US tradition means something to me.

With all the other side arguments I've heard here, it seems to all boil down to "it's a parents right to decide" and "it was good enough for me, it's good enough for others". But we've established that it's not. Parents don't have the right to stop their kid from getting an abortion. A much more invasive procedure. Parents don't have the right to spank. So why have the right for this? Why only the right for boys and not girls? No one has answered that.

Again, the cleanliness factor is equivalent to douching. A practice that's been proven to be harmful. The human body cleans itself quite efficiently.

More! On babies and pain, and crying. NICU babies, with tubes and IV"s poking them all over, and often very painful things wrong with them, are in near-constant pain. Yet, they don't cry much. Crying is not a great indicator of pain in babies. As in adults. Just because you are not screaming right now, does not mean that broken arm does not hurt.

heartrate, respiration rate, and brainwave activity are much better indicators. Just like in non-verbal adults.

And no matter whether they numb it when doing it, they do nothing for pain afterwards. And I am sure it does not miraculously stop hurting 20 minutes later.

It is nothing but a case of children being treated as less than human. Much like people who choose not to pay extra for pain meds when getting their cat spayed.

"And, once again, female genital mutation should really be called CASTRATION. "

Bullshit. Hysterectomy is the equilvalent of castration. Try again.

"Well, Tony, it's long been accepted (and legislated) that parents are responsible for their offspring until said offspring are of age."

It's long been accepted that there are plenty of decisons that are off-limits for parents. Children are not the property of parents.

Flynne:

Taking only what you've written explicitly, I agree with you 100%. Parents have the right to make decisions. Schooling, diet, etc.

Implicitly, though, of course I disagree. Do you have the right to surgically alter your daughters' healthy genitals? The law says no. Is that law wrong? I don't think it is, as I'll say as many times as necessary. Female minors should be protected from unnecessary genital surgery.

But our Constitution also guarantees equal protection. It is no different to protect boys from unnecessary genital surgery than it is to protect girls. Basic human rights have no exception for "this might be useful for boys" when the person is healthy, if that person can't or doesn't consent.

Would it be okay for parents to withhold their boys from school because they think men don't need schooling? Can they feed their daughters a diet sufficient to meet their needs, while teaching their sons that fasting is the way to go, to the point of malnutrition? Is it acceptable for parents to keep their sons locked in their rooms because they believe only girls are social beings at a young age? Some potential parental decisions are objectively irresponsible before we wait for the outcome.

The foreskin is not special, possessing magical powers. But neither is the genitalia of girls, who are already protected. Boys deserve equal protection under the law. The unnecessary, non-indicated medical decisions that parents may make should receive the same level of freedom and restriction, regardless of the child's gender.

Look at a standard from above, that parents might be put off or embarrassed by having to clean their son's foreskin, a task no more difficult than cleaning his fingers until the foreskin detaches from the rest of the penis, usually after an age where he can clean himself. (My 8-year-old nephew is proficient at taking care to clean properly, contrary to the also-stated-above implication that young boys are incompetent/unwilling.) What's to stop the parents of girls from making the same claim?

I claim that there is a more reasoned, objective, and consistent principle. It's a principle devoid of chasing potential benefits, claims of God's will, social tradition, or sexual preferences of future partners. It is ethically wrong to impose medically unnecessary genital surgery on a person who can't/doesn't consent. No gender exemptions, no age exemptions. Society is justified in limiting the ability of one person to act against another person in harmful ways. Society doesn't view male circumcision as harm, but that's a bogus claim because it is objective harm (i.e. removal of healthy tissue) for subjective benefits (i.e. disease prevention, satisfy God). We can reasonably assume boys would want to be cured of ailments.

But we're talking about circumcision of healthy boys. All tastes and preferences are subjective. What the parents value, the boy might not. Statistics demonstrate clearly that the overwhelming majority of men left intact by their parents will never need or choose circumcision during their lifetimes, so it's not reasonable to assume he'd want it.

I don't think it's necessary to put liberties in quotes, because I'm not asking for special liberties for boys. Nor do I think it's appropriate for children to exercise all of their rights. But freedom from the harm and risks of unnecessary surgery is not the same as the freedom to shout curse words. The former exists from birth. The latter are held in trust, to use a clumsy phrase.

If we apply the same standard to free speech that we apply to the bodily integrity of boys, parents should have the right to deny their (male only?) children from ever speaking a curse word, even after the age of majority. Parents who circumcise permanently remove his ability to choose "no".

Kind of depressing to see how vigorously some people will defend slicing up infant penises on pretty sparse evidence.

Can you imagine how far Gloria Steinhem (sp?) et al would have gone if female genitals were subject to similar manipulation based on the evidence of benefits offered here?

The college-age Survivors of the Knife groups would feature weepy testimonials. Rallies would be constant and militant. No doctor would escape mandatory retraining after the federal law was passed.

Seriously, do you doubt any of that? I don't. But when it is males? (shrug) There are these studies, ya see...and besides, everyone is doing it. What is the big deal...?

Rex what research have you seen which lays out benifits?

First one that comes to hand is the CDC link that lovelysoul provided (11/23, 7:51PM). Here's an excerpt:

"Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, . . ."

Now, I'm not saying this is proof; I'm the last guy in the world who'd take a government agency's word as proof of anything. But it's plausible. Step back from the studies and counter-studies and take a common-sense look at the biology. An intact foreskin creates an area near the end of the penis which is a perfect breeding ground for germs unless it is cleaned carefully and regularly. (And how many males, especially those in the 5-15 age range, are careful about keeping anything clean?) It's purely obvious that circumcision ought to cut down on urinary tract infections at the very least; if you want to claim it doesn't, you'd better show me some very well-designed studies that came to that conclusion.

Can you imagine how far Gloria Steinhem (sp?) et al would have gone if female genitals were subject to similar manipulation based on the evidence of benefits offered here?

Actually, if there existed a procedure for female infants for which the health benefits were as well-established as those of male circumcision, and the negatives as trivial-to-nonexistent, I'm sure Gloria Steinem would be all for it. In fact, if it were being done to girl babies less often than circumcision is to boys (65% of the time in 1999 according to the CDC link above), she'd almost certainly cite that as another example of male privilege.

Forgot to include this in the last post:

Lujlp -

every medical reason thought up to endorse circumcision was nothing more than a belated justification to continue a religious practice.

That's a truly amazing statement, worthy of the Tinfoil Hat Award. Do you have any evidence for it? Anything resembling evidence? Anything a retarded five-year-old might be persuaded was evidence?

Rex:

The statistics you provide are irrelevant as they pertain to children. We don't need to deny them, nor am I trying to deny them. But we must consider them after considering the ethical case against routine/ritual child circumcision. It fails the ethical test because a potential benefit for children is not a medical indication for surgery.

As someone pointed out above, preventive mastectomies will reduce the risk of breast cancer. Would it be ethical to perform them on minors, or is the ethical case a higher priority?

"Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection."

"Actually, if there existed a procedure for female infants for which the health benefits were as well-established as those of male circumcision, and the negatives as trivial-to-nonexistent, I'm sure Gloria Steinem would be all for it."

Who here agrees with Rex that if some studies showed that *men's* sexual health possibly benefited from slicing up infant female genitalia, that Gloria Steinhem et al would "be all for it"? Let's assume that the correlations and studies were of similar convincingness and quality.

okay, okay, everyone, stop laughing. Seriously, how many? Amy, put down the spitballs!

I have already stated that I would be for it. It doesn't matter what Steinem thinks.

If you told me that snipping back a bit of my daughter's clitoral hood would offer the same potential health benefits - a lower risk of UTIs, chlamydia, cervical cancer, and HIV - and NO damage to her future sexual enjoyment -I would make the same choice for her.

Some of you are off the wall comparing this to everything from chopped off breasts and feet! There's no way to argue with that when you lower the discourse to such an absurd level. It's just not the same. We're talking about removing a small piece of useless skin that traps germs and bacteria.

If there was an easy way to ward off UTIs in girls that wouldn't be permanently debilitating, most of us would choose that too. I get frequent UTIs and I know how painful they are. And I think most parents - who are responsible - not mushy types who want to "let the kids decide" - would agree with me.

Those of us who actually HAVE kids - and have successfully raised kids - know there are many decisions regarding their bodies, such as vaccinations and surgical options, that we, as parents, must make before they reach the age of "consent."

It is scary to me that there is such push to turn over parental decisions to the government! The HPV vaccine is a good example. Initially, it was going to be mandated for every adolescent girl.

Now, I don't know if it's a good vaccine or not. I know the drug companies have put a lot of money behind it, but it is my instinct as a parent to wait because often they release drugs or vaccines that haven't been well-tested, and there ends up being terrible side effects. And, right now, my daughter, at 14, is not sexually active, so I don't feel a rush to let her be a test subject. At this point, it is not the right choice for HER.

Yet, if you start turning such decisions over to the government, we'll have no choice. And, personally, I feel that most parents have their kids best interest at heart more than the government does. We know our kids - their personalities and tendencies - so we should be the ones to make choices for them, as long as they are not permanently debilitating.

Yet, some of you obviously feel that circumcision is permanently debilitating - without proof, and although our entire highly sexualized culture of mostly circumcised males would appear to dispute that claim. You continue to compare it to near decapitation in severity, yet what proof do you offer that American males have been sexually debilitated? Why are we having so many out-of-wedlock children if circumcision debilitates men? It is absurd on its face.

There is far more evidence that the possibility of real health benefits exist, which only make sense as Rex suggested - there would be no higher indication for uncircumicised males in these studies if the foreskin didn't trap more bacteria and germs.

It's just common sense, and as a parent that's what I must rely on, not some pie-in-the-sky, feel-good mentality about infant's rights, espoused mostly by people who haven't even changed a diaper!

Rex Little Said: "An intact foreskin creates an area near the end of the penis which is a perfect breeding ground for germs unless it is cleaned carefully and regularly. (And how many males, especially those in the 5-15 age range, are careful about keeping anything clean?) "

Given their relative dimensions it’s funny foreskin should be seen as a harbinger of putrification when women, who have no problem staying clean, walk around with a far lusher petri-dish between their legs. What makes you think males are any less capable of keeping themselves clean than females. It's far easier to teach a boy how to keep his penis clean than to teach him to wipe his butt, wash his hair, or brush his teeth. And he'll eventually be giving that body part far more attention than any of those other thing in the shower anyway.

Rex Little Said: Actually, if there existed a procedure for female infants for which the health benefits were as well-established as those of male circumcision, and the negatives as trivial-to-nonexistent,

It would never get that far. As a society we've already decided that messing with the female genitalia, particularly as an infant, is indefensible without a very explicit medical need. Nobody is going to chase benefits as trivial as those considered for male circumcision.

Who here agrees with Rex that if some studies showed that *men's* sexual health possibly benefited from slicing up infant female genitalia, that Gloria Steinhem et al would "be all for it"?

Who here has enough skill in elementary reading comprehension to realize that Spartee's use of *men's* in the above quote is a gross distortion? Of all the possible benefits of circumcision listed in the paragraph I quoted, the only one which involves women is the decreased risk of cervical cancer. The rest accrue to the circumcised males themselves. Just in case it's not clear, the hypothetical female procedure I was talking about is one whose benefits *to women* are comparable to those of circumcision *to men*.

lovelysoul said:

If you told me ... offer the same potential health benefits - a lower risk of UTIs, chlamydia, cervical cancer, and HIV - and NO damage to her future sexual enjoyment -I would make the same choice for her.

The problem is that there are real risks to this procedure. What would you have told your son if he was one of the unlucky ones who had a severe complication? It does happen perhaps more than we know, the truth is the actual rate of complication has never been closely study.

The potential benefits are easily achieved through other more effective and less invasive means.

The point lovelysoul is not to turn such decisions over to some government commitee.

The point is to turn the decision over to the INDIVIDUAL in question.

And Rex try harder - I posted a link to a couple of studies which claimed the opposite of the studies lovelysoul posted.

Breast cancer is the number one cancer women suffer from and the second leading cause of cancer death - penail cancer doesnt even make the top five

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/

Accoding to the CDC penial cancer occurs in 0.8 out of 100,000 or 1 in 125,000

Meanwhile women contact breast cancer at a rate of 117.7 per 100,000 or 1 in 850

That at nearly 150 time the rate men contract penial cancer, throw into the mix that the American Cancer Society says there is no benifit to using circumcision to prevent cancer (see my post at November 23, 2008 8:07 PM)

And we're back to why dont we cut out portions of breast to prevent DEATH, if we cut off portions of penises to prevent NOTHING?

Also at the cdc link .2 per 100,000 men apparenlty die from penial cancer

That is 1 in 500,000

Women die at 25 per 100,000
or 1 per every 4000.

So women are 150 times more likey to get breast cancer and 125 time more likley to die from it.

So why are we cutting of parts of the male reproductive system?

More math - the table I was using complied 2000-2004 data

Using those figures(and US census data suggesting a 300 million population) on average 600 men died in the US each of those years giving us a total of 2,400 men dead of a cancer that circumcision doesnt really prevent.

Meanwhile 75,000 women died from breast cancer each of those years giving us 300,000

300,000 dead women and noone dares consider prevenitive masectomies

2,400 dead and we still snip even though all recent reaserch says there is little or no benifit in preventing cancer

What do you base that on, Joe? The CDC article said there were almost no complications, and none serious. It's a tiny cut, so even if there's some bleeding, it isn't life-threatening. You seem to be basing it on a feeling, saying, "more than we know".

I have never heard of a complication, and we parents hear those things. "So and so had a friend whose son almost died.." etc. Parental lore is full of those scary stories, passed from parent to parent, but I've never heard one about circumcision.

If it did happen, I would've explained to my son the same as I would've if a hundred other common childhood procedures had gone freakishly wrong...that I was acting in what I believed was his best interest in choosing a procedure that was notably low risk.

He's had far more life-threatening events - surgeries, stitches, dental work etc - all of which I've had to make decisions about. Any of those could've possibly turned out badly. So, as parents, we're always having to weigh what we think is best, knowing that each decision could be wrong. That's our JOB. And it's tough one. There's always guilt over something we could've done that we didn't and something we did that we shouldn't. So, it's discouraging when people on the sidelines call us "multilators" and critique our choices so harshly.

My son is fine, and thousands of other circumcised men are fine. There are far more dangerous and damaging things to worry about -and guilt well-meaning parents over - than this.

Lujy, why do you keep comparimg it to breast removal? Many women DO choose preventive mastectomies, and I suppose now that we can test for the gene, there might be some cause for removing a girl's breasts before puperty.

But, obviously a girl without breasts is going to be socially debilitated in our society. A boy without a foreskin is...just a normal kid. It's not the same!

Because its subjcetive lovelysoul.

If all girls had their breasts removed then only the the few girls with breasts would be abnormal.

Likewise if circucision were not a regular practice the 'normal' kids wold be uncircumcised

Also breasts are not important to having sex - I know I just pissed some people off there, but they are more for foreplay and interludes.

You claim sex is just as enjoyable for men without foreskin - it is therefore just as resonable(and assinie) to assume women could still enjoy sex without breasts.

Though I'd be betting not as much

LovelySoul said: What do you base that on, Joe?

Personal experience. I know of many kids in my youth who complained of painful erections because, as they put it "they ran out of sink". It isn't something they shared with there parents and who knows what happened in the long term perhaps you just get used to it. I don't really know. Deaths occur too, they don't always make the news but Tony provided two examples from just last year, one in England and the other in Canada. The Canadian article even discusses some of the bad outcomes that are possible as well as the fact that complications aren't documented or well studied.

LovelySoul said: The CDC article said there were almost no complications, and none serious. It's a tiny cut, so even if there's some bleeding, it isn't life-threatening. You seem to be basing it on a feeling, saying, "more than we know".

But it can be life threatening, see above. The CDC has never performed a study or even attempted to get an accurate gauge on circumcision complications. Neither has anyone else for that matter because in most countries it is only performed for medically therapeutic reasons so there is a clear clinical need, religious reasons whose minds would proabably never be changed, and North America where they don't really want to rock the boat. Though as it has decreased dramatically in Canada and Australia there are greater calls to more closely look at complications.

LovelySoul said: If it did happen, I would've explained to my son the same as I would've if a hundred other common childhood procedures had gone freakishly wrong...that I was acting in what I believed was his best interest in choosing a procedure that was notably low risk.

Here is the thing I don't get. It is possible to die, it is possible to even lose the penis. Forget about how rare it might be, could you have explained to your son that he lost his penis because of a surgical procedure to seek an incremental benefit against a potential problem that can be gained or treated by less invasive means?

LovelySoul said: He's had far more life-threatening events - surgeries, stitches, dental work etc - all of which

Right, but all this stuff was proabably medically therapeutic.

LovelySoul said: My son is fine, and thousands of other circumcised men are fine.

But there are men who draw the proverbial short straw and then is it worth it?

I've never understood why some debates get so polarised that it is acceptable to make unsupportable claims.Firstly,there is absolutely no way you can compare circumcision to the removal of the clitoris, and in more severe cases (like the Somali version) the labia.
Secondly,the argument that circumcised men are somehow losing out is simply bs.Yes, i have had sex before and after getting snipped,and can not honestly tell the difference.The glans doesn't shrivel up and die because it is exposed and rubbing against your boxers.
Unfortunately, i think this is one debate that most people get into with firm opinions that they're unwilling to even reconsider.I can only hope that we all approach this with some level of objectivity.

I've recently been engaged in a conversation in which circumcision was equated to rape. After viewing Birth As We Know It: Circumcision(not for the faint hearted) I tend to agree. Anybody who can watch this and continue to support circumcision is an utter sadist. This absolutely includes Rex Little.

Rex, in order that my health be protected I expect women to douche on a daily basis from this time forward. I don't care that you believe in some preventative effect. There are other less sadistic ways of achieving those ends.

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

@WKI...

What proportion of female circumcisions involve removal of the clitoris? This, being yet another feminist inspired issue, will conform to the hyperbole they tend to apply. My understanding is that it is a very small proportion of the whole.

For the record I had a short relationship with a circumcised Indian woman during the eighties. She had NO problem enjoying sex whatsoever. I would suggest, WKI, that with the exception of those cases in which the clitoris is removed or large amouts of labial tissue removed, your description of the male outcome in sensory terms would be replicated for women.

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

I see no likelihood of male circumcision ceasing in the west due to the use of foreskins as a base for numerous commercial biological products from medical dressings to cosmetics.

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

Isn't circumcision just a little snip?

In a typical infant boy, the foreskin is a double-sided sleeve of skin and soft mucosal tissue that completely encloses the glans (the head of the penis). It is actually physically bonded to the infant's glans. This skin contains thousands of blood vessels and specialized nerves. In an adult, it would grow to cover 12-15 square inches. Circumcision removes this part of the penis. The operator forces a metal clamp inside the foreskin, and tears the skin away from the glans. The operator then slices the foreskin down past the glans and cuts the foreskin off. The entire procedure is excruciatingly painful. Infant circumcision is performed without adequate anesthesia, since anesthetizing such a young infant can be very dangerous. Partial or complete amputation of the penis sometimes occurs. Some children even die from the trauma, hemorrhage, or other complications.
- Ryan McAllister, Ph.D., Executive Director of NotJustSkin.org

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

Countries which practice FGM also practice male circumcision...

We studied 370 male children over a 3 month period. The age of the patients ranged from 8 days to 13 months, with 357 (96.5%) being infants. Three hundred and twenty two were circumcised, giving a circumcision rate of 87%. There was no correlation between the circumcision status and the social status of the parents (Pearsons correlation .023, p = .682). Of the 322 children who were circumcised, 270 (83.9%) were done within the first month of life. Two hundred and sixty (80.7%) and 62 (19.3%) of the circumcisions were done in hospitals and at home respectively. None of the children was circumcised for a medical reason. The operation was performed by nurses in 180 (55.9%), doctors in 113 (35.1%) and by the traditional circumcisionist in 29 (9%) of the children. Complications occurred in 65 children [20.2%]. Of those who sustained these complications, 35 (53.8%) had redundant foreskin, 16 (24.6%) sustained excessive loss of foreskin, 11 (16.9%) had skin bridges, 2 (3.1%) sustained amputation of the glans penis while 1 (1.5%) had a buried penis (table 1). One of the two children who sustained amputation of their glans penis also had severe hemorrhage and had to be transfused with blood. The complications tended to be more likely with nurses than with doctors or traditional circumcisionists, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.051).

- Epidemiology of complications of male circumcision in Ibadan, Nigeria," 2006, Linus I Okeke, Adanze A Asinobi,l and Odunayo S Ikuerowo1. BMC Urology 2006, 6:21

According to the 2005 census, Nigeria has 133,530,000 people. Let's say half of them are male, i.e., 66,765,000. If this research is applicable to the general population of Nigeria, then 2,069,715 boys and men in Nigeria have their glans penis amputated. In Nigeria alone.

Just a little snip.

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

There are two things I expect adults to keep away from kids' genitals. Sharp objects. And their own genitals.

I've never understood why some debates get so polarised that it is acceptable to make unsupportable claims.Firstly,there is absolutely no way you can compare circumcision to the removal of the clitoris, and in more severe cases (like the Somali version) the labia.

What about just comparing it to the removal of the clitoral hood as is common in places like Indonesia?

Yes, i have had sex before and after getting snipped,and can not honestly tell the difference.The glans doesn't shrivel up and die because it is exposed and rubbing against your boxers.

Other men have reported differently and there has been research that says otherwise too. That is a bit beyond the point though. Nobody is saying that a man shouldn't be able to modify his body anyway he wants. A guy could get himself circumcised or put whatever jewelry in his cock if he wants and most people wouldn't say a thing. It's when you do that to children, that is were the ethical question come up, that is what is wrong.

Some people say they get more pleasure sexually from various types of jewelry and it doesn't produce any ill effects, it doesn't mean they should be able to sign up their infant or child for that.

re commercial applications...

Ironically, the value of the male foreskin is not lost on the cosmetics and medical research industries. Organogenesis is among several companies that use cells from foreskins amputated from male infants to produce artificial skin. Organogenesis received FDA approval for Apligraf, an artificial skin made from a combination of foreskin and bovine collagen. Cosmetics companies such as SkinMedica sell wrinkle creams and moisturizers made from infant foreskins. SkinMedica's TNS (Tissue Nutrient Solution) Recovery Complex, which retails for about $125 per half-ounce, is said to reduce facial lines and wrinkles. According to the product's box, it is made from "human fibroblast conditioned media"—in other words, human foreskin.

Cutting Kids by Karen Burka, Mothering Magazine

@Amy...

Sorry about the minor flood. This topic had me going back through some old stuff. Given more recent discussions elsewhere, and seeing the procedure for the first time, I have a renewed anger at this practice for either gender. My state pollies WILL be getting some messages from me.

Anyway...

Burn dressings I can understand.

Cosmetics I've never been a big fan of. What's next ladies? You put it on your face why not in it? Would you like to eat your little baby's foreskin? Is this a human variation of eating the placenta? Some kind of vampirism? Soylent Green anyone.

Any chance of some dessicated labium to rub into my sore knee?

Another reason to hate Oprah Winfrey after her shameless support of female sex offenders...

Oprah promotes this crap.

Again, people, choose what you want when you CAN choose. Do not do NEEDLESS cutting on a baby who can't consent.
that is not the same thing as making medically NECESSARRY decisions. What do you not get? The health benefits have been debunked thoroughly. Much like the link between vacs and autism has been, although idiots still believe that one too.

Europeans are not dropping off from penile infections or cancer. In fact, they have less than americans. And they don't cut. Hmmmm.

Lovelysoul, I would put money on my having changed more diapers in my first year of parenting than you ever have. How on earth the subject of taking off part of your child's body FOR NO REASON should be restricted to parents discussion, is beyond me. Should only islamics get to vote on female circumcision? No.

Oh, and my nephew nearly died. Since some of you need anecdotal evidence of the complications that are clearly stated on the AAP website.

Well, wasn't that because he was premature, momfo3? That doctor should've waited.

I've just returned from spending the night with my circumcised boyfriend. We had AMAZING sex! This whole thing about circumcised guys losing out is, as WKI said, bulls--t.

And I was thinking, as I was going down him, how glad I was that he IS circumcised. I love going down on a guy - always has been my favorite part of sex - but mayhe that's because it's always been on circumcised men. I am a little squeamish about cleanliness and hygiene, and I suspect I'd be a little less enthusiastic, especially given what I've read about the forsekin trapping all this bacteria and disease.

Of course, women are worse...and I've never been down on one either. I don't know how you guys do it (though I'm sooooo glad you do!!!lol)

I'm sure it's an aquired taste (ha ha), but I'm just being honest about my feelings, and I probably speak for more women than would readily admit it openly.

When I was single a couple of years ago, I dated a guy who told me he was uncircumcised. He then told me he also had herpes. Coincidence? Probably. But it's the only near-exposure to an STD that I've knowingly come close to. I really liked him, but in the end, the whole deal just creeped me out.

I've never had an STD, even in the wild early 80s, before condom use was prevalent. It may be coincidence that this is true and all my partners have been circumicised, but it does seem in keeping with the CDC studies that you all discount.

At this point, all I can say is that I really like the circumcised penis and I'm glad that, in my era at least, this has been the norm.

Maybe one day, many years from now, I can have a frank talk with my adult daughter and see how she feels about it, as her exposure will likely be more varied.

Anyway, it's been fun debating this...but I really have nothing more to add. :)

I've never had an STD, even in the wild early 80s, before condom use was prevalent. It may be coincidence that this is true and all my partners have been circumicised, but it does seem in keeping with the CDC studies that you all discount.

It's not a question of discounting anything. It's a question of, mostly US, organizations and media up-selling the potential benefits while trivializing the potential complications. No other agency in other first world countries paints a picture of circumcision nearly as rosey as the CDC. That includes agencies in places like Europe, South America, Japan, and Australia or New Zealand just to name a few. For example, here is what the Australian Federation of AIDS organizations had to say about circumcision with regard to HIV:

* “Male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic”
* “African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.”
* Oh and this one is my favorite: “The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision”

This what based on the same clinical data the CDC based their statement on and in fact the US HIV prevalence is about 6x higher than in Australia despite the fact that a substantial portion of our adult population is circumcised. While the prevalence of circumcision in Australia is now fairly low now, perhaps 10%, declining steeply through the 80s.

No, it was because he wouldn't stop bleeding. The fact that some asshat MD thought doing that to a preemie was OK was just the icing. And no he's not hemophilic.

You don't have an STD because you either never slept with someone with one, or when you did, you had absolutely no minute tears in your vaginal area for the bacteria/virus to enter through. Period. A foreskin does NOT give you an STD. Either the man has one, or he doesn't. They don't hide out under the foreskin (which is retracted and invisible during sex or any time there's an erection) waiting to ambush you. Really, they don't.

If there were benefits like that, they would hold true the world over, and they don't. We have very high rates of circumcision and very high rates of STDs. Other countries have lower rates of both.

lovelysoul,

I know you said you're done, but just in case:

...a small piece of useless skin...

"Useless" is a subjective word that depends on an evaluation. You don't value it. The boy might, particularly since it has biological functions rendering it not-useless. (Nerve endings, protection of glans, etc.) The ability to orgasm and procreate does not indicate that sexual experience is not altered. It's also reasonable to suggest that sexual preferences are subjective to the individual. How the child's parents filter in to that is odd, at best.

Anyway, if the foreskin is just "a small piece of useless skin", statistics demonstrate clearly that the overwhelming majority of intact males never need or choose circumcision. They don't find it useless (or dangerous) enough to warrant prophylactic removal when they retain their option to choose for themselves. Strange.

But, obviously a girl without breasts is going to be socially debilitated in our society. A boy without a foreskin is...just a normal kid. It's not the same!

Implants. Problem solved. Now protected-not-mutilated girls can be normal in appearance, if not in body. The same as boys! So we should demand full parental rights to mold the bodies of their healthy female children because their bodies could be a ticking time bomb of risk that their minds can't comprehend, correct?

I've recently been engaged in a conversation in which circumcision was equated to rape. After viewing Birth As We Know It: Circumcision(not for the faint hearted) I tend to agree. Anybody who can watch this and continue to support circumcision is an utter sadist. This absolutely includes Rex Little.

I don't have broadband internet access where I live, so I can't download videos. Next time I have my laptop at a place with wi-fi, I do intend to watch that. If after doing so I continue to support the right of parents to choose circumcision for their babies, it will be because I didn't agree the video made a compelling case against that right, not because I'm a sadist.

Rex, in order that my health be protected I expect women to douche on a daily basis from this time forward.

You go right ahead and do that, with my blessing. And when you come up with a connection between that and anything I've said, be sure to let me know.

The health benefits have been debunked thoroughly.

Where? They've certainly been disputed, but hardly debunked. I'm reasonably well convinced that some of the claimed benefits aren't real (like HIV prevention), but I always thought that the primary benefit was reducing the risk of urinary tract infections, and I haven't seen anything here (or anywhere else) to refute that one.

Rex Little Said:

but I always thought that the primary benefit was reducing the risk of urinary tract infections, and I haven't seen anything here (or anywhere else) to refute that one.

I agree this is the most compelling and ethical argument that one could make for infant circumcision since they occur during infancy and are largely out of the control of the individual. However, UTIs are easily treatable and the really significant problem infant boys may face, recurrent UTIs, are almost always due to a congenital anomoly of the urinary tract having nothing to do with the foreskin and it has never been demonstrated that boys suffering from that problem could benefit from circumcision.

Tony, this can be taken to an absurd degree, as some clearly have, by likening it to chopping off feet, clitorises, or breasts.

Yet, it is obvious to me that most parents wouldn't go to such extreme measures as breast removal and reconstruction (even though I know a few who are giving their daughters implants for graduation gifts, but the daughters, of course, want them).

It is equally obvious to me that most grown men don't like to contemplate ANY sort of surgery in that area. Just getting a guy to have a vasectomy isn't easy! So, no matter how much they might regret being uncircumcised when they're older, they're not likely to do it. So, that's a rather unconvincing argument.

I'd just like to add that science is always changing, so parental decisions are continuously being cast in a new and different light.

At the time I chose circumcision, I felt it was right for my son. Just as I chose to have him vaccinated.

I think it was Momof3 who stated that parents who are suspect of vaccinations and autism are crazy, but I happen to believe that we do have way too many vaccinations given much too early, and we really don't know what that cocktail of vaccines does to our children's brains and central nervous systems...and we have a sharp an unexplained rise in autism.

My son has the high functioning type of autism, called Aspergers. I don't know if vaccinations had anything to do with it or not, but I don't condemn other parents who believe so because they just might be right.

Tomorrow, a link could be found, and it will be just another reason to feel guilty over a choice I made. Likewise, tomorrow, a new study could determine that circumcision is vastly more protective against disease than non-circumcision. I'm not saying it will happen, but it could.

So, parents are really faced with some tough choices, and our choices do not always hold up well over time, and in light of new scientific evidence, but I still believe most parents in our culture truly love their kids and are hoping to do the best for them. They don't alter body parts cruelly, or make any other decisions that they think may harm or stigmatize their child.

Most boys in this country are circumcised because their fathers are, and if those dads truly felt their circumcision had caused them lasting harm, I'm sure they wouldn't choose it for their sons, even for religious reasons. They'd stand up and say, "We're not going to do this anymore!"

Maybe that will happen in the light of new evidence, but so far, nothing has made me regret choosing circumcision for my son. To me, it seems to be a fairly innocuous choice either way.

Rex,

It reduces the risk of UTI. That's not a medical indication for the surgery. But consider:

The UW study is a "trade-off analysis." The trade-off analysis determined that for every case of a boy who has a complication from circumcision, six boys can be expected to have avoided urinary tract infections. For every two cases of circumcision complications, one case of penile cancer is prevented.

The study offers a conservative estimate of the actual risks, Christakis says, because it only measured complications during a baby's first hospital stay. For example, doctors know that some children with circumcisions suffer infections. But those usually occur after the birth hospitalization, and were not reflected in the database used in the study.

And:

"We're talking about trade-offs for very rare risks and very rare benefits," Christakis says. "Now, I can tell parents that one in 500 circumcised children may suffer a complication, and one in 100 children may derive a benefit. But people will weigh that differently. However, the vast majority of children will gain no medical benefit nor suffer any complication as a result of circumcision."

Personally I dispute the idea of no complication because it ignores the inevitable, guaranteed results (i.e. scarring, loss of nerve endings, undocumented complications such as tight erections) from circumcision. Those are incorrectly considered acceptable and normal, so they are dismissed.

But I'll pretend my disagreement is a flaw in my semantics. We are not discussing compelling evidence. Medical ethics are based on medical need, which simply does not exist for most boys. We are discussing what is essentially reduced to subjective parental whim, often based on not wanting to clean it or explain why dad is different.

Also, the risk of UTIs in females is several times higher than it is for intact boys. Anatomy is different, so cutting likely wouldn't work for girls. Still, we treat them with less invasive measures because they work. Why is it that antibiotics are good enough for girls, but not for boys? Do antibiotics not work in the rare instances (~1% risk in the first year) of UTIs in boys?

lovelysoul:

It is equally obvious to me that most grown men don't like to contemplate ANY sort of surgery in that area.

So why is it reasonable to assume children would want any sort of surgery in that area? If adults choose keeping their foreskin over the pain involved, why would infants choose pain over the foreskin? You can't have it both ways.

...I still believe most parents in our culture truly love their kids and are hoping to do the best for them.

I agree with this. But that is not a standard for surgery. The subjective standards you've proposed could be used, and often are used in other parts of the world, for the extreme comparisons being made here. Something else, something objective, guides our understanding that those are wrong. Infant circumcision is no different. Objectively, it is not needed.

Most boys in this country are circumcised because their fathers are, and if those dads truly felt their circumcision had caused them lasting harm, I'm sure they wouldn't choose it for their sons, even for religious reasons. They'd stand up and say, "We're not going to do this anymore!"

Sorry to harp on it, but again, this is not a valid reason for surgery on a child. If dad has a stent, should the child get one? A tattoo? Those are extreme like the rest. But they highlight that all of these reasons for circumcision are subjective to the individual. We're talking about genital surgery on healthy children, not rooting for a favorite sports team. What the parents value, their children might not. They need to retain their right to choose differently.

You teach your children religion. They'll probably agree. But they can reject it. You can teach your child that only one political party is correct. They might agree. But they can reject it. And so on.

Of course I won't circumcise any children I might have, but they might choose to be circumcised. They'll have that choice. But "if you don't like it, don't do it" fails the men who have it imposed on them. It misses the individuals involved. Men like me who don't want circumcision are stuck with it. For no objective reason.

I realize that most American men like being circumcised. Fair enough. My goal is not to convince them they should be angry about being circumcised. And most children circumcised now will probably grow up to be indifferent, at worst. It doesn't matter. The (growing) minority of boys who are angry are individuals deserving the same protection. And I've met more than enough men who, when pressed, express at least regret about being circumcised. Just because a man doesn't tell you he's upset, it doesn't mean he's happy about it. Men have been known to brag about things that aren't true.

Tony, I've already been over that with tonsillectomies. The larger the area to be cut, the more pain and recovery will be involved. Doing it as an adult has to be more painful and difficult. A half-inch cut will obviously be less painful than a 10" cut. You know that only makes sense.

Kids don't CHOOSE pain, so responsible parents generally don't consult kids on that. I know this offends those of you who have this new-age view of children's rights.

My kids didn't CHOOSE to get braces or othodontic work. That is elective, painful, and when anesthesia is involved, risky. I could've left them with crooked teeth and let them decide (and pay for it) later, and I guess you and the other child-righters would agree with that.

They didn't CHOOSE to be held down screaming on a doctor's table to have vaccinations either, but I, as a parent, helped hold them down because it was believed to be in their best interest. Should I have waited and let them decide? The anti-vaccination crowd would surely agree.

I think you can find angry men and women - and radical political and social agendas - regarding almost anything. But that doesn't necessarily elevate their topic to a worthwhile cause.

I would say these angry men need to get over their foreskin lust. Circumcised men can't possibly know if it would make their particular sexual experience "better" - only because some angry folks are telling them so. But you will always find people drawn to excuses to be angry for some perceived slight or wrongdoing....especially if it involves their parents!

Yet, there are too many circumcised men having really enjoyable sexual experiences. So, these guys need to ask themselves why they are fixated on this one perceived loss and instead try to have the most fun with what they've got.

Look at this guy:
http://videos.komando.com/2008/11/23/no-arms-no-legs-no-worries/

Lovelysoul said:
I would say these angry men need to get over their foreskin lust. Circumcised men can't possibly know if it would make their particular sexual experience "better" - only because some angry folks are telling them so.

I would say these angry women need to get over their clitoral lust. Circumcised women can't possibly know if it would make their particular sexual experience "better" - only because some angry folks are telling them so.

Yet, there are too many circumcised men having really enjoyable sexual experiences. So, these guys need to ask themselves why they are fixated on this one perceived loss and instead try to have the most fun with what they've got.

Wearing a condom greatly diminishes sensation, yet most men are still able to enjoy sex while wearing one. That doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer the sensations of not wearing one.

If you chopped off two of your son's fingers, his hand would still be functional for the most part; that doesn't mean he wouldn't prefer to keep all 5.

This argument of "They don't know what they are missing, so it's okay" is bullshit, as much as it would be if you applied it as an argument in favor of circumcising girls.

@lovelysoul said...

I've just returned from spending the night with my circumcised boyfriend. We had AMAZING sex! This whole thing about circumcised guys losing out is, as WKI said, bulls--t.

Good for you. So circumcision should continue because YOU like it. Do you also smear the foreskins of baby boys on your face. Are you in reality the Countess Elizabeth Báthory.

Watch the video I posted.

Maybe that will happen in the light of new evidence, but so far, nothing has made me regret choosing circumcision for my son. To me, it seems to be a fairly innocuous choice either way.

Was it done in your presence.

I believe it should be mandatory to perform this mutilation in the presence of the mother. Let's see how long it lasts then.

Yet, there are too many circumcised men having really enjoyable sexual experiences. So, these guys need to ask themselves why they are fixated on this one perceived loss and instead try to have the most fun with what they've got.

Majority rules eh? Watch the video. Then defend the practice.

Anybody supporting ANY form of circumcision is a sadist.

And, lovelysoul, George Orwell would have fun with your name.

I doubt you have a soul.

We are discussing what is essentially reduced to subjective parental whim

Yes, I would agree with that. (I might think "judgement" is a more accurate word, but I'll accept "whim" for the sake of argument.) My point is that parental whim should not be overridden by force of law unless the parent proposes to do something clearly and significantly harmful to the child. Removal of a healthy baby's kidney, or feet, or breasts, or clitoris meets that standard. Removal of his foreskin does not.

Now, maybe I'll change my mind on this after watching gwallan's video. We'll see.

I believe it should be mandatory to perform this mutilation in the presence of the mother. Let's see how long it lasts then.

It's my understanding that at a bris (the Jewish circumcision ceremony) the circumcision is performed in the presence of both parents. (I've never seen a bris, so I could be wrong on this point.) Doesn't seem to have ended the practice among Jews. Might need to give it a little time, though; they've only been doing it for 5000 years or thereabouts.

I've already said that I was there during the procedure. I saw my son cry, briefly, then go back to sleep. I was just down at the beach, and a male friend of mine shared that his brother chose circumcision later in life. He is much happier! You guys that want it to be this horrible thing are wrong!

lovelysoul said:

It is equally obvious to me that most grown men don't like to contemplate ANY sort of surgery in that area. Just getting a guy to have a vasectomy isn't easy! So, no matter how much they might regret being uncircumcised when they're older, they're not likely to do it. So, that's a rather unconvincing argument.

Don't you see the ethical problem that you've just constructed? If most reasonable grown men wouldn't choose it on their own, for whatever reason, then the choice fails the substitute judgment test and proxy consent can't be valid. On the flip side, I'd bet that if there was a compelling medically therapeutic reason necessitating circumcision, then most reasonable people would consent to it. The same way reasonable adults consent to other invasive medically necessary surgeries or other prophylactic interventions such as vaccinations. How is that possibly unconvincing?

lovelysoul said:

I think it was Momof3 who stated that parents who are suspect of vaccinations and autism are crazy, but I happen to believe that we do have way too many vaccinations given much too early, and we really don't know what that cocktail of vaccines does to our children's brains and central nervous systems...and we have a sharp an unexplained rise in autism.

Yet you don't have the same conflicting medical opinion WRT vaccinations. All independent pediatric organizations have looked at the information and recommended most of the same vaccines for their populations. That can't be said for circumcision where the only first world pediatric organization that is really on the fence is the American one. All others are much more firmly against it. Those countries' pediatric and child welfare organizations who never practiced circumcision are even more firmly opposed to the practice, hence the story from Denmark.

lovelysoul said:

but I still believe most parents in our culture truly love their kids and are hoping to do the best for them. They don't alter body parts cruelly, or make any other decisions that they think may harm or stigmatize their child.

There is proabably many Indonesian parents right now circumcising their new born girls out of love and concern for their wellbeing. Does that make it right?

lovelysoul said:

Tony, I've already been over that with tonsillectomies.

My kids didn't CHOOSE to get braces or othodontic work. That is elective, painful, and when anesthesia is involved, risky.

They didn't CHOOSE to be held down screaming on a doctor's table to have vaccinations either, but I,

Tonsillectomies are almost always done because of a medical need they aren't usually done routinely anymore. I don't know what kind of orthodontic work your kid had, I had a ton, and it was never painful. If his jaw was so out of wack that they needed anesthesia at some point there might have been other concerns related to his tight jaw that could have created a medical necessity. That could be a tight call though orthodontics are also correcting a deformity, the foreskin is not a birth defect. And vaccines, see above.

lovelysoul said:

I would say these angry men need to get over their foreskin lust. Circumcised men can't possibly know if it would make their particular sexual experience "better" - only because some angry folks are telling them so. But you will always find people drawn to excuses to be angry for some perceived slight or wrongdoing....especially if it involves their parents!

Why must they get over it? What if they are angry because of a severe complication? They never asked to be circumcised and their is no compelling objective reason why they had to be put at that risk. Does it bother you that there might be even a small body of men who strongly disagreed with their parents choice with regard to this?

lovelysoul said:

Yet, there are too many circumcised men having really enjoyable sexual experiences. So, these guys need to ask themselves why they are fixated on this one perceived loss and instead try to have the most fun with what they've got.

And over 95% of Indonesian and Egyptian women are circumcised and most seem to be just fine with it. Does that make it right?

lovelysoul said:

I was just down at the beach, and a male friend of mine shared that his brother chose circumcision later in life. He is much happier!

If this man had come to you before getting circumcised and said, "I am not happy that I am not circumcised. Blah Blah Blah" Would you've told him to get over it and forget about it? Would you give him the same response you would give a circumcised man wishing he wasn't? Based on your current posts, seems like that is the response you should have given your friend at the beach.

Nobody here is saying circumcision should be completely banned. Nobody is saying that a consenting adult shouldn't be able to choose a circumcision should they want it. That is the point you seem to miss. You keep saying we are condemning circumcision out right and that is simply not the case. I wouldn't care if a man wanted to get circumcised anymore than if he wanted to get a Prince Albert, Ampallang, or an Apadravya. Many say the sex is better for both because of these things, it doesn't mean they should get the doctor to put one on their child.

Since you didn't answer my question before I'll ask it again.

It is possible to die, it is possible to even lose the penis. Forget about how rare it might be, could you have explained to your son that he lost his penis because of a surgical procedure to seek an incremental benefit against a potential problem that can be gained or treated by less invasive means?

Yes, I would...if, for some reason, I'd chosen to do it in Uganda, where the only people who DIE or lose their penis are. Certainly, then, I'd have some explainin' to do.

No, lovelysoul, people die, or lose the penis to infection or incompetence, here in the developed world too. You have odd faith in the medical community.

It's fine that like circumcised men. If a man wants you to be attracted to him, he is welcome to get circumcised. When he can choose. You were welcome to get your son done, when he could consent. The issue, in every post, is that parents should not be able to chop off part of their kids anatomy for NO MEDICAL REASON. You've yet to provide one that hasn't been debunked by modern medicine. You ahve debinked issues you still believe, yes, and you ahve your personal sexual preference, yes. Neither gives you carte blanche to amputate things.

Foreskin has been compared-oddly-to the appendix as being useless and needing removing. Yet, no surgeon would remove a healthy appendix UNLESS you were about to go spend serious time in a place with no medical care available. Then it's preventative to possibly save your life. If there were a possibility of a foreskin killing a boy, you all might have an argument for preventative removal, but there's not.

Gwallan;
I dont know about India/Asia, but the most common variant of FGM in Africa is excision, which involves removal of part/all of the clitoris and sometimes the labia minora.The was a detailed review of this done by AI in the late 90's.Check out for the report.
I know my experience after the snip is anecdotal, but i don't believe that the number of men who lose sensation after circumcision is large or statistically significant so as to warrant all the panic here.
Joe - the Egyptian women example is just not called for.As many people here have tried to state,do not compare removal of the foreskin to removal of the clitoris.If circumcision involved snipping the head of a man's penis,then that example would be apt.Besides, it's not like the Islamic culture encourages the women in the middle east to complain or question their lack of pleasure from sex, does it?

Sorry, the link is http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/007/1997/en/dom-ACT770071997en.html

It would if he gets HIV. I just read that all 3 studies were stopped early on ETHICAL GROUNDS - because the uncircumcised participants were clearly getting HIV at a higher rate!

In light of that, how can anyone fault a parent for performing a procedure that may, in fact, reduce the risk of a fatal disease...and doing it neonatally, which is the most prudent and least dangerous time?

To choose to wait until your 15 yr old can stubbornly tell you that he doesn't need a circumcision...just like he says he doesn't need to wear a seatbelt...is negligent in light of the facts. I think a responsible parent should think ahead and make those choices because kids will often not choose the safest measures.

And these are just the protections we KNOW about. There may be more discovered down the road. Like I said, new scientific evidence could make the advantages of circumcision even more compelling, but the disadvantages are clearly small.

Yet, I know that doesn't change your minds because this is basically a child-rights issue for you all. No matter how compelling the evidence of protection might be, you believe in waiting and letting the child decide, and that is your choice. Just as it is the choice of parents not to vaccinate...even though that puts us all at risk, which well could be argued with circumcision. If your teenage son decides against it and gives my daughter chlamydia or HIV...well, that's just the risk we all must take to live in a free society.

But I still don't believe in taking your choice away, so I'd appreciate you not attempting to remove mine.

lovelysoul said:

Yes, I would...if, for some reason, I'd chosen to do it in Uganda, where the only people who DIE or lose their penis are. Certainly, then, I'd have some explainin' to do.

Ok lets try this again, were these boys in Uganda?

WKI said:

Joe - the Egyptian women example is just not called for.As many people here have tried to state,do not compare removal of the foreskin to removal of the clitoris.If circumcision involved snipping the head of a man's penis,then that example would be apt.Besides, it's not like the Islamic culture encourages the women in the middle east to complain or question their lack of pleasure from sex, does it?

But that is only half the argument. FGM practices range from a pin prick/symbolic to the worst you can think of. I admit that there are many forms worse than male circumcision. The point is that all forms
are illegal and women are protected no matter how severe, whether it is practiced in a medical setting, by Drs, by nurses, by midwifes, for religious reasons or cultural. No matter what girls are protected. Wouldn't you think boy deserve the same protection?

lovelysoul said:

It would if he gets HIV. I just read that all 3 studies were stopped early on ETHICAL GROUNDS - because the uncircumcised participants were clearly getting HIV at a higher rate!

In light of that, how can anyone fault a parent for performing a procedure that may, in fact, reduce the risk of a fatal disease...and doing it neonatally, which is the most prudent and least dangerous time?

Doing it neonatally only insure you take the choice away from the boy. In light of what you just described could you explain why the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations put out this information regarding the information you're discussion:

* “Male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic”
* “African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.”
* Oh and this one is my favorite: “The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision”

lovelysoul said:

And these are just the protections we KNOW about. There may be more discovered down the road. Like I said, new scientific evidence could make the advantages of circumcision even more compelling, but the disadvantages are clearly small.

And if those advantages have a substantive impact on an adult then they can choose circumcision. The fact is even in light of what you present that burden is not met. This statement is similar to most other similar first world agencies. Perhaps you would like to explain why that is? If you can't figure it out I will outline some possibilities later. ;)

And so the question is not lost I would again like to know.

lovelysoul said:

Yes, I would...if, for some reason, I'd chosen to do it in Uganda, where the only people who DIE or lose their penis are. Certainly, then, I'd have some explainin' to do.

I asked: Were these boys in Uganda?

Wouldn't you think boy deserve the same protection?

Yes, absolutely. It should be illegal to tamper in any way with a boy's clitoris or labia.

Perhaps you miss the point Rex or perhaps I wasn't precise enough. Absent of a clear medical indication, it is illegal to tamper with a girls genitalia under any and all circumstances to any or all degrees so don't boys deserve the same protection for their genitalia? Equal protection under the law, the US 14th and similar regulations in other countries.

No Joe, I didn't miss your point. I was making a point of my own, hoping it would be understood without spelling it out in detail. Since apparently it wasn't. . .

Our language may lump them under the single term "genitals", but the penis and testicles are different from the vagina/clitoris/labia/vulva. They're shaped differently, operate differently, and have different purposes. To say that the law must treat both the same makes about as much sense as saying that hamburger must be prepared the same way as Japanese blowfish because they're both food.

Rex:

My point is that parental whim should not be overridden by force of law unless the parent proposes to do something clearly and significantly harmful to the child.

"Significantly" is subjective, with broad interpretation. Other cultures think FGM helps rather than harms. Other cultures bind the feet of their daughters. Is that significant? The law requires that we move as close to objective criteria as possible. Otherwise, one person's "assault" is another's "discipline".

Removal of a healthy baby's kidney, or feet, or breasts, or clitoris meets that standard. Removal of his foreskin does not.

Removal of the foreskin is objective harm. The boy is healthy when it's removed. The foreskin contains approximately 20,000 nerve endings. It has functions for the developing and developed penis, such as protecting the glans and providing sexual stimulation. The surgery involves risks, up to and including death (i.e. significant). Those are objective criteria.

So we're back to "significant". Please define how you apply such a term.

Rex:

Different purposes? Urination, pleasure, and reproduction. I'll grant you childbirth, but I'm not clear how that creates an exemption to either the 14th Amendment or common sense. Women don't have to give birth vaginally.

Rex Said:

Our language may lump them under the single term "genitals", but the penis and testicles are different from the vagina/clitoris/labia/vulva. They're shaped differently, operate differently, and have different purposes. To say that the law must treat both the same makes about as much sense as saying that hamburger must be prepared the same way as Japanese blowfish because they're both food.

This isn't really a good analogy. The word 'food' is much broader than genitalia; it's more like saying body part. A better analogy might be a beef burger vs a steak. And although the male and female genitalia are shaped and operate differently their function is the same: elimination of waste and procreation. They in fact develop, embryologically, from the same tissue.

It makes no sense why the female genitalia are protected by law under any circumstances and under any condition and to any degree. It's a tight sieve (actually nothing passes through) for one and a large one for another. If you wanted to follow the cooking analogy you might say all steaks must be cooked well (for reasons of health) but you can get a rare hamburger.

lovelysoul:

You omit inconvenient facts. Infant circumcision differs from adult circumcision in method and precision. Having a larger area to cut is better, all else equal (i.e. lack of need). The penis is fully developed. The doctor need not guess about how much foreskin to remove. And the adult can comprehend and manage the pain with sufficient medication. Pain as an adult wasn't a barrier for your friend's brother. It makes no sense to inflict pain on all infant males to spare a few the pain as an adult.

This is not a new-age view of children's rights. I extend "individual" and "liberty" already applied to male adults, female adults, and female children to include male children. This is not radical.

I wrote that my "goal is not to convince them they should be angry about being circumcised." It's about choice for healthy individuals, not conversion to "foreskin lust". Arguing that they can't miss what they don't know is lacking because girls wouldn't miss their breasts if we removed them at birth. But we deduced that such an act is ethically indefensible on a healthy child. All that's left is gender bias.

Circumcised men enjoy sex. Yet, the ability to orgasm is merely an indicator that the individual can orgasm. You don't have the data points to draw the conclusion that sexual experience is the same for intact men and men circumcised as children. A woman with trimmed labia will probably still enjoy sex. It is no less wrong to trim her labia without her consent or medical need.

If your son won't wear his seat belt, do you staple him to his seat? Or do you to tell him to buckle his seat belt? Parents should be expected to make sure their children wash properly and to teach them to wear condoms. You chose to have children. Risk and responsibility come with that. Treating (healthy) sons like equal human beings is not an unjust burden.

I am shocked by the willful ignorance displayed in these arguments. You all cannot be this dense. It has to be purposeful.

The cultures who remove the female genitalia are doing it in an effort to DESTROY that female's sexual pleasure...so she can be more easily controlled...so she won't stray from her husband. Some even sew the vagina shut, so virginity can be assured - leaving only a tiny hole for the woman to pee and menstruate through.

I guess, being guys, you can't imagine how painful that would be, but I can. And it causes all sorts of problems - such as UTIs - that male circumcision is specifically performed to prevent!

There is absolutely NO comparison, and even if female genitalia is officially "protected", that is obviously not what is occurring in many parts of the world. Yet, nobody is sewing your dick shut or chopping it off.

I guarantee we would not even be having this discussion if male circumcision came anywhere close to the same sort of act - designed to destroy male sexual pleasure. You may believe it does, but there is flimsy evidence, at best, that circumcision is permanently debilitating to men's sexual pleasure.

Female circumcision was invented by men to control women, so it is a form of sexual abuse. By contrast, circumcision was started by men for men. Common sense dictates that if it truly destroyed male sexual enjoyment, this practice would've never been invented!

To act like you're some sort disadvantaged sex is absurd, especially when poor girls out there in the world are trying to pee through straws!

All the while, you're sitting here crying about some mythical "lost sensitivity". If only you had a foreskin, maybe you could have 3 orgasms a day instead of only two...or maybe you wouldn't have to use hand cream to whack off...Boo Hoo.

It's disgusting and indefensible how self-absorbed you guys are about this, but making out like you're the disenfranchised sex when it comes to circumcision is truly embarrasing!

"If your son won't wear his seat belt, do you staple him to his seat? Or do you to tell him to buckle his seat belt? Parents should be expected to make sure their children wash properly and to teach them to wear condoms. You chose to have children. Risk and responsibility come with that. Treating (healthy) sons like equal human beings is not an unjust burden."

I am sick of getting this lecture like I don't know raising children is a "responsibility". What lilly-white world do you all live in where just telling a child to do something, like wear a condom, always works? Did you follow your mom's advice religiously...especially in college? I bet not.

I expect my son will still make some mistakes - get swept up in a moment of passion - like most of us (at least those not sitting home pining for foreskins) do on occasion.

Even the best, most responsible parents do not raise pefect, roboticly obedient children. That's why we do whatever we can to make their lives a little safer when we know they'll likely screw up.

You can't strap them down, Amy...or drive to college and put on their little condoms for them. Once upon a time, I could make sure they looked both ways because I'd be holding their hands, or walking right behind them, but now, I just have to hope that they will use good judgment. After a certain point, the training wheels come off, and you have to let them go and potentially make some big mistakes. They're kids - they WILL be stupid sometimes.

And I do know people with HIV. Most wouldn't go around telling anyone but their closest friends, and trust me, you wouldn't be able to tell.

I would hope that a woman who knows she has HIV - or chlamydia or other STDs - wouldn't seduce my son, or get into a relationship with him without telling him, but the fact remains, this does happen or STDs wouldn't spread.

I understand your position, but having a young man out there, as I do, makes me glad that I took action to minimize his risks, no matter how slight.

I mean, I don't know anyone with smallpox, but I still vaccinated him for it.

Circucision began as a religious practice by a monothiest cult that frowned on sex. It was revived in the US as an atempt to crub masterbation. All of the so called benifits "discovered" by science is nothing more than an atempt to justify the practice.

And lovelysoul seriously, how stupid are you?

The african study was stopped because uncut men were UNETHICALLY contracting AIDS at a higher rates?

Do you suppose the reaserches has a couple of pits and forced unifected men to fuck infected women at gun point to see who got infected more? Or do you suppose the were asking survey questions and taking blood tests?

What were the unetheical "reasons" that the study was shut down for? Because its not like asking questions and test blood sample is the work of the devil

I know that lujlp, but if that was the original intent - to curb masturbation - it obviously didn't work, right?

Unlike female circumcision, which when the clitoris is removed, effectively prevents orgasm and most sexual pleasure (though some guys probably think women can orgasm without a clitoris, since most of us can fake it when we must).

And I'm assuming they stopped the study because it was so clear that circumcision was more protective that the researchers didn't feel it was ethical to let the uncut group continue to be exposed without recommending circumcision.

Here's one link I read:
www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm

More Math - according to the Cutting kids article gawallan posted circucision reduses the odds of UTI's by 1% - So for every 99 UTI's yous son has had You stopped 1

So how many UTI's did you sone have before he left home lovelysoul, because it the answer is less than 99 you made a bad call.

According to the same article circumcision reduses penile cancer by 0.2%. So using the CDC cancer rates for 2000-2004

Approx 2400 men contracted penile cancer per yr
Assuming all of these men were uncut(which is a large assumption) that would prevent 48 cases. Millions of circumcisions to prevet 48 cases of cancer
Too bad they dont keep stats on botched circumcisions so we could see which is the higher risk. But if there are more than 48 botched circumcisions in a year then then risks again out weigh the "benefits"

Wouldnt it have been easier to recomend condoms LS - they give them away for free, even in Africa

Hers a thought - maybe the shut it down because the uncut guys were getting infected as well.

At ne time circumcision was considered a defence againt epilepsy and tuberculosis

lovelysoul:

I haven't denied what you've state about FGM. I've only stated the truth, that your view is an accurate but incomplete picture of FGM as it's practiced around the world. Usually, as I've conceded multiple times, it's an attempt to reduce/destroy female sexuality. But not always. And it's not always imposed by men on the women of the culture. If it started as men forcing it on women, women are complicit in its continuation.

I suggest you start here for background on women who support FGM for many of the same cultural reasons Americans push for MGM, from a discussion in the New York Times. If you wish to continue denying my position on FGM, I'll point you to my blog entries where I reject outright the subjective nonsense these anthropologists use to defend FGM.

Common sense dictates that if it truly destroyed male sexual enjoyment, this practice would've never been invented!

If it's good enough for dad... The human psyche's ability to deny truth is strong. And I stated the fallacy underlying this argument. Enjoying sex with a circumcised penis doesn't provide enough data to state that it is no different than sex with an intact penis. Wishing it so doesn't make it any more true.

The reference Amy mentioned is most easily summed up here, by Maimonides in 1190, describing a benefit of circumcision.

"Circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement." (link below)

Maimonides was a man. He was influential in pushing male circumcision as a limiter on male sexuality. I can pull more examples, if you like.

(For more on Maimonides and attempts to reduce male sexuality through circumcision, see Leonard Glick's book Marked in Your Flesh.)

As an anecdotal aside, since those seem to be conclusive proof in this thread, a friend has an American acquaintance who had his healthy penis accidentally chopped off during a botched circumcision. Bad things happen despite good intentions. Unless you're psychic, parents can't know it will not be their child. I can provide links too more stories of complications, if necessary.

The Maimonides link. See note #26 in the text.

I guess you can suppose all kind of wild theories, Lujlp, but the evidence looks pretty conclusive. Condoms are only effective when used, and that is the problem - young men don't always use them, no matter how much their moms tell them to. 40 yr old men don't always use them. Trust me on that. I've been out there recently.

Honestly, how many of us can really claim to have a perfect safe-sex record? How can we expect our young kids to always choose wisely? It's impractical to believe they will all the time.

"Circumcision is much less effective than condom use at preventing HIV transmission. If used consistently over the long term, condoms are at least 80% effective, whereas circumcision only prevents around 50% of infections. Even if a man has been circumcised, he must still abstain, be faithful or use condoms to substantially cut his risk of infection".

I feel relieved that my son has BOTH protections. Hopefully he'll use condoms 100% of the time, but if he is foolish and lets his guard down, he has the back-up protection of circumcision. To me, that is a comfort. I've given him the best survival chance I can.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1996 found that the incidence of gonorrhea in the US was 26 times greater than the rate in Germany and 50 times the rate in Sweden. The CDC also reported in 1996 that the total rate of syphilis in the US was 13 times higher than that in Germany and 33 times greater than in Sweden.18
But while the US's circumcision rate is still above 50 percent, the circumcision policy statements of both the AAP and the Canadian Pediatric Society acknowledge that circumcision is uncommon in most of Europe, including Germany and Sweden.

A study by Edward Laumann, PhD, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed a US rate of chlamydia infection of 25.1 per 1,000 circumcised men, and zero for intact men.19

18. U.S. Centers for Disease Control, "HIV Prevention through Early Detection and Treatment of Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases," in United States Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for HIV and STD Prevention (Atlanta, GA: 31 July 1998): 1-24; www.cdc.gov

19. Edward O. Laumann et al., "Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice," Journal of the American Medical Association

http://www.slate.com/id/2101678/

Again:

lovelysoul said:

Yes, I would...if, for some reason, I'd chosen to do it in Uganda, where the only people who DIE or lose their penis are. Certainly, then, I'd have some explainin' to do.

I asked: Were these boys in Uganda?

Do you read the links were those boys in a third world country?

lovelysoul said:

All the while, you're sitting here crying about some mythical "lost sensitivity". If only you had a foreskin, maybe you could have 3 orgasms a day instead of only two...or maybe you wouldn't have to use hand cream to whack off...Boo Hoo.

It's disgusting and indefensible how self-absorbed you guys are about this, but making out like you're the disenfranchised sex when it comes to circumcision is truly embarrasing!

....like most of us (at least those not sitting home pining for foreskins) do on occasion.

It has nothing to do with being self-absorbed it has nothing to do with pinning for foreskins. It has to do with giving boys in ours, and other countries, the same protections enjoyed by girls all children deserve that.

lovelysoul said:

To act like you're some sort disadvantaged sex is absurd, especially when poor girls out there in the world are trying to pee through straws!

I am concerned about those girls too. Unlike you, we are interested in promoting equal protection. I know that is a radical new-age idea but it's a good one.

lovelysoul said:

I understand your position, but having a young man out there, as I do, makes me glad that I took action to minimize his risks, no matter how slight.

Would you cut your daughter's genitalia if there was a possibility of a slight reduction in disease too?

"Would you cut your daughter's genitalia if there was a possibility of a slight reduction in disease too?"

That is absurd! I did not cut off my son's genitalia. He has not been castrated. It is disturbing how you try to liken our form of circumcision to the amputation of the entire clitoris and labia.

Nobody wants to deal with the truth that, regardless of how this practice started, male circumcision indeed protects against disease and STDs, which is a reasonable basis for loving parents to choose it for their sons as an added precaution.

The reason any confusion exists is that female castration has been mistakenly called "circumcision", which it is not. Nobody is castrating young boys in this country or attempting to limit their long-term sexual fulfillment.

And I'm sure I can find horrific stories of kids who have suffered ill effects from vaccinations, elective orthodontic work, minor surgeries, and the like - a host of common procedures that have gone wrong. I just saw one about a girl who had the HPV vaccine and now, inexplicably, she can't walk!

The truth is that most elective procedures we parents choose carry some risk of side effects - even death.

I don't know what your obsession with Uganda is, Joe - I was merely making the point that MOST fatal outcomes probably occur in places where they do it in huts, not hospitals, or with inexperienced practioners. And, no, it wouldn't be a surprise to me if they are adults, not boys, as clearly the best time to do this procedure is in infancy.

You are all free to choose whatever you want for your own children. But that's not good enough. You won't stop until you somehow legally equate our version of circumcision with that of the Muslim world and FGM.

That is pretty unfortunate, especially considering the obvious health advantages and AIDs prevention that studies now prove circumcision offers. It is a shame that you would seek to limit a parent's ability to choose that potential protection for their child at a stage when circumcision is less risky and more easily performed.

Clearly, countries like Germany and Sweden have OTHER factors that may contribute to their lower rates of HIV, not just circumcision. They are more homogenized societies, which do not have the same culture we have of unwed pregnancies, teen promiscuity, and other social factors that lead to higher HIV risks.

If you want "equal protections" then stop FGM first, because banning the comparatively innocuous proecedure of male circumcision here will do nothing to help those girls. No matter what laws you put on the books here, it's not going to stop that practice in the Muslim world. Maybe it makes you feel good to call it "equal", but there's nothing "equal" about the two procedures.

And the fact that there are women who support FGM only shows that they have been conditioned by a male-dominated culture to believe that their sexual pleasure is "dirty" and makes them less desirable. We all know better than that! To hide behind that excuse is to be complicit with the very men who seek to control women that way. You are not being compassionate if you actually make that argument - and certainly not by likening FGM to our form of circumcision, or by trying to "equalize" it.

In fact, you are helping the cause for female castration by doing that. Muslims can say, "See, Americans view what we do the SAME as their circumcison." You are helping them justify castration as "circumcision"...because you, yourselves, don't seem to see a difference.

Did you watch that video LS?

THey strap boys down, shove a metal spike into their gentitals, and proced to rip off skin which is fused to the head of the penis.
They then pull on the skin as they cut it.

How is that any less violent or groteque than many of the forms of FGM where the clitoris is left intact?

But the real kicker is they guess how much skin has to be removed. The foreskin is more than a third of the original skin and the doctor has no idea what size a penis will be after the boy hits puberty.

So what happens if they cut off too much skin? or not enough?

And did you read the study on pain reaction in children durring vaccinations?
Uncut boys handled the pain well, cut boys not so much, and boys cut with no anesthetic at all had the lowest pain threshold of all.

I wonder if there have been any studies done on the predilection for S&M in cut vs uncut men

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

Heres an interesting atricle for a doctor and mother

Here is one exerpt
-Your son's foreskin is "adhered" to the glans. It must be amputated.

The attachment of the foreskin and glans is nature's way of protecting the undeveloped glans from premature exposure. Detachment is a normal physiological process that can take up to two decades to complete. By the end of puberty, the foreskin will have detached from the glans because hormones that are produced in great quantities at puberty help with the process. There is no age by which a child's foreskin must be fully separated from the glans.

Note this in particular
Detachment is a normal physiological process that can take up to two decades to complete.

Might it be that without cricumcision boys would wait longet to have sex, at least until their foreskin is fully detached, to prevent groin pain?

lovelysoul it obviously doesnt bother you that men dont like it being done so maybe if you see how it effects women. . .

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html

Well, that is NOT how we practice circumcision in the US. I'm sure Muslims are thrilled for us to equate our sterile, neonatal circumcision procedures to FGM - to say that the Jewish form of circumcision is no less barbaric than theirs.

In my opinion, that is why Muslim cultures are gaining strength throughout the civilized world - because we try to find common ground with them - we try to equate. After all, they're probably just peace-loving folks like us...they cut off their daughter's genitals, but hey, we circumicise our sons...so we're just as bad! How can we judge them?"

The societal conclusion, then, is that we can't, which leads to their gaining ever more political power.

Why we do this, I don't know. Guilt? Bleeding-heart sensibilities? Some basic need to believe that all mankind, deep down, is just like us?

To me, it is clear that the Jewish - the American - form of neonatal circumcision is no where near the same as Muslim FGM, or even male circumcision in many parts of the world, and we should not try to equate it at all.

Let's agree to disagree about our own circumcision procedure - argue whether it should be done, and if so, how to make it safer or less painful. But when you allow your passionate opposition to something to lead to these kind of extreme leaps - equating our much more civilized procedure with the barbaric practices of our enemies - then you've lost perspective.

Found this nugget in your study lovelsoul

Studies suggest 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over 20 years could result from male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa,

Also there is this paper
“Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?”
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Found that: “In the final logistic model, circumcision remained highly significant [OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.41,0.88] while adjusted for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.”

Basically, circumcised women had a significant lower HIV risk after adjusting for other variables

This study set out to show that FGM caused an increased risk for ADIS but found the opposite.

Would you consider genital cutting for a girl now?

lovelysoul:

Why do you insist on ignoring what we write? Every time one of us opposed to circumcision says something, you either assume we've said something more extreme than our words or you pretend that we've said something entirely different.

Joe asked if you would cut your daughter's genitals for a possible reduced disease risk. You accused him of asking you if you would cut off your daughter's genitals. He did not use the word you used to justify going bonkers on us for words we have not written here. Did you bother to open the link I posted?

Once again:

- FGM is evil.
- Most forms of FGM are far worse than MGM
- The worst forms of FGM are the most commonly practiced around the world

It can't be any clearer than that, and I don't think anyone here disagrees with any of that.

However. The subjective standards you keep coming back to can be used to justify far more because they are subjective criteria. If you follow some of the links above on FGM, you'll see that parents do use those subjective standards to justify FGM. Parental love and good intentions for disease prevention would apply to child mastectomy, as well. But basing such a decision on those reasons would be irrational. Another standard - one possessing only objective principle - is required.

You speak of disease prevention as if we deny it. I don't. But it's also clearly true that less invasive measures are available for every single risk you cite. We apply those to girls. The only coherent reason you've given for being more invasive with boys is that they can't be trusted to clean or be sexually responsible. That's condescending, at best. Worse, it's no better than late-19th century medicine in the 21st century.

LS much of FGM is preformed by doctors.

And please explain how ripping off half of the skin on a penis - with no pain meds and no fucking clue as to how much of that skin being ripped off is needed to allow it to develop properly - is in any way civilized?

"Joe asked if you would cut your daughter's genitals for a possible reduced disease risk..."

You're not reading what I write because I've already, repeatedly, said that, all things being equal, I would. As long as her future sexual enjoyment isn't damaged, and it was performed with the same care and professionalism, in the hospital, with local anesthesia, that my son received by my loving family doctor - who has performed countless successful procedures, then YES.

To reduce her lifetime risk of HIV, UTIs, chlamydia?!..YES.

If only it were that easy with girls, but it's not because we have a vagina. Cutting the clitoris isn't likely to provide much, if any, protection. Only women who've been brainwashed, would believe that cutting the female cilitois or labia would provide any real protection against disease.

lovelysoul:

...our sterile, neonatal circumcision procedures...

You wouldn't defend FGM if it was done under those conditions. You don't get to use that as an excuse for MGM. Sanitary medical conditions is common sense, even when you're operating on a healthy child. It does not make the operation valid because it says nothing of medical need. Or lack of medical need, in the case of infant male circumcision.

Some basic need to believe that all mankind, deep down, is just like us?

I believe that, but in this way, from observation and study: It's a universal human flaw to think that children are parental property. It's a universal human flaw to think that we have the right to control those who are weaker. It's a universal human flaw to reject empathy for another's suffering if we consider that suffering trivial or good. It's a universal human flaw to trust that We are always right and They are always wrong.

The goal is to rise above that through the power of our reasoning minds rather than continuing to wallow in superstitions and uninformed opinions.

lovelysoul:

I know you earlier said you would, if there were potential benefits. (Would you condone such research?) I pointed out how you responded to Joe's reasonable question of cutting, to which you would answer "yes", with an assumption that he'd asked a question about cutting off, to which you'd say "no". That gave you an starting point to rant against statements none of us made in this thread.

http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/hampton1.html

Well lovelysoul it seems you ignored my post earlier about the study that found a decreased risk of STDs in women subjected to FGM in Tanzania

So you no longer have a problem with FGM as long at its preformed by doctors in a sterile enviorment without pain meds, right?

What is "superstitious" about a 50% reduced HIV risk?

If there were no clear indications that circumcision provided any disease-preventive benefits, I would agree, but I'm not believing in witchcraft here.

For example, I don't know what my children's risk for smallpox was. I don't know anyone with it in this country, but we still vaccinate for it...even if the risk was .0001%.

You may feel it's condescending, but I believe my children's risk of possibly contracting HIV and other STDs is substantially higher.

Lujlp, no, I believe pain meds should be used.

I don't have time to read that study, as I'm praparing food for the holiday, but I would ask how sexually active were these women in the first place? If they were subject to FGM in the first place, were they free to have multiple sex partners?

It just doesn't make any sense. Any change to the outer genitalia wouldn't protect a woman from contracting disease within her vagina, the most likely place.

For example, I don't know what my children's risk for smallpox was. I don't know anyone with it in this country, but we still vaccinate for it...even if the risk was .0001%.

Not to nit pick but your children's risk of small pox is essentially 0 and I very much doubt they were vaccinated. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated in the wild in 1979 or 1980, US children haven't been vaccinated since the very early 1970. This had surfaced as a concern a few years ago and there was consideration to implement a max vaccination of everyone under 40 but that was never acted upon.

LS the african study has no bearing on US populations as the most likely causes for males to catch HIV are NOT heterosexual sex.

One group using the African study extrapolated 380 circumcisions in the US to prevent 1 HIV infection.

I'll try to find that link again

Also men in Africa are more likley to not use protection when having casual ex or sex with prostitues. Most US prostitues instist on condoms.

But for the one study you cited I posted 2 or 3 which found opposite results and it was Tony or gawallan who posted a couple of others which also undercut the finding of the study you posted.

Oh, well, that's right. Ooops. I'm the one who had smallpox. Wrong example.

They have so many vaccines, frankly, I can't remember what they've had without looking at their immunization cards, but my point was that I really never asked how high the risks were for any of those conditions, but I'm betting some weren't as high as their HIV risk.

Okay, lujlp. I'll try to read the link if you resend it. I just don't want to go through this whole thread looking for it.

Isn't HIV growing in the US among older people, through vaginal sex? I thought I read somewhere that the over 50 crowd was getting it at an increasing rate - because they usually feel they're immune, were never used to condoms, and don't use protection.

I realize there is much more promiscuity and unsafe sex practices in Africa. I actually find it interesting that they have so much more vaginal transmission because my ex always swore it was near impossible for a straight man to get HIV from vaginal sex (this is how he would reassure me after his affairs!).

He is 59 now and still won't wear condoms. Instead, he gets tested every 3 months...so he can show his new sex partners he's "clean."

I personally found it a struggle to get men in their late 30s, early 40s, to wear condoms. Many feel insulted, and tell you how near abstinate they've been for years, etc. I was quite firm on it, but my guess is that many women probably give in under that pressure. To be honest, I did a few times myself.

So, I just don't think there is as much safe sex going on in this country as people pretend. Carrying a condom in your purse isn't safe sex. :)

Umm, people over 50 are more likley to be circumcised

True. I thought of that as I was writing it, Lujlp.

Look, I have a hard time trusting most studies. It's difficult to know any research group's underlying agenda or qualifications. I certainly don't have blind faith in the CDC.

There are a few problems with the African studies. Mainly, we don't know who the sexual partners were and what percentage of them were infected with HIV. We are assuming that each group slept freely with the same type of women.

Do circumcised men have a higher social status in Africa? Do they tend to be better off financially? If so, maybe their partners were less infected to begin with, so their risk was lower.

One would hope researchers are sharp enough to account for such variables, but I honestly don't have that much faith in them.

Really, the only way to do an unbiased study would be to take both uncut and cut men and expose them to the same women with known HIV. Yet, talk about ethical problems!

My gut instinct is that, as whacky as he is, my ex has this right. He would say there really is no easy absorption point on a circumcised male, who is having only vaginal sex. (And given my ex's sexual exposures - including prostitutes - and his still clean HIV record - he is, perhaps, a living example of circumcision's benefits).

The infected fluid has to make contact with vulnerable cells or blood. A circumcised man may have a cut on his shaft, but that is kind of rare. What the African researchers attributed it to - the more vulnerable cells in the foreskin and its easier tearing - makes sense to me.

That is not to say I believe it 100%, but I can't discount it either. I think the verdict is still out, but the likelihood is that circumcision provides some degree of protection...though, of course, not foolproof.

“Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?”
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women

The point is for either sex it is wrong no matter how people try to spin it

It's just too vague to know how they leveled out all those variables, Lujlp. And, once again, we have no idea who their sexual partners are - husbands? multiple lovers? How many of their partners were infected with HIV?

As I said above, what I don't like about these studies is that they assume all sexual activity is equally risky, whereas other variables may determine what type of sexual partner a woman, or man, may be involved with.

But I would guess that most circumcised women in Tanzania would have few sexual partners - mostly their husbands. There's no way to know from that report how faithful or unfaithful those men are and how many might be HIV positive.

It still doesn't make sense that any sort of female circumcision would protect against HIV transmission - unless the vaginas were sewn shut - or unless Tanzanisian (?) men always withdraw.

Lovelysoul said:

That is absurd! I did not cut off my son's genitalia. He has not been castrated. It is disturbing how you try to liken our form of circumcision to the amputation of the entire clitoris and labia.

The foreskin is as much a part of the normal male genitalia as the earlobe is a part of the ear. If a parent cut off their child's earlobe what would it be called?

Lovelysoul said:

I don't know what your obsession with Uganda is, Joe - I was merely making the point that MOST fatal outcomes probably occur in places where they do it in huts, not hospitals, or with inexperienced practioners.

You were the one who brought up Uganda, claiming that nothing bad would happen to a boy simply because of where he was circumcised. This is demonstrably false, you just choose to ignore the possibility that even in western hospitals boys who are circumcised are put at risk for severe complications, a risk that it is not necessary to take. Sure, it's true that more complications occur in third world countries but I could say that about all procedures.

Lovelysoul said:

In my opinion, that is why Muslim cultures are gaining strength throughout the civilized world - because we try to find common ground with them - we try to equate. After all, they're probably just peace-loving folks like us...they cut off their daughter's genitals, but hey, we circumicise our sons...so we're just as bad! How can we judge them?"

Let's agree to disagree about our own circumcision procedure - argue whether it should be done, and if so, how to make it safer or less painful. But when you allow your passionate opposition to something to lead to

I don't see how you could say that fighting both of these give any credibility to either. I am saying both are wrong and I am willing to focus my efforts fighting them both. The problem is one of perception, FGM covers a range of procedures yet when we think about it, we always envision the worst situation. Because we are comfortable with MGM its all sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere. The only way to make the procedure safer or less painful is to not do it, and let the man choose whether he wants it later.

Lovelysoul said:

Nobody wants to deal with the truth that, regardless of how this practice started, male circumcision indeed protects against disease and STDs, which is a reasonable basis for loving parents to choose it for their sons as an added precaution.

Once again nobody has out right denied that there might be a small incremental difference in the incidence of some STDs based on circumcision. However if it exists, it is very tiny and for the record while there may be a slight difference in HIV rates it is very small, there is likely no difference in common STDs.

Lovelysoul said:

And I'm sure I can find horrific stories of kids who have suffered ill effects from vaccinations, elective orthodontic work, minor surgeries, and the like - a host of common procedures that have gone wrong. I just saw one about a girl who had the HPV vaccine and now, inexplicably, she can't walk!

Vaccines can be defended though. For the most part they represent the most reasonable way to protect one from a specific disease. For example, absent a vaccine, how do I protect myself from the Measles? Minor surgeries and many other things are done for medical need they can't be compared to something that has no medically therapeutic value for 99.99% of the people who it's performed on.

lovelysoul said:

It's just too vague to know how they leveled out all those variables, Lujlp. And, once again, we have no idea who their sexual partners are - husbands? multiple lovers? How many of their partners were infected with HIV?

It's not that vague read the conclusion you'll see they adjusted their results for all those factors and circumcision remained significantly protective. I agree I would like to have the actual paper to read. Though I've never found anything other then the abstract.

lovelysoul said:

But I would guess that most circumcised women in Tanzania would have few sexual partners - mostly their husbands. There's no way to know from that report how faithful or unfaithful those men are and how many might be HIV positive.

How faithful the partner is is not relevant. What is relevant is how many were HIV + and the research found that after adjusting for all relevant factors circumcised women in Tanzania had a much lower incidence of HIV.

lovelysoul said:

It still doesn't make sense that any sort of female circumcision would protect against HIV transmission - unless the vaginas were sewn shut - or unless Tanzanisian (?) men always withdraw.

It makes perfect sense. The tissues and cells in the foreskin and penis are the same as in the vagina. The elimination of structures that may be more vulnerable to HIV infection will reduce the possibility of infection, just like the suppose male circumcision might work.

No, the tissues are not the same, and even so, FGM doesn't do anything to protect the absorption of fluid in the vagina.

And as you said, what is relevant is how many of their partners were HIV positive. Does the report say how many? "After adjusting for all relevant factors" includes a lot if things. My sense is that they asked them how often they'd had sex, how many partners they'd had, and then tested the women. It does not say they tested the partners.

So, we still don't know if there are economic factors that put some women at greater risk than others, that involve them with partners at higher risk for HIV. And I would suppose, as the researchers themselves seem to suppose (calling it a "conundrum"), that there is some flaw in that data - because you could cut my clitoris off and let me sleep with someone with HIV, who cums in my vagina, and my risk for HIV would still be high! There's a whole lot more area there for fluid absorption than there is on the clitoris. Most men don't even cum on the clitoris or labia, so it doesn't make sense.

lovelysoul said:

Isn't HIV growing in the US among older people, through vaginal sex? I thought I read somewhere that the over 50 crowd was getting it at an increasing rate - because they usually feel they're immune, were never used to condoms, and don't use protection.

No, not that I am aware of.

lovelysoul said:

I realize there is much more promiscuity and unsafe sex practices in Africa. I actually find it interesting that they have so much more vaginal transmission because my ex always swore it was near impossible for a straight man to get HIV from vaginal sex (this is how he would reassure me after his affairs!).

Actually, in terms of number of partners, Africans are not typically much more promiscuous than Westerners. There are several cultural habits that make them more vulnerable to HIV. The first is they (both men and women) tend to maintain several concurrent sexual partners. A guy might have a wife and a few girlfriends and the women also have more on the side too. Westerners tend to maintain longer term monogamous partnerships. Even when a guy cheats the mistress doesn't often have even more on the side.

HIV tends to be at it's most infectious after initial exposure and before the immune system can begin to bring it under control. Newly infected individuals are often highly contagious for the first couple weeks; with large concurrent sexual networks, like in Africa, this fast tracks the infection through the population. Other cultural components in Africa add to the problem, such as wife inheritance and dry sex practices (where the woman will use herbs and such to dry out her vagina) this can lead to more tears and easier transmission.

The African population also has a genetic predisposition and an epidemic of parasitic worms which contribute to HIV infection. Read about the genetics here here and the worms here.

One also needs to realize the poverty of Africa where much of the population in many of the countries are at least partially malnourished. It is well know that malnutrition can compromise the immune system making them more susceptible. The cells that line the foreskin, and parts of the vagina, actually fight HIV infection and can be considered part of the immune system. Read all about it here. It's only when viral loads are exceptionally high or immune function significantly compromised that infection can occur. The fact that poverty doesn't seem to have an impact on the epidemic in other parts of the world indicates this might not be as big a factor as we think.

So between cultural factors, biological factors, and economic factors people in Africa really strike out. It is only on that continent that there is a heterosexual HIV problem.

lovelysoul said:

Something about a promiscuous ex-husband who is circumcised and still HIV-

That really tells you nothing. Recently, the organization, Advocates for Youth, which champions efforts to help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health, released an intriguing fact sheet which paints a stark picture with regard to the sexual health of US youth as compared to their European counterparts.

According to Advocates for Youth among teens:

* Syphilis rates are more than 70 percent higher in the United States than in the Netherlands;
* Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States, and U.S. adolescent rate is 28 times greater than teen rates the Netherlands;
* Chlamydia infection is more than 15 times more common among U.S. teens than Dutch teens;
* The proportion of the United States’ adolescent and adult population that has been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS is six times greater than in Germany, three times greater than in the Netherlands, and one and a half times greater than in France.

These are some sobering and damning figures that illustrate a significant problem in the U.S. Anthropologically speaking, Europe and the United States aren't all that different from one another. Teens in the U.S. have similar levels of education, similar life styles,and similar sexual experiences as their European counter parts. The big difference between the two countries is the Europeans almost never circumcise their boys. It's only a religious thing there.

Funny how the study of mutilated women has "too many" variables

But the one that say mutilate men doesnt even though it was shut down too fast to collect the full range of data they set out to find.

Also lovelysoul
"agree to disagree" is a fancy way of saying -
I have no logical reasons and am unable to rationally defend my position but I wont change my mind and nothing you say will make me

First, I have a much longer post that will shed some light on the issues that you brought up. It got kicked into the spam folder so Amy will have to resurrect it. Stay tuned.

Lovelysoul said:

No, the tissues are not the same, and even so, FGM doesn't do anything to protect the absorption of fluid in the vagina.

Yes, they are the same tissue. The cells that line the inner foreskin, which some claim are susceptible, to HIV infection are called Langerhans Cells. Female and Male genitalia develop embryologically from the same tissue and those tissues are very similar in a biological sense. If Langerhans cells are susceptible in the foreskin they are also susceptible in the vagina. If those tissue are removed, foreskin or in the vagina, the vulnerability is theoretically eliminated. However, you'll learn in my other post why those cells may not necessarily be vulnerable.

You can read a South African news piece on that Tanzania study here. I proabably have the medical journal article that story was based on somewhere too.

Lovelysoul said:

And as you said, what is relevant is how many of their partners were HIV positive. Does the report say how many? "After adjusting for all relevant factors" includes a lot if things. My sense is that they asked them how often they'd had sex, how many partners they'd had, and then tested the women. It does not say they tested the partners.

No what is relevant is to line up the women in two groups circumcised and not. Find out who is HIV positive and who is not. Determine their sexual history, along with some other things and normalize all the data. They did that and found circumcision in women was protective.

Lovelysoul said:

So, we still don't know if there are economic factors that put some women at greater risk than others, that involve them with partners at higher risk for HIV. And I would suppose, as the researchers themselves seem to suppose (calling it a "conundrum"), that there is some flaw in that data - because you could cut my clitoris off and let me sleep with someone with HIV, who cums in my vagina, and my risk for HIV would still be high! There's a whole lot more area there for fluid absorption than there is on the clitoris. Most men don't even cum on the clitoris or labia, so it doesn't make sense.

No we do, they did adjust for economic factors. If you want more information you'll have to get a hold on the data they based their presentation on or at least the paper this presentation was based on.

In the final logistic model, circumcision remained highly significant [OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.41,0.88] while adjusted for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.

Also HIV is in all manner of bodily fluids including precum, blood, as well as cum. Circumcised men are also still at great risk, that is why the US has the highest rate of HIV infection of all first world countries, by many multiples.

The researchers called this a conundrum because they set out to demonstrate the opposite, that circumcised women were at greater risk of HIV infection. The didn't get the answer they were looking for and I am surprised they even presented the data.

I'll tell you what though, don't expect anyone to follow up the work though. No matter how protective it might be we are prejudice against the procedure and no potential protection would entice us to chase down such knowledge.

Would you advocate a larger scale experiment to determine the degree of protection and how best to achieve it?

"Teens in the U.S. have similar levels of education, similar life styles,and similar sexual experiences as their European counter parts. The big difference between the two countries is the Europeans almost never circumcise their boys. It's only a religious thing there."

That is not true. Only if you are comparing white teens to white teens, which you would mostly find in the Netherlands or Sweden, but I believe we have much larger black populations. As Amy has written about extensively, we have major problems here with promiscuity in that group (I don't know what you classify as promiscuous, but having "wives" along with multiple girlfriends is promiscuous to me). I don't believe that they have quite the same problems (yet) in the Netherlands.

That is also what skews the HPV statistics. If you listen to the drug companies, they claim that young girls, my daughter's age, are at high risk, and therefore should have the vaccine at 13 or 14, but if you remove the black population from their figures, there is almost no risk. The only group that reports high rates of infections of HPV at that early age are blacks, who are much more sexually active in early adolescence than whites.

I saw this on TV from a respected gynecologist, though I don't have a link. She said, for that reason, she wasn't yet routinely recommending the vaccine for most adolescent girls.

The US has some unique social challenges that many other countries do not have.

"No what is relevant is to line up the women in two groups circumcised and not. Find out who is HIV positive and who is not. Determine their sexual history, along with some other things and normalize all the data. They did that and found circumcision in women was protective".

They didn't normalize the sexual partners because they can't possibly know who they were. If a woman who is circumcised is considered more desirable as a wife, she may, in fact, have higher-quality and more monogamous sexual partners.

There's nothing about that study that says to me that they took that variable into account. Like I said, even with the African studies, I don't have that much faith that these researchers really know how to appropriately weight these variables.

All I know is that most hetero HIV transmission is naturally done through the vagina. It's idiotic to argue otherwise. So if you guys want to cling some oddball study..and it is oddball, even to the researchers...then go ahead. It only says to me that you don't have much else.

And if the cells in the vagina are as weak and susceptable as the foreskin, then that is all the more reason to remove it, in terms of preventing HIV and other STDs.

But it is obvious that I am the lone voice here, so I'm not going to continue. I am indeed glad that my son is circumcised. I feel safer for him, given the three studies that have shown a strong indication of its protectiveness against HIV and other diseases.

You all can choose whatever you want, and I hope science will ultimately be on your side. Yet, if it isn't - if studies eventually prove a high vulnerability - I hope you can coax your 19 yr old or whatever to have it done THEN...which, in my experience, won't be too easy...so then, I further hope that he is a robotically obedient child who will ALWAYS wear a condom. Good luck with that.

lovelysoul said:

Joe said:
"No what is relevant is to line up the women in two groups circumcised and not. Find out who is HIV positive and who is not. Determine their sexual history, along with some other things and normalize all the data. They did that and found circumcision in women was protective".

They didn't normalize the sexual partners because they can't possibly know who they were. If a woman who is circumcised is considered more desirable as a wife, she may, in fact, have higher-quality and more monogamous sexual partners.

Right, just like in HIV research with men they can't know how they've been exposed either so what makes those results any more valid? How do you think they perform research for any HIV study? Information regarding sexual exposure is always self reported. They don't round up a bunch of HIV negative men, a few HIV positive hookers and record each exposure in some laboratory that looks like a bedroom. Similarly, for the Tanzanian study they rely on information gathered from the population they are studying. Then adjust for co-founding factors to make sure that prophylactic use and other things are weighted the same for each participant except for the factor under study.

lovelysoul said:

There's nothing about that study that says to me that they took that variable into account. Like I said, even with the African studies, I don't have that much faith that these researchers really know how to appropriately weight these variables.

But the researchers who did the male circumcision studies, you have faith they measured and weighted all variables appropriately?

lovelysoul said:

All I know is that most hetero HIV transmission is naturally done through the vagina. It's idiotic to argue otherwise. So if you guys want to cling some oddball study..and it is oddball, even to the researchers...then go ahead. It only says to me that you don't have much else.

Of course most hetero HIV transmission is acquired vaginally, where have I said different? I am not cling to anything, you were presented with a study presented a legitimate HIV research conference that showed Females circumcised in Tanzania had a lower prevalence of HIV. The researchers, like you, didn't believe their own results but there they are none the less. What I haven't seen from that is interest in follow on research to either verify or discount the protective effect and how much cutting and what degree of protection there might be. I wonder why not?

lovelysoul said:

And if the cells in the vagina are as weak and susceptable as the foreskin, then that is all the more reason to remove it, in terms of preventing HIV and other STDs.

First, if you bothered to read the whole post I provided compelling reasons why the Langerhans cells of the foreskin and vagina might not be the weak point the original work believed. And when you say all the more reason to remove it do you mean both the foreskin and the tissue in the vagina or is cutting only for the guys?

lovelysoul said:

But it is obvious that I am the lone voice here, so I'm not going to continue. I am indeed glad that my son is circumcised. I feel safer for him, given the three studies that have shown a strong indication of its protectiveness against HIV and other diseases.

And from previous post:
That is not true. Only if you are comparing white teens to white teens, which you would mostly find in the Netherlands or Sweden, but I believe we have much larger black populations.

Actually, life in the Netherlands is directly comparable to the US. I've lived in both places actually and anthropologically they are pretty much the same. A few differences like lower drinking age, legalized prostitution, and more liberal attitudes toward sex. But by and large I found little difference. However, what I do finding absolutely stunning is that you would discount a comparison between the youth from the US and the Netherlands (perhaps because it doesn't show what you would like it to with regard to STDs and HIV) but then you would turn around and put so much weight on a couple of studies done in a couple of third world countries where life doesn't represent life in the US in any conceivable way.

lovelysoul said:

You all can choose whatever you want, and I hope science will ultimately be on your side. Yet, if it isn't - if studies eventually prove a high vulnerability - I hope you can coax your 19 yr old or whatever to have it done THEN...which, in my experience, won't be too easy...so then, I further hope that he is a robotically obedient child who will ALWAYS wear a condom. Good luck with that.

I wouldn't coax anyone to do anything. If there is sufficient evidence to convince him to circumcise himself, or if he wants to get that decorative effect, then he is free to do that. However, the bar would have to be very high to ethically circumcise an infant. Protection from HIV wouldn't do it unless it was nearly perfect and then maybe.

Lovelysoul, I hope you're still reading this because that particular line of uninformed drivel makes me livid: autism is rising at the exact same rate in never-vaccinated children. Exact same rates. The modern human immune system is literally inventing threats because it is not challenged enough. The vaccines are given when they are given, and how they are given, to offer protection when the kid is most at risk to these diseases-when they are young.

Maybe it's plastics exposure. Maybe it's water contamination. Maybe it's off-gassing form carpet. Maybe it's one of the thousands of drugs that pregnant women are given every day that are untested in pregnant women. Who knows. It certainly appears to be environmental, given the rapid rise in rates. But it is not vaccines.

We do not still vaccinate for smallpox in this country, LS. You really need to update your medical info if you are going to try debating on it. And again, how do you think a circumcision reduces HIV rates by 50%? If that were true, don't you think that would hold true the world over? Or do non-americans have different penie? Yet we ahve among the highest rates of all STDs, and the highest rates of cut penie.

Withdrawal does nothing -NOTHING to lessen the risks of transmission to women, or lower the [ossibility of pregnancy. Cum leaks out throughout sex in significant quantities. Again, please brush up a bit with a science text.

You've already been set straight on the nonexistent tissue difference between vaginas and foreskins. Thank goodness.

My last BF before DH was circumsized. He had constant chaffing on his head. It would get infected if he went in lakes or river water. So yeah, little cuts are if anything more likely in a bald head sticking out where it has no business being. These cuts can be microscopic, BTW.

I doubt your ex ever had unprotected sex with a hooker. They don't care about the sweet talk, and would have no problem telling him no. Maybe you need to take lessons from one. I've never let a guy I wasn't in a long term monogamous relationship with go ungloved. Do you not respect yourself at all?

I think you're getting your "older people HIV epidemic" info from Dear Annie. I saw that in there recently. Not exactly a quotable source on the subject.

Your absolute racism (and I don't toss that lightly. I know very well there are some things more prevalent in blacks) in saying only little black girls get HPV is unreal, and I fear for your 14 year old with a mom no better informed than you. Sex in suburban jr high bathrooms was a reality when I was in one 17 years ago, and is more so now.

Aarggg, I just can't let this go, LS. Every comment you've made-with the exception of you having done what you thought was best for you son, I believe you on that one-is so wrong.

Black boys are cut at higher rates than whites. How does that gel with your little-black-kids-spreading-disease theory?

...when i was in jh high, not when I was in a jr high bathroom :) just to clarify.

Momof3, you are often so angry at people and attack so personally. I don't know why you feel the need to do that. I have frequently defended your position in other debates.

I am not a racist. Half the black girls 14-17 were infected with HPV, as opposed to 20% of white girls the same age. Yet, one must really read between the scary headlines to get that information:

www.huliq.com/54719/cdc-study-says-least-1-4-teen-girls-has-sexually-transmitted-disease-hpv-most-common

Calling me a bad mother is really low. In my view, a bad mother is one who runs out to be the first in line to get the trendy vaccine....before all the side effects have really been discovered and especially when it's unnecessary.

At 14, my daughter is not sexually active yet. I know you will criticize me for that comment, but you don't know my daughter or our relationship. She has chosen abstinance. Why? don't ask me. I am not some religious-nut pushing abstinance. As you contend, I am more of a "valueless" slut...quite liberal with regards to sex...so she knows she can come to me for birth control pills and sex advice if she wants, but she has chosen abstinance for herself.

I figure she'll change her mind at some point, but right now, there's no rush on the HPV vaccine for her. I would rather wait for a few years and see if they discover side effects or even recall it.

As for my ex, he is very wealthy man. While it's true the average man probably can't get a gloveless experience with a prostitute, you can buy anything you want in this world, particulary overseas. The average man isn't able to afford the high-priced European prostitutes - or "escorts" - my ex can. So, you don't know what you're talking about there.

And the 50% statistic came from a link about the African trials that I posted:

www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm

If have no desire to get into a discussion of pre-cum and withdrawal with you. Some men, including my bf, do not have pre-cum, others do. Obviously there is still a risk, but I think you could ask any AIDS prevention expert, and they would say withdrawal offers less risk. I wasn't saying it would prevent it entirely - I was only speculating about what might account for that oddball Tanzanian study.

As if I should even care - because I am NOT supporting castration for boys as a disease prevention measure. What we do in this country is NOT as barbaric as those procedures! It's just that you and the other overly-zealous anti-circumcision people on this thread are trying to equate it.

You're message is: "It's all barbaric! Stop it!" Muslims, Jews, Americans. We're all just as bad as each other. Doesn't matter. I GET that - no need to keep hammering me. I just don't agree with you. And I am exhausted of arguing against stupid positions like---"would you cut off your daughter's breasts... her arms and feet?" etc.

That's what people with no real argument do - they jack it up to some extreme level of comparison. And it's clear that, as the lone voice defending our form of circumcision, I can't win here, so we might as well drop it.

HIV rates among seniors. "Heterosexual transmission in men over 50 is up 94 percent, and 107 percent in women since 1991".

www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/geezer035.html

www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/over50/resources/factsheets/over50.htm

I'm not arguing that in terms of circumcision. I was just answering her about where I got that - not "Dear Abby". I merely asked, "Aren't rates increasing among those over 50?" and she responded like I was completely wrong.

But why would you assume it's mostly with prostitutes? That wouldn't explain the female rise. More likely that older women are becoming single and sexually active again after long marriages, where they didn't need to use protection. I have a lot of friends in that category.

There's some interesting counter-point information about circumcision on this site:

www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

I still think parents can make a reasonable choice for circumcision. No one is trying to force anyone else to circumcise, but those parents who choose circumcision should not be compared to Muslims chopping off their daughter's genitals. We shouldn't be equated with barbarians. It is a safe procedure that clearly prevents childhood complications, and one with other benefits, such as STD protection.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where all males wear condoms.

lovelysoul said:

I was only speculating about what might account for that oddball Tanzanian study.

As if I should even care - because I am NOT supporting castration for boys as a disease prevention measure. What we do in this country is NOT as barbaric as those procedures! It's just that you and the other overly-zealous anti-circumcision people on this thread are trying to equate it.

It wasn't an odd ball study. It was a study constructed and performed much like an African M/C study. It was only called a conundrum because the authors weren't comfortable with the results. I would put more weight into such result because when results come back in an unexpected way you go back and more carefully check your work then if you get the result you set out to get. So this could be a valuable break through in HIV prevention.

Would you, lovelysoul, support further research into the various types of female circumcision to determine the degree of protection and what tissue should be removed to obtain that protection? Now I am not talking about back alley or tribal circumcisions with dirt equipment. I am talking about taking little girls to sterile surgical theaters with clean equipment and happy doctors in white lab coats.

I mean if we can find a way to protect girls from themselves and their partners, that would be important right? I mean like you said not every girl will be able to successfully negotiate condom use right?

Joe, do all the studies you want. I support more studies. But I highly doubt any follow-up studies will confirm that removing the outer genitalia of a girl would offer any real protection from HIV. How can you really believe that? The vagina is still the most vulnerable spot.

And, no, I don't advocate removing the vagina...or her arms or legs or eyeballs! I don't advocate female circumcision because the result usually DESTROYS sexual fulfillment. The clitoris is essential, just as the penis is, to female arousal and orgasm. I don't think it should be removed for any reason...any more than I think the penis should be removed.

Theoretically, if there was a small clitoral flap that could be snipped off in infancy, without any substantial effects to sexual fulfillment, and multiple studies showed perhaps a 50% reduction in HIV transmission, along with a lower risk of UTIs and other STDs, then I might well choose that for my daughter in a safe, professional hospital setting.

But, realistically, you're not going to find that with girls. Without removing the vagina, you're not going to substantially reduce HIV and STD transmissions. You know that as well as I do, so why play stupid? Why keep comparing that? It's a ridiculous argument.

Just so we can all get a handle on the 'HIV' problem in the US let's consider some interesting information provided at the CDC, number of HIV/AIDS cases:

Adult and Adolescent Male HIV/AIDS cases 2006:

Male-to-male sexual contact 16,001 ---
No help here lots of research into this the past two years and all the work has come up short but they keep looking. Sooner or later they'll get the combination right.

Injection drug use 4,410 ---
No help here but look for someone to suggest it.

M-to-M sexual contact and IV drug use 1,803 ---
Again no help here but look for someone to suggest it. This is sort of like doubling down on your Three Card Monty game right? You're always going to lose.

High-risk heterosexual contact 4,558 ---
Unlikely to be of any help here. Why? Because High-risk heterosexual contact is defined as sexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection. Think IV drug users, prostitutes, or partners you know are HIV+. I don't think anyone reading this blog or the vast majority of people in their families fall into this category. I've never known anyone to be in this category.

Other 217 --- The 'nominal' case is defined to include hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not
reported or not identified. This by elimination must include non-high risk heterosexual contact. I assume that accounts for most of the 217 since infection by hemophilia or blood transfusion is very rare
in the US.

The US has a vulnerable (over 15) male population of nearly 118,000,000. So in 2006 the total number of infected individuals who would not be considered high risk was 217. Further the typical age of infection is between 25 and 35 years.

If the risk of a serious complication from circumcision was 0.1%, the number frequently quoted by those operating in the US and only includes immediate post surgical complications and never includes complications discovered months or years later, then circumcising 1 million infants produces at least 1,000 complications. There are over 2 million live male births in the US.

What I'm going to say in my comment is what I wish someone had told me before my sons were circumcised.

Circumcision of infants and children is done to control the body and sexual urges of non-consenting minors. Babies die from circumcision, but no statistics are kept and deaths are often blamed on hemorrhage, infection, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, gastric rupture, or some other reason, not the real reason--the circumcision that initially created the wound.

In terms of female versus male genital cutting, the is not an issue of competitive suffering. How much of my finger must be cut off before the amputation becomes a human rights violation? The screams of an infant or child being circumcised are identical and both genders die from unnecessary genital cutting.

With regard to pain, the only effective anesthesia, when it works, is a ring block. The dorsal nerve block does not numb the ventral aspect of the penis, which is where the exquisitely sensitive frenulum is. The frenulum is the little band of tissue on the underside of the penis that tethers the foreskin and ensures that, after it's been retracted, it returns to its forward, protective position. The foreskin is meant to cover and protect the urinary meatus (opening), keeping the urinary track sterile. (The labia protect the vaginal opening in just the same way.)

The ring block takes four injections into the tip of the penis, so that is painful for the baby. Once the analgesia wears off, the baby will feel pain, which will continue for a week to ten days until the wound heals. Meanwhile the baby will urinate and defecate into the raw wound, causing additional pain.

No analgesia will prevent the pain of the injections necessary for pain relief or of the resulting wound.

If we were talking about circumcision for a baby girl, would analgesia be the issue? Why, then, are we not protecting our sons from the unnecessary pain of genital cutting?

Circumcision is excruciatingly painful for a baby, even if analgesia is used. And, it is not without risks. An estimated 226 babies die every year from circumcision. In addition, surgical mishaps occur. And, because the foreskin is the skin necessary to accommodate a full erection, the most common complaint of circumcised males is painful, tight erections and curvature of the penis because more skin was taken off one side than the other. Concealed penis is a common complication of circumcision. When men are circumcised as adults, they realize that circumcision has made their penis shorter and less sensitive. That's because you can't cut something off and have more! Instead, with circumcision, the penis is diminished in size and sensitivity. What father wants that for his son?

The reason the penis is desensitized after circumcision is because there are between 20,000 and 70,000 specialized, erogenous nerves that encircle the opening of the foreskin. Messages from these nerve endings to the brain tell a man what his penis is feeling and where he is in relation to the ejaculatory trigger. These are the nerve endings that allow a man to ride the wave to orgasm. Without them, a man doesn't have an orgasm, he ejaculates. As early as 1970, Dr. C. J. Fallier wrote, "...the fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the circumcised male, simply a satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience that it was meant to be." The Number One complaint of circumcised males is premature ejaculation. The penile accelerator has been replaced with an "off-on" switch, so a male says, "Oooh, oooh, oops! Sorry, honey, it's because I'm so sensitive." But, that's not the reason. Nor is the reason because the man is inexperienced, hasn't read enough, or is a selfish lover, it's because someone cut the most sensitive part, the working part, the essential part of his penis off!

I have three circumcised sons, and I'll go to my grave knowing my sons will never know the wholeness of their bodies or the fullness of their sexual experience because I didn't know enough to protect them. My doctor lied to me, telling me circumcision didn't hurt, only took a moment, and would protect them from a myriad of ills. However, when, as a nursing student in 1979, I witnessed a circumcision and, as the baby began to scream and I began to cry, the doctor looked at me and said "There is no medical reason for doing this!" That was when I realized what had been done to my precious babies behind closed doors! That's when I began to research the subject and came to learn that circumcision is a primal wound that interferes with the maternal infant bond, disrupts breastfeeding and normal sleep patterns, and undermines the baby's first developmental task of establishing trust. When a mother--who is entrusted with protecting her baby--turns her baby over to the circumciser-- how can that male ever truly trust a woman again? Certainly, other loving care helps but the primal wound is there. Every sexual experience a male has from that day forward will be on a neuronal background of pain. Even though the mind can't remember, the memory of the experience is indelibly carved into the body.

For all these reasons, I have dedicated my life to bringing an end to this non- therapeutic, harmful, unnecessary procedure that causes babies excruciating pain and denies males a full sexual life. Circumcision denies a boy's right to his own genitals.

Millions of males today are stretching the amputated stump of their foreskin to recover the head of the penis (glans) because, once the head of the penis is uncovered and unprotected, it becomes dry, hardened, and calloused. That callousing continues throughout life. By the mid-to-late forties, circumcised men begin to complain of having to "work harder" to ejaculate because they are so desensitized. Circumcision is the reason for the high sales of Viagra in the United States. By later years, men complain of sexual dysfunction and finally impotence. When I ask 80- and 90-year-old intact males about their sex life, they tell me "The urge doesn't come around as often, but the sensitivity is as good as it ever was." That's because the foreskin is intact and the glans is covered and protected.

Now, how does all this affect a woman? The inner lining of the foreskin and the glans are supposed to be mucous membrane, just like the lining of the vagina. These are the tissues that are meant to come together during intercourse. The foreskin allows for a gliding action that facilitates entry for intercourse. An intact male brings lubrication to the sexual experience, too, so the high sales of sexual lubricants is another indication that something is wrong in the sex life of many Americans. The foreskin serves to seal the vaginal vault, keeping the lubrication of both partners within the vagina. The long strokes a circumcised male needs to ejaculate (he must stimulate whatever is left of the frenular tissue) scrape a female's lubricants from the vagina, causing rubbing and chafing during intercourse. Also, long strokes are not compatible with the movements a woman needs to reach orgasm. The sexual dissatisfaction of couples (more than 30% of women don't reach orgasm) causes deep tension in relationships, but people don't understand why. The mechanics of sex must be adjusted to compensate for altered genitals.

If parents put the money for a circumcision into a savings account for their son, when he's 18, he can decide for himself how he wants his penis to be. One pediatrician did this for his son, saying, "When you're 18, you'll have enough money to either get circumcised or buy a car." What do you think his son's choice will be?

My grandson, who just turned 26, thanked me for protecting him when he was a baby. His wife recently thanked me, too. So, while I didn't know enough to protect my sons, we have ended circumcision in our family, as have so many other families.

The circumcision rate has dropped from 85-95%, when I began my work in 1979, to 56% nationally and, in the western states we're down to less than 30% and, in California, less than 20% of boys are being circumcised. Today, the boys who don't have a foreskin are feeling robbed. They were! Circumcision is an anachronistic blood ritual and the time for it to end is now.

And, by the way, a circumcised penis is difficult to care for because it's an open wound that needs attention and care, especially since circumcised boys are at 12-times greater risk of methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus, a life-threatening skin-eating bacteria. The intact penis is very easy to care for. At birth, the foreskin cannot and should not be retracted and only needs to be washed in the same way you wash a finger. Somewhere between birth and the mid-twenties a male's foreskin becomes retractable, a process that should never be hurried. The first person to retract a boy's foreskin should be the boy himself and, at that time, he can easily be taught to retract, rinse (warm water, no soap!), and replace his foreskin when he bathes. A year after I explained to my grandson how to wash his penis, I asked if he did that. He said, "Nana, I wash all my body parts." End of story. Never a problem!

As Jody McLaughlin, editor of Compleat Mother magazine says, "Ten out of ten babies oppose circumcision. Shouldn't you?"

Babies and children need to be loved, respected, and protected. We are entrusted with their care, not with carving up their bodies. If we don't protect them, who will?

I like Marilyn! I am intrigued by the sex mechanics concept. I wonder if thats why it was always better for me with uncut guys? That would explain a lot, actually.

Lovelysoul, I have not attacked you. Nor am I angry, other than the anger I get seeing completely false scientific facts spouted. I always try to stop the flow of erroneous information, especially about STDs. I attack your position and the non-scientifically-supported ways you support it. And yeah, I am going to worry a bit about a girl whose mom 1) admits she might cut off her genitals if there might be a benefit and 2) is so sadly lacking in knowledge of STDs and how they spread. All men leak precum. It's a biological fact. Not that you have to have intercourse to get an STD. There's all sorts of fun play that can spread them.

She might not be having sex. She might be. Some (a lot) of kids think it's none of their parents business, whether or not they'd be censored for it. Myself and all my friends fell into that category. Do you talk sex with your parents? We are biologically wired to keep sex apart from immediate family. It's not prudishness that causes the uncomfortable feeling when we talk sex with immediate family, it's biology. Now, parents need and must get over that and do it anyway to educate their kids. Kids have no such imperative to get over it and talk with their parents. And a kid who sees their parents as parents and not buddies almost certainly won't.

Calling a vaccine for a rampant cause of cancer trendy shows a lot about your personal opinion on vaccines in general, not much about your knowledge on the vaccine. Do you honestly think a girl lost the ability to walk from a vaccine? Do explain how that happened. couldn't possibly be coincidence, could it? No, anything that happens after a vac must be due to the vac. Makes sense to me.

And no, saying someone enjoys sex because they can or do orgasm is not really accurate. Rape victims of both genders have been known to orgasm, doesn't mean they enjoyed the sex. Quadraplegics can be made to orgasm. They feel nothing. And someone who's only ever been circumsized, or only ever had sex with those who were, can't really compare.

You say we shouldn't leave circumcision to boys as they grow older because they won't choose it. Well why would they? Do you assume you know so much better than a grown man what's good for his body? When he hears that the only possible medical benefit (largely debunked) can be achieved by wearing condoms, which do you think he would rationally choose? So why not let him? Why must you be the one to make that irreversible decision for him?

"When a mother--who is entrusted with protecting her baby--turns her baby over to the circumciser-- how can that male ever truly trust a woman again?"

That is "new-age" bullshit! If you want to load youself down with unnecessary, "mother earth" or "complete mother" guilt, go ahead, but it's totally absurd. My circimcised son has a wonderful, trusting relationship with me.

And I just had sex with my circumcised boyfriend, and GOD, it could not be better! He is 47, and certainly the stroke is long enough and extremely satisfying. If it was any more satisfying, he (and I) would be delirious and have to be committed.

I've also never known a circumcised man who had to "work harder" to ejaculate. That's ridiculous. Work harder than what? How would they know?

And I've been with a man (my ex) who is 15 years older - almost 60. He doesn't need viagra. Yes, he slowed down a bit after 50, but I'm sure that's true of almost every man that age. It has nothing to do with circumcision.

Likewise, the "30% of women" who don't reach orgasm has nothing to do with "the stroke" - it has to do with whether a man knows how to stimulate the clitoris - either orally or digitally. If men knew how to do that, there would be many more happy wives and girlfriends. You can't rely on circumcision or non-circumcision to please a woman. If you're telling your boys it's only about "the stroke", and that they're uncircumcised, you're doing them a major disservice with regards to pleasing a woman. I suspect their young wives are probably just telling you what you want to hear, since they know you are some sort of anti-circumcision fanatic.

Maybe your grandsons know how to clean their penises, but studies (see link above) have shown that most uncircumcised males do NOT have good hygiene. The smegma, and the smell, is a real turn off to most women. Often, there are complications, such as phimosis. Yet, most parents have no idea, because their teenage kids do not share details of their penises. After a certain age, we cannot check to see if they clean it. Frankly, it's pretty disgusting what happens with most uncircumcised males and hygiene. Just read that link.

I know my son, who is a neat freak, would be begging me for a circumcision if I hadn't already given him one as a baby. It is simply much cleaner, and should not interfere with him having a very rewarding sex life.

Momof3, I don't know how old your kids are, but it seems to me that you can't have teens. My son is in college and my daughter is a freshman in high school, and other parents always compliment me on the job I've done with them both. They are wonderful kids. So, I do know a little something about raising successful children. They haven't knocked anybody up and they mostly make good decisions.

It seems the main way you and I differ in child-rearing is that I am much more practical. I don't assume they will always do what they are taught.

For instance, my mom stressed seatbealts when we were young, but my 17 yr old brother was killed because he wasn't wearing one.

Therefore, I don't presume my 18 yr old will ALWAYS wear a condom, despite what he's been taught. I do, however, feel confident that my daughter has an open dialogue with me about sex. Not every kid would, but she and I do, and I am grateful for that. A good parent knows their kids individually. That's just the way she is.

And yes, I have skeptism about vaccines - along with Robert Kenndy, Jr (who has an autistic child), and many other intelligent people. Since you have mostly been incorrect when accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, I would appreciate you posting that info about autism. I'd like to know what source you are relying on to discount a vaccine connection, because many informed parents believe that there may be one.

Q: How do you you sugar-coat the act of cutting off part of a defenseless child's genitals?

A: you slap a nifty medical label on it called "circumcision" and find a way to drive fear into the hearts of people. Once they are afraid, they will buy anything. ANYTHING.

Ove the last 150 years circumcision has been a solution looking for a problem. Many problems have been “proven” to be prevented by circumcision, only to be disproven, the latest being HIV.
UNAIDS and the World Health Organization have prematurely and over-enthusiastically hailed three recent clinical trials of circumcision and periodic postoperative counseling as proof that male circumcision provides [partial] protection from HIV. Billions of dollars of both our tax money and charitable grants are being spent to promote circumcision in sub Saharan Africa. However, the trials results may not be repeatable in the real world or over a long period of time, and money, needed for other interventions and medical problems, may be wasted. Consider:

Statistics from sub-Saharan Africa are inconsistent with the trials findings.
www.circumstitions.com/Docs/garenne-2.pdf
HIV prevalence in the United States, where 75% of adult men are circumcised, is much
greater than in Europe where circumcision is rare.
www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm
Langerhans cells in the foreskin recently were shown to destroy HIV
www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/de_witte2007/
Moisture under the foreskin contains lysozyme, an enzyme with antibacterial and antiviral
properties.
www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/hill1/
It may take years to contract HIV.
www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/devincenzi1994/
Unhygienic traditional and medical circumcision is spreading HIV in Africa.
www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brewer2007/
Unacceptably high rates of circumcision complications have been reported in Kenya, 35% for traditionally and 18% for medically performed circumcisions.
www.aidsmap.com/en/news/03B54A29-5328-43FE-80D8-735C78D21F56.asp
Circumcision is not a reliable prophylaxis. It may be useless or even counter productive. Only abstinence, monogamy, or the consistent use of condoms reliably prevents HIV or other sexually
transmitted diseases. Education and condom availability are proven and more cost-effective measures.

Both my husband and I were uneducated on the subject and like most people assumed that it was just something that was done to all boys. We did not know we had a choice until we started to educate ourselves. :-(

Here are a couple of good websites we found that we found:
www.ksnocirc.org
www.notjustskin.org

We are the proud parents of two uncircumcised boys which have not had any problems. With the rates falling to a record low around 56% I guess they won’t be alone. Our doctor advised us that it was purely cosmetic and also confirmed that there is no medical justification for it. He said there was really not much benefit as circumcised boys still can get UTI's and STD's. As for keeping them clean it does not take any more work. The few people we know that ended up getting circumcised where due to the physicians pushing for the procedure rather then trying to treat the problem before resorting to a circumcision, which I think is just wrong. But hey procedures are how they make their money right? Anyway one of the guys said that it was the worst decision he had ever made as he lost most of the feeling not to mention that sex is now very different.

lovelysoul said:

Maybe your grandsons know how to clean their penises, but studies (see link above) have shown that most uncircumcised males do NOT have good hygiene.

And you know this how? You don't seem to have a lot of faith in boys or men. I mean you have to teach a boy to brush his teeth, wipe his butt, wash his hair, and all sorts of other things which take far more time and effort than simply rinsing off his penis. I mean I doubt you spent the last 14 or so years of your sons life wondering if he clean his ass properly.

lovelysoul said:

The smegma, and the smell, is a real turn off to most women. Often, there are complications, such as phimosis. Yet, most parents have no idea, because their teenage kids do not share details of their penises.

Smelly unkempt men are typically a turn off, circumcised or not. Nothing new there.

Phimosis is not a complication. A complication is an undesired outcome that occurs or develops after a, normally medically necessary (but not in this case since circumcision is not medically necessary), medical procedure. Phimosis usually occurs in intact males who have received poor medical care from physicians not practiced in properly handling intact boys. This is most common in old school North American, usually US, physiscians. Phimosis when it does occur is very easily treatable non-invasively.

The notion that kids and teens don't share details of their penis with their parents is also, in part, how circumcision complications go unnoticed, under reported, and over looked.

lovelysoul said:

After a certain age, we cannot check to see if they clean it. Frankly, it's pretty disgusting what happens with most uncircumcised males and hygiene. Just read that link.

Again, when did you stop checking to make sure your son properly wiped his ass? I assure you that is more difficult than dealing with intact boys' penises.

lovelysoul said:

I know my son, who is a neat freak, would be begging me for a circumcision if I hadn't already given him one as a baby.

I very much doubt it. I've never met an intact guy who would get a circumcision without legitimate medical need. Though I've met circumcised guys who would have preferred having the choice.

"Studies of middle-class British and Scandanavian schoolboys concluded that penile hygiene, as such, is at best poor and at worst non-existent. In the private British boarding school studied, 80% of the uncircumcised boys had poor genital hygiene, and the Danish study found 4% had phimosis and 33% had an adherent foreskin..."

"Smegma is produced by the foreskin’s inner surface and contains neutral lipids, fatty acids, sterol and exfoliated cells. Excretion of smegma increases in adolescence and peaks at age 20–40 years. Whereas initially it is a lubricant having a white or pale yellow color, with time, chemical transformations take place and it becomes mixed with epithelial cells, dirt and micro-organisms; these form aggregates and produce foul odors."

Not surprisingly, many different studies show women prefer the circumcised penis - viewing it as cleaner. Circumicised men report getting more fellatio than non-circumcised men. Most men are happiest being circumcised:

http://www.circinfo.net/socio_sexual_aspects.html

"In Africa, women preferred men who were circumcised because they considered they were at less risk of STI. The foreskin was also regarded as a source of a bad smell and men too thought it was cleaner. Increased sexual pleasure to both partners was also stated. For example, women from tribes that do not practice circumcision report deriving greater sexual pleasure from circumcised men. Female preference is for the circumcised penis in partner(s) and son(s) and after information this increased to ~90%. Most men, including those who were uncircumcised, preferred circumcision."

"In a US study by Williams & Williams, 92% of women said the circumcised penis was cleaner, 90% said it looked 'sexier', 85% it felt nicer to touch and 55% smelled more pleasant. Even women who had only ever had uncircumcised partners preferred the look of the circumcised penis. Only 2% preferred an uncircumcised penis for fellatio, with 82% preferring the circumcised variety. Preference for intercourse for circ. vs. uncirc. was 71% vs 6%, respectively; manual stimulation, 75% vs 5%; visual appeal, 76% vs 4%."

My son's ass may not be the cleanest place either, but he's not likely to expect a woman to lick it. In addition to the other reasons for choosing circumcision, the aesthetic, hygenic and social ones are also important.

lovelysoul:

I'm way behind because I thought this had ended. I see you're still ignoring what's been said throughout this thread, preferring to imagine facts and toss around tales of your own sexual prowess. Since I'm not interested in addressing that beyond what I already said to crid, I'll just hit the question you asked.

What is "superstitious" about a 50% reduced HIV risk?

Nothing. It is an uninformed opinion. Sure the studies found a 50% reduction. But you're making many assumptions not supported by the facts or your situation.

1. The studies were on adult volunteers. Your son was neither.

2. The studies are more recent than your son's circumcision, so patting yourself on the back for your decision is a post facto defense mechanism.

3. The studies only found a protective risk reduction for female-to-male transmission. That's the least common transmission method involving men. It also doesn't map to the U.S. HIV problem, as others pointed out.

4. Condoms are cheaper and more effective.

...the aesthetic, hygienic and social ones are also important.

Aesthetic is a subjective issue. Your son's preference is all that matters, not yours or your guess about his future partners. You're not psychic.

Female genitals create smegma, too. They can smell if left unwashed. Thankfully, we have soap and water. Your assumptions about male incompetence are condescending.

The foreskin, like the vagina, is self-cleaning. Both the foreskin and vulva, if not cleaned, are odorous. You don't suggest cutting off female parts for being smelly, why would you suggest cutting off male parts for the same reason? We do have adequate water for washing, and the foreskin is much easier to clean than the folds of the vulva.

European women ask "How can American women have foreplay without a foreskin to play with?" It's women who live in a circumcising society who prefer circumcised lovers (no surprise there, that's all they know)...but those who have had sex with intact lovers and know the difference prefer the intact model because it functions normally, as nature intended!

While intact males may enjoy fellatio, they are not as driven to want it as is a male who does not have a foreskin. The head of an intact penis is already enveloped in a moist, mucous-membraned foreskin. So the search and desire for normal sex is sought by males who have lost the most sensitive part of their organ of pleasure and procreation.

Circumcision cuts something off...something vital. Why would anyone, except those unable to grasp the concept of normal, the harm of circumcision, or who refuse to accept the evidence, continue to argue for the removal of the most sensitive, functioning part of the the penis?

lovelysoul:

The separated, easy-to-recognize bottom line: You continue to pretend that we're arguing something extreme. We're not. The ethical case is simple. It is morally and medically indefensible to surgically alter a healthy person without his/her consent. Intention and relationship to the child are irrelevant because the procedure itself violates medical standards of practice and ethics.

You refuse to address this directly. That is why we offer other examples, to illustrate the exact same point you keep ignoring. Circumcision and UTI reduction. Child mastectomy and breast cancer reduction. It doesn't matter how many times you pretend that we're advocating the latter, we're not advocating it - or child circumcision - because they are flawed on every analysis. Just like routine/ritual child circumcision.

The goal is the same, chasing prophylactic gains for a child based on subjective parental evaluations. All of this is in direct violation of the obvious health (and rights) of the child. As long as you refuse to acknowledge medical need as the sole determining factor supporting imposing surgery on another, no hypothetical surgical procedure proposed above is any less absurd than child circumcision. Your approach to this topic is arbitrary. You start with your preferred conclusions and work your way backwards to your defense or attack on each conclusion.

Neither of you offer any mainstream studies to refute the ones I've posted, or support your foreskin-biased conclusions. Yet, you continually ridicule the mutiple African HIV studies - and in an odd argument, because we have primarily gay transmission here? What sort of defense is that? Is it not possible for heterosexual transmission of HIV to increase in the US? If it's protective for vaginal sex in Africa, why would that make the data useless here? Especially for my straight son?

And I am aghast that you all believe condoms are the simple answer. The spread of HIV itself is irrefutable evidence that condoms are not being used often enough. As the mom of teenagers, I have a practical belief that they cannot be consistently relied upon to do many things that protect them - from wearing seatbelts, bike helmets, or condoms. Young kids especially feel invincible. You cannot honestly believe that just teaching condom use is a perfect solution.

And you're right, I do not agree with your "child rights" view. I also do not believe that circumcision reduces male pleasure. No mainstream studies have supported that belief, in fact the CDC studies completely refuted it. Men and their genitals are not that different from country to country. To dismiss the African trials because they involve African men, not US or European males, doesn't make any sense. The sensory results would be the same. Sex is sex in any country.

Again, I am wholly supportive of your right as a parent NOT to circumcise your sons. I only want you not to inhibit my right - and the rights of many other parents, including Jewish parents, who choose differently for their sons.

Just as you are free, we should be free to choose what we believe, at the very least, provides an aesthetic and hygenic enhancement, and potentially offers even more health protections as studies increasing show. And we should retain the right to make that choice at the stage which is safest and most convenient for our sons - neonatally.

At the time I chose it, 18 yrs ago, my sense, in addition to the benfits that were already known, was that having fewer hygiene issues might naturally offer unknown health benefits, during childhood, as well as down the road. Naturally, I could not foresee the HIV or STD studies specifically, but it is only logical. Indeed, these current studies support my maternal instinct.

Obviously, there are not many ways to enhance female genitalia and hygiene. As one who frequently suffers painful UTIs, I regret that there isn't, but unfortunately, that's just our anatomy.

Yet, since there IS a safe, simple way to do it for males, then I see no reason to deny my son that benefit, just because I, and other females, might have to suffer with odor and hygiene issues ourselves! That is silly logic!

It is unfortunate that some of you guys regret your circumcisions. You are definitely in the minority, and, as one study suggested, much of your feelings may come from trying to scapegoat circumcision for other sexual dysfunctions or disappointments.

I can't know your individual issues, just that this elevation of the foreskin to such a critical sexual element isn't supported by the evidence, and there should be no reason to have such extreme reactions about it.

lovelysoul said:

Neither of you offer any mainstream studies to refute the ones I've posted, or support your foreskin-biased conclusions.

Bullshit. We've offered them up but you choose to ignore them. So here we go again:

de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007;13:367-371. Read here.

Notably, LCs also inhibited T-cell infection by viral clearance through Langerin. Thus Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function.

Talbott JR (2007) Size Matters: The Number of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic [html]. PLoS ONE 2(6): e543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000543 Read here

This paper provides strong evidence that when conducted properly, cross country regression data does not support the theory that male circumcision is the key to slowing the AIDS epidemic.

The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations in their July 2007 statement said:

“Male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic”, “African data on circumcision is context-specific [Do you know what context-specific means?] and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.", and perhaps their best observation “The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision”.

The French National Council on Aids (Conseil national du SIDA) in their August 2007 report concluded:

The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy 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 in France or the United States.

Garenne, M., Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalized HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa, African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 1-8

A meta-analysis of that data, contrasting male HIV seroprevalence according to circumcision status, showed no difference between the two groups (combined risk ratio [RR] = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.94–1.05).

lovelysoul said:

Yet, you continually ridicule the mutiple African HIV studies - and in an odd argument, because we have primarily gay transmission here? What sort of defense is that?

They are ridiculed because they deserve it. In the first case, as has been previously posted, the US has the highest HIV prevalence in the first world by many multiples. Yet you try to dismiss that fact claiming the US is anthropologically more like some third world African country than Europe, South America, or Australia. That's a load of crap and you know it.

In all the first world, such as those aforementioned places, the dominate mode of transmission is homosexual contact and IV drug use. In 2006, we only had perhaps an estimated 500 or so cases of non-high risk heterosexual transmission over a population of about 118,000,000. African maintain many cultural traditions that make them uniquely vulnerable toward HIV infection, on average make a poor individual in the US look like their living like a king, and may even have a genetic predisposition to HIV infection. All that was provided to you. The US has nothing in common with Africa.

lovelysoul said:

Is it not possible for heterosexual transmission of HIV to increase in the US? If it's protective for vaginal sex in Africa, why would that make the data useless here? Especially for my straight son?

I've already given you many of the basic facts, which you've ignored. In a nutshell it is because Africans maintain cultural standards that are vastly different from Western ones. These make them uniquely vulnerable. Ask yourself a different question, why hasn't HIV ravaged other parts of the world's heterosexual population in the 30 years it's been floating around.

lovelysoul said:

And I am aghast that you all believe condoms are the simple answer. The spread of HIV itself is irrefutable evidence that condoms are not being used often enough. As the mom of teenagers, I have a practical belief that they cannot be consistently relied upon to do many things that protect them - from wearing seatbelts, bike helmets, or condoms. Young kids especially feel invincible. You cannot honestly believe that just teaching condom use is a perfect solution.

Because condoms are the only solution. I wear condoms consistently for the same reason I never drink and drive because that is the only safe way to be. All my friends were/are the same. Relying on circumcision as a 'fail-safe' is as foolish as putting a governor on your sons car to ensure that if he drives drunk he can't drive faster than 25 miles per hour.

lovelysoul said:

And you're right, I do not agree with your "child rights" view. I also do not believe that circumcision reduces male pleasure. No mainstream studies have supported that belief, in fact the CDC studies completely refuted it. Men and their genitals are not that different from country to country. To dismiss the African trials because they involve African men, not US or European males, doesn't make any sense. The sensory results would be the same. Sex is sex in any country.

Here are two on male pleasure:
DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang (2007), The effect of male circumcision on sexuality, BJU International 99 (3), 619–622. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x, Abstract here, pdf not currently available.

Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss, Christopher Eden, Marilyn F. Milos, Norma Wilcox, Robert S. Van Howe (2007) Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, BJU International 99 (4), 864–869. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x.

It does make sense if you know anything about sociology.

lovelysoul said:

And we should retain the right to make that choice at the stage which is safest and most convenient for our sons - neonatally.

That is not the safest time, we've already showed you two neonatal deaths. How about providing us one death in an adult circumcision. Time to ante up.

lovelysoul said:

STD studies specifically, but it is only logical. Indeed, these current studies support my maternal instinct.

STDs are a crock too. Do you need the papers?

lovelysoul said:

It is unfortunate that some of you guys regret your circumcisions. You are definitely in the minority, and, as one study suggested, much of your feelings may come from trying to scapegoat circumcision for other sexual dysfunctions or disappointments.

You make a lot of assumptions here. There are proabably more people dissatisfied then you think. You yourself said a friend of a friend was dissatisfied with not being circumcised would you have ridiculed him the same way?

lovelysoul said:

I can't know your individual issues, just that this elevation of the foreskin to such a critical sexual element isn't supported by the evidence [that you choose to look at], and there should be no reason to have such extreme reactions about it.

I don't think anyone here has said they had any issue, certainly not me. It's about proper ethics in medicine and the rights of individuals. I know those things aren't too popular for some but there are some who care about such things.

I might also point out that I find it odd that you would deny your daughter the HPV vaccine which is recommended by the CDC and every other relevant health organization in the world, has been demonstrated to be safe, is far more effective than even the most supportive evidence of circumcision is, is safer, and, by the numbers, would be far more effective for your daughter than circumcision would be for your son.

Joe, I never said I was going to "deny my daughter the vaccine", just that I am waiting. Too often, medicines and vaccines are found to have major side effects later.

As for the penile sensitivity, your one study from BIJU only studied 255 men, of that, only 138 had been sexually active before their circumcisions, and then, it says "of the respondents"...which means what? 50 could've responded to the mail out questionaire? Certainly, this would skew the results towards those who had complaints.

This Canadian study showed no difference and "that both circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall during sexual arousal".

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Does-Circumcision-Decreases-Sexual-Sensitivity-61287.shtml

And the American Academy of Pedriatics:
"A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

As for Langerhan cells, that is the only study I've seen, and it seems to come from a very anti-circ source, so I'm assuming that is the ONLY study in the world showing the foreskin PREVENTS HIV. Are you really standing on that claim in light of all the other evidence to the contrary? Again, the American Academy of Pediatrics:

"ONE study suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin but not in the skin of the penile shaft. There are conflicting data regarding the immune capabilities of preputial tissue. Studies differ on the number, distribution, and location of Langerhans' cells in the foreskin. No controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin".

"Genital ulcers related to STD may increase susceptibility to HIV in both circumcised and uncircumcised men, but uncircumcised status is independently associated with the risk for HIV infection in several studies. There does appear to be a plausible biologic explanation for this association in that the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues".

"In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."

The fact that we primarily have anal and drug-related HIV transmission in the US, so far, does not mitigate the risk for female-to-male transmissions. Nobody says circumcision is the "key" to slowing the progression, just that it clearly offers some protection during vaginal sex with an infected person. Do you deny that evidence? Even your own paper supports that conclusion:

"There seems little doubt that male circumcision reduces the individual risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV, other factors controlled for."

I am not personally trying to stop the entire world HIV epidemic, only offer added protection for my individual child. I don't care if right now we only have 100 cases of heterosexually transmitted HIV in the US. My son is only 18. Are you suggesting heterosexual transmission rates are not increasing?

And what specifically are the "cultural differences" in Africa that you think would negate that benefit for him? That blacks are "genetically predisposed"? That’s quite racist! On what grounds?

Being poor has nothing to do with it, except in relation to exposing a person to more infected people and behaviors - prostitutes and drug use. However, vaginal sex is vaginal sex, no matter what country it takes place in. I see nothing to support your assertion that female-to-male HIV transmission is different in Africa than it would be between a male and an infected female here, except that it is, at the moment, rarer.

From the American Academy of Pediatrics, is a study done in New Zealand:

"METHODS. Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: (1) the circumcision status of males in the cohort before 15 years old, (2) measures of self-reported sexually transmitted infection from ages 18 to 25 years, and (3) childhood, family, and related covariate factors.

RESULTS. Being uncircumcised had a statistically significant bivariate association with self-reported sexually transmitted infection. Adjustment for potentially confounding factors, including number of sexual partners and unprotected sex, as well as background and family factors related to circumcision, did not reduce the association between circumcision status and reports of sexually transmitted infection. Estimates of the population-attributable risk suggested that universal neonatal circumcision would have reduced rates of sexually transmitted infection in this cohort by 48.2%.

CONCLUSIONS. These findings suggest that uncircumcised males are at greater risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infection than circumcised males. Male circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infection acquisition and transmission by up to one half, suggesting substantial benefits accruing from routine neonatal circumcision."

Just because HIV has not "ravaged" other parts of the world's heterosexual population YET, clearly depends on a lot of factors. Africans are obviously more promiscuous and have more sexual partners. It takes time for HIV to spread. When I first went to NYC in the early 80s, HIV was just a disease in the gay population. Heterosexuals were not yet worried or taking precautions. In fact, people were sounding a lot like you - saying that it didn't apply to our population!

Certainly, getting the word out quickly, and teaching condom use, stemmed the spread, but it doesn't mean our children are immune from heterosexual contraction.

And, finally, I never said I had a "friend of a friend" who was sorry about his circumcision. I have personally never known a circumcised man who was upset about it, or could not enjoy sex immensely. I had a friend who was uncircumcised, who complained that many females, including his ex wife, comsidered it less clean - a common female perception backed by mutiple studies. Coincidentally(perhaps), the same friend also had herpes.

The death rates of circumcision seem extremely low, if not non-existent, in this country. The AMAP reported none that I read, yet they did say that there would likely be higher risks for circumcision in later life if done with general anesthesia, which I'm sure most older males would want. I know of no deaths among older men. If you provide the neonatal link again, I'll be happy to look at it if it's from a reliable source, not an anti-circ source.

In closing, it is clear, Joe, that reasonable people can disagree on circumcision. There are variable studies, yet mounting evidence, acknowledged by respected health organizations, that neonatal circumcision provides health benefits and parents should weigh that evidence and make their own decisions.

lovelysoul:

I am not trying to refute the studies you've posted. I think the long-term results will not pan out as expected, but that's just my hunch. In the short-term, I accept the results within the constraints of the studies. Why would I try to refute something I've explicitly accepted?

Adult is a constraint of the studies specific to the circumcised individual. Voluntary is a constraint of the studies specific to the circumcised individual. (Cultural differences - "dry" sex and multiple concurrent partners, not race - matter, too, when comparing to the U.S. HIV problem.) I've also explained how adult and infant circumcision differ as surgical procedures, complete with the incisions necessary and pain management techniques available for each. Still you refuse to address the ethical issue highlighted by these points.

I have a request that should be possible for you, if you're correct: Identify a coherent governing principle that includes a parental right to surgically alter the genitals of healthy infant males but excludes from that parental right every other surgical intervention we've discussed here.

I just remembered something about my friend. He contracted herpes within a one week window of unprotected sex with a woman he had been dating for awhile, but the relationship grew more serious, so they had decided to be monogamous.

He took a week-long vacation with her, engaging in unprotected sex, and while on the vacation, she had her first outbreak. She didn't even know what it was, so they went to the nearest doctor to find out.

Apparently an ex-boyfriend she'd slept with a few weeks prior to the trip had just contracted herpes. My friend then had his first outbreak a couple weeks after their vacation.

It just shows how quick these exposures can be. Would he have caught it so fast if he'd been circumcised? The studies, such as the one in New Zealand, suggest he might have had a better chance of not contracting an STD had he been circumcised - almost a 50% better chance.

Of course, you all will just cry, "condoms, condoms, condoms!", and you are right. The best thing would've been for them both to get tested for STDs, including HIV, then wait 3 months and get tested again before risking unprotected sex.

But that really isn't what's happening out there, folks. Most people wear condoms at first, during the early stages of a relationship, then relax those standards once they feel safer with their partner.

This could happen to any of our sons. It is not really the casual sex that is most risky, although they can still be foolish. Most of them know to wear protection for casual sex. But, to me, the risk is much greater in the later weeks/months of an apparently committed relationship, when they let their guard down and fail to use consistent protection.

And 50% better odds could be very meaningful in those circumstances, especially if exposure is relatively brief, as it was with my friend.

"I have a request that should be possible for you, if you're correct: Identify a coherent governing principle that includes a parental right to surgically alter the genitals of healthy infant males but excludes from that parental right every other surgical intervention we've discussed here."

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, Joe. Parents already have the right to make most surgical and medical decisions for minors. Here is an article that addresses the abuse of rights:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7631/1181

I don't agree that this should be perceived as an "abuse of rights", and I think it is dangerous to go down that road. Parents make so many elective decisions for their children before consent, that it could be argued that a lot of them are "abusive". Life and death decisions, as well as relatively minor choices and protections.

If there were serious long-term complications and injustices, combined with NO medical benefits, as there is with FEMALE circumcision, then the government would have a cause to step in, just as they do in many cases where parents refuse adequate medical care for religious reasons. But I am grateful that our government attempts to stay out of the largely arbitrary religious, and/or elective health choices parent's make for their minor children.

Circumcision falls into the category of an "elective" neonatal procedure with few real risks and a growing number of potential benefits. Therefore, the government is right to stay out of it.

Parents make far more life-altering decisions when acting in the best interest of their children. Some here have suggested that we only make surgical choices that are "medically necessary", but that doesn't tell the full story.

For instance, my daughter's tonsillectomy was in dispute between two doctors - one, our family doctor, who felt she didn't have enough serious long-term indicators and the swelling of her tonsil might relieve itself in time, and the ENT specialist who felt that one tonsil was "pretty nasty" and should be removed.

I had to weigh their opinions (and possible agendas) with my own sense as a parent that the surgery would be beneficial to her - potentially ending her snoring (which had become socially, though not medically, debilitating) and her grades dropping.

However, there was no clear indication of either benefit. Some parents told me their children still snored after tonsillectomies. And her sudden drop in grades could've been the result of laziness or just not paying attention. In other words, the surgery might have been completely pointless.

Yet, acting purely on hope and instinct, I went with the ENT's opinion and decided on the surgery. Then, to make matters worse, the day before the surgery, our family doctor did an EKG that showed an anomaly. He believed it was minor, but the ENT's office freaked out and almost canceled the surgery. Later in the day - mere HOURS before the surgery - the two doctors conferred and decided it was "probably ok" to go forward.

Now, you see what a dilemma a parent can face when making medical choices? We're talking anesthesia and real risk of death. I went into that surgery a nervous wreck. What if it killed her? What if she had a heart attack on the table? What if it really wasn't necessary and I lost her over a stupid pair of tonsils?

Yet, the decision was solely mine, and ultimately, it turned out to be a positive one. Her grades have improved drastically; her snoring has stopped. But it could've gone the other way. She could've died or had lifetime complications that would've been all my fault!

Some parents would've chosen to do nothing. Their fear over the risks would've prevented them from cutting their child open. And I understand and respect that choice too. All we can expect of parents is to weigh the evidence and try to do the best they can for their children.

That was just one of the many medical choices I've made for my children in 18 years - sometimes just for small possible protections, such as vaccines, or cosmetic results, such as orthodontic work or ear piercings. Medications, vaccines, stitches, surgeries, placing pins in broken bones...they all carry some potential risks and benefits.

I weighed the circumcision issue, and in addition to the hygiene and potential health benefits, my "hunch" was that it would be less likely for a young boy or young man to choose circumcision later in life, even if health benefits were indicated. What teen boy really wants to tell his friends, "I'm going in for a circumcision." If you don't have teens, trust me, that's mortifying.

I mean, it's not as easy as the HPV vaccine, which arguably, my daughter can choose for herself, now or in college, or whenever she decides to become sexually active. In keeping with your "child-rights" platform, it's a little odd that you'd expect me to force a sexually-related vaccine on a child who has independently declared her intent to be "abstinent." She doesn't need it unless she's having sex, and if kids are smart enough to decide about circumcision - and sex, and condoms - then they should be responsible enough to choose their own vaccines when the time comes, right?

Yet, back to circumcision, I don't know the figures of how many boys choose this procedure later in life, but I'm guessing most don't. I'm also assuming the procedure is more expensive then, and probably isn't covered by insurance unless medically necessary. How many young men are unhappy and wish they were circumcised, yet don't want to burden their family with extra expense or endure the pain, is also hard to know.

So, it just seemed like a choice that I could make neonatally, which would spare my son later discomfort and hassle in life. At best, it protects against disease, and at worst, it is a neutral decision, offering some minor cosmetic and hygienic benefits.

As I've stated, I just don't know any circumcised males who are unhappy with their circumcisions or seem to have suffered any ill effects from it. Sexuality is very important to me, so I would not choose anything that I genuinely believed would harm a child's sexual pleasure.

Probably if I had only been sexually involved with uncircumcised men, then I might've had more doubts because I wouldn't have such direct and personal proof that it would be ok - that my son would have a fulfilling existence as a circumcised man - but, given that I do, the choice was truly easier than many I've made as a parent. Certainly easier than the tonsillectomy!

lovelysoul said:

Joe, I never said I was going to "deny my daughter the vaccine", just that I am waiting. Too often, medicines and vaccines are found to have major side effects later.

There is no question at this point of it's safety or efficiency. All major medical organizations agree on this one, there is no ambiguity so what are you waiting for?

lovelysoul said:

As for the penile sensitivity, your one study from BIJU only studied 255 men, of that, only 138 had been sexually active before their circumcisions, and then, it says "of the respondents"...which means what? 50 could've responded to the mail out questionaire? Certainly, this would skew the results towards those who had complaints.

This Canadian study showed no difference and "that both circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall during sexual arousal".

Yes, I am aware of that study, J Sex Med. 2007 Apr 6; Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men. Payne K, Thaler L, Kukkonen T, Carrier S, Binik Y. Riverside Professional Center, Ottawa, Canada

I am also aware that they only measured response at one point, the glans, there by ignoring the foreskin completely. In there conclusion the authors state:

In light of these findings, the examination of penile sensory differences between uncircumcised and circumcised men warrants further study via a replication with a larger sample size [Sorrells[1] et al. had this] including the measurement of multiple sensory modalities over multiple penile locations (comprising those believed to be directly affected by circumcision [i.e. the foreskin, and Sorrells[1] et al. did this])....

Do you know how large the sample size was in that paper? That, incomplete, news clip goes on to say:

The authors signal that the scar tissue formed from circumcision, but also the functional and mechanical changes linked to sexual activity, are factors that could have secondary effects on the genital sensitivity and should be investigated in future researches.

Again, Sorrells[1] looked at this and in fact concluded that the scar tissue of a circumcised man is the most sensitive part of the penis, something is very wrong when scar tissue is the most sensitive part.

lovelysoul said:

And the American Academy of Pedriatics:
"A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

Master's and Johnson is from the 1960s. Sorrells[1] measured light tactile discrimination you should read what they concluded.

lovelysoul said:

As for Langerhan cells, that is the only study I've seen, and it seems to come from a very anti-circ source, so I'm assuming that is the ONLY study in the world showing the foreskin PREVENTS HIV. Are you really standing on that claim in light of all the other evidence to the contrary? Again, the American Academy of Pediatrics:

What on earth are you talking about, is the journal Nature[2] an anti-circ source? Are researchers at the Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, VU University Medical Center an anti-circ source? Oh wait they're in the Netherlands, that country on that continent that doesn't circumcise their boys [like most of the rest of the world] and still has far lower, by many multiple, rates of all STDs then we here in the US have. Perhaps that's it.

lovelysoul said:

"ONE study suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin but not in the skin of the penile shaft. There are conflicting data regarding the immune capabilities of preputial tissue. Studies differ on the number, distribution, and location of Langerhans' cells in the foreskin. No controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin".
.....
"Genital ulcers related to STD may increase susceptibility to HIV in both circumcised and uncircumcised men, but uncircumcised status is independently associated with the risk for HIV infection in several studies. There does appear to be a plausible biologic explanation for this association in that the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues".

This is based on old work that De Witte et. al.[2] discussed in their paper.

lovelysoul said:

The fact that we primarily have anal and drug-related HIV transmission in the US, so far, does not mitigate the risk for female-to-male transmissions. Nobody says circumcision is the "key" to slowing the progression, just that it clearly offers some protection during vaginal sex with an infected person. Do you deny that evidence? Even your own paper supports that conclusion:

"There seems little doubt that male circumcision reduces the individual risk of female-to-male transmission of HIV, other factors controlled for."

I don't think anyone has denied the possibility but the evidence and the possible benefit are far from certain especially when you are talking about the US and other first world countries. Good medicine demands good ethics and in this case good ethics demands that only adult men be involved in this decision, for themselves.

Why do you think the Australians and French (and others) published those statements? Do you understand the meaning of context-specific or don't you?

lovelysoul said:

I am not personally trying to stop the entire world HIV epidemic, only offer added protection for my individual child. I don't care if right now we only have 100 cases of heterosexually transmitted HIV in the US. My son is only 18. Are you suggesting heterosexual transmission rates are not increasing?

That is an irrational thought, thinking like that could be used to justify anything.

lovelysoul said:

And what specifically are the "cultural differences" in Africa that you think would negate that benefit for him? That blacks are "genetically predisposed"? That’s quite racist! On what grounds?

You really need to do some reading on this issue before you make accusations like that. I suggest Helen Epstein's The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS

And I've already posted why that is the case, do you do anything more than skim? But let's try it once again. The first is they (both men and women) tend to maintain several long term concurrent sexual partners. A guy might have a wife and a few girlfriends and the women also have more on the side too. Westerners tend practice long term serial monogamy. In the West, even when a guy cheats the mistress doesn't often have even more on the side.

HIV tends to be at it's most infectious after initial exposure and before the immune system can begin to bring it under control. Newly infected individuals are often highly contagious for the first couple weeks at least; with large concurrent sexual networks, like in Africa, this fast tracks the infection through the population.

Other cultural components in Africa add to the problem, such as wife inheritance and dry sex practices (where the woman will use herbs and such to dry out her vagina) this can lead to more tears and easier transmission.

The African population does also has a genetic predisposition and an epidemic of parasitic worms which contribute to HIV infection. Before calling me a racist why don't you do some research and start reading about genetic possibilities here[3] and other lifestyle problems here[4].
Unless of course those are anti-circ sources which you don't want to trust.

lovelysoul said:

Being poor has nothing to do with it, except in relation to exposing a person to more infected people and behaviors - prostitutes and drug use. However, vaginal sex is vaginal sex, no matter what country it takes place in. I see nothing to support your assertion that female-to-male HIV transmission is different in Africa than it would be between a male and an infected female here, except that it is, at the moment, rarer.

Actually you are only half right. It is not likely that poverty alone is driving the problem in Africa as there are other countries in SE Asia and other parts of the world who are just as poor but don't have anything like the problem the have in Africa. Oh and most don't circumcise either so that isn't why they aren't having the same heterosexual problem in those areas as Africa.

The difference in transmission include sexual practices, as described above, genetic factors that predisposes, and a possibly compromised immune system due [weakening Langerin production (see De Witte[2])] to living conditions all proabably contribute to this.

lovelysoul said:

From the American Academy of Pediatrics, is a study done in New Zealand:

Yep the Fergusson study. I've read that too. The problem is his results didn't match up with the results of several recent larger studies, which he should have known about but didn't discuss. Including an Australian study (International Journal of STD & AIDS 2006) of over 10,000 men which found found after correction for age, circumcision was unrelated to reporting STI found at: [5]

This corroborated the results of a smaller British Study (STI 2003), a mere 2,000 men, which also did not find any significant differences in the proportion of circumcised and uncircumcised British men reporting ever being diagnosed with any STI. Found at:[6]

And the results from a study of the US Navy population (XV International AIDS Conference 2004). Found at:[7].

I should add that the Navy also checked for HIV in that study and found no correlation.

A New Zealand study, similar to the one you site, was just published in the March 2008 Journal of Pediatrics, "Circumcision and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Infections in a Birth Cohort" by N. P. Dickson, T. Van Roode, P. Herbison and C. Paul, J Pediatr 2008;152:383-7, shows that circumcision does NOT prevent STDs. These findings are consistent with recent population-based cross-sectional studies in developed countries [such as the studies I mentioned above] and found that early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk of the common STIs in the general population in such countries. Read that one here [8].

Dickson followed his cohort for 32 years. In a 2005 article, Dickson et. al. also looked specifically at HSV.[9] Following a birth cohort of boys to age 26, they tested for HSV serologically and found no association with circumcision and HSV. These results were similar to a separate serological trial conducted on a clinic population India.

lovelysoul said:

Just because HIV has not "ravaged" other parts of the world's heterosexual population YET, clearly depends on a lot of factors. Africans are obviously more promiscuous and have more sexual partners. It takes time for HIV to spread. When I first went to NYC in the early 80s, HIV was just a disease in the gay population. Heterosexuals were not yet worried or taking precautions. In fact, people were sounding a lot like you - saying that it didn't apply to our population!

Africans are not more promiscuous then us. That is false, read Epstien's book.

lovelysoul said:

And, finally, I never said I had a "friend of a friend" who was sorry about his circumcision. I have personally never known a circumcised man who was upset about it, or could not enjoy sex immensely. I had a friend who was uncircumcised, who complained that many females, including his ex wife, comsidered it less clean - a common female perception backed by mutiple studies. Coincidentally(perhaps), the same friend also had herpes.

I can't believe I have to quote your own words:

I've already said that I was there during the procedure. I saw my son cry, briefly, then go back to sleep. I was just down at the beach, and a male friend of mine shared that his brother chose circumcision later in life. He is much happier! You guys that want it to be this horrible thing are wrong!

Posted by: lovelysoul at November 25, 2008 6:19 PM

Now would you be as condescending to that guy, who was unhappy about not being circumcised as you are to guys who don't like being circumcised? Seems to me you should have just told him to live with his parents decisions. Just like you've told people here who say they are unhappy about being circumcised. Of course the difference is your friend's brother had an option. No matter what it worked out for him.

lovelysoul said:

The death rates of circumcision seem extremely low, if not non-existent, in this country. The AMAP reported none that I read, yet they did say that there would likely be higher risks for circumcision in later life if done with general anesthesia, which I'm sure most older males would want. I know of no deaths among older men. If you provide the neonatal link again, I'll be happy to look at it if it's from a reliable source, not an anti-circ source.

What again? We've posted this at least three times. Well, fine see [10] and [11]. If the UK paper the Mirror and CanadaTV is an anti-circ source I don't know what to say. At least they won't get AIDS right? And they went to the grave with pretty and clean penises right?

There are variable studies, yet mounting evidence, acknowledged by respected health organizations, that neonatal circumcision provides health benefits and parents should weigh that evidence and make their own decisions.

Not the case. The AAP is the only pediatric organization that is even sitting on the fence. And they do that proabably because of the politics and perhaps even concern for litigation. All other similar Western organizations have solidly said this is not necessary for children. Just because it isn't illegal don't confuse that as tacit approval or support. Denmark is not the only country to consider legislation, other European countries have considered it too but not moved on it yet because they're pandering to politics. Another recent example are the Australians[12], where Dr's have come out in support of a ban. The issue is currently being discussed.

[1] tinyurl.com/58cqz2
[2] tinyurl.com/6j2rsl
[3] tinyurl.com/5n5y6a
[4] tinyurl.com/5w4gth
[5] tinyurl.com/llr7v
[6] tinyurl.com/56vpf4
[7] tinyurl.com/6ot38y
[8] tinyurl.com/5vmmup
[9] tinyurl.com/5q826o
[10] tinyurl.com/6q4nr5
[11] tinyurl.com/5o7yjf
[12] tinyurl.com/6e43rh

lovelysoul:

I have a request that should be possible for you, if you're correct: Identify a coherent governing principle that includes a parental right to surgically alter the genitals of healthy infant males but excludes from that parental right every other surgical intervention we've discussed here.

That request came from me, not Joe. And you didn't respond to it, dancing around it again.

I understand you made a decision about your daughter's tonsils. I'm not seeking to remove proxy consent there because she had a medical need for treatment. Parents should choose the least invasive, most effective treatment when deciding for children, but I'm not questioning such judgment calls when medical need exists. Someone has to make that decision. That is legitimately a parental decision.

No such medical need exists with routine infant male circumcision.

So, I request again: Identify a coherent governing principle that includes a parental right to surgically alter the genitals of healthy infant males but excludes from that parental right every other surgical intervention on healthy children, such as those we've discussed here.

(Here's the opposing view to the BMJ essay you linked. I've been trying to have this discussion because at worst, it is far more serious than a neutral decision. How many links to deaths and complications do you need to accept this?)

Oh, I forgot about Ray, at the beach the other night. He's actually a tenant more than a friend, and we were discussing his brother, not him.

Anyway, none of your links work. They're just numbers and if they are supposed to match these "tinyurls" above, they don't work either.

Still, I don't understand how you can say Africans are "not more promiscuous than us" right after you've written, "The first is they (both men and women) tend to maintain several long term concurrent sexual partners. A guy might have a wife and a few girlfriends and the women also have more on the side too. Westerners tend practice long term serial monogamy. In the West, even when a guy cheats the mistress doesn't often have even more on the side".

And how can you know that? Very few men can afford mistresses anymore - not like the "kept women" of the old days - but if they do, there's no guarantee she's monogamous! In my experience, when men cheat, they cheat with cheaters...which, are, by definition, NOT monogamous women.

So, what I'm gathering from you is that Africans are genetically predisposed to HIV, dry out their vagina with herbs, and both the men and women have multiple sex partners...but they're not "promiscuous". And this makes the African CDC studies worthless in terms of female-to-male contraction everywhere else in the world.

I feel much better now, whew! As long as my son doesn't get with some crazy African witchdoctor woman with herbs inside her, he'll be fine. :)

Clearly, you are very committed to this subject, and I commend you for all the research...which I can't read, but I'll take your word for it.

I think that it is somewhat difficult to get completely accurate data on this topic, as most of the researchers are male, and so naturally, they would either be circumcised or uncircumcised themselves, which may lead to a unconscious bias, particularly in studies done in countries that are mostly anti-circumcision.

At any rate, it doesn't seem like ANY of the data is overwhelmingly compelling. The sensory stuff is like..."well, maybe there's a difference...maybe not...maybe only with the glans...or maybe just with masturbation", etc.

Having been with circumcised men all my life, it seems to be an extremely subjective and rather arbitrary point. If there is a sensory loss, it can't be very profound. It certainly isn't debilitating or a huge impediment to pleasurable lovemaking for most men.

Like I said, if sex could be BETTER, then what does that really mean? An extra ejaculation per day...per week? More masturbation than is already taking place(look at the huge online sex industry!)? More cheating and outside affairs? More busted-up marriages? I mean, how much better does sex really need to be?

And, you know, personally, as a woman, we could talk about how much better sex could be for us if we didn't spend most of our lives with clueless partners. But, hey, if you men can get an extra bit of sexual sensation, then that's what's really important!

Sorry to be so skeptical, but I watched my ex jerk off almost every day for 20+ years, then have sex twice a day with me, then apparently go out and have multiple affairs too, so it's a bit hard to swallow that he needed a foreskin to make it even "better" for him!

Of course, maybe he was just trying to replace his lost foreskin...that magical flap with superpowers to make men amazing lovers...bond mother and sons together...prevent HIV...maybe even bring about world peace!

Try them again they work, you just have to copy and paste what is after [X] into your browser. So you would open -> tinyurl.com/??????

lovelysoul said:

Oh, I forgot about Ray, at the beach the other night. He's actually a tenant more than a friend, and we were discussing his brother, not him.

But you didn't answer the question, would you be a condescending to him as you are to those who were unhappy with being circumcised?

lovelysoul said:

Anyway, none of your links work. They're just numbers and if they are supposed to match these "tinyurls" above, they don't work either.

Had to be that way, or my posts go to spam. Only one or two links per post.

lovelysoul said:

Still, I don't understand how you can say Africans are "not more promiscuous than us" right after you've written, "The first is they (both men and women) tend to maintain several long term concurrent sexual partners. A guy might have a wife and a few girlfriends and the women also have more on the side too. Westerners tend practice long term serial monogamy. In the West, even when a guy cheats the mistress doesn't often have even more on the side".

And how can you know that? Very few men can afford mistresses anymore - not like the "kept women" of the old days - but if they do, there's no guarantee she's monogamous! In my experience, when men cheat, they cheat with cheaters...which, are, by definition, NOT monogamous women.

Read Epstein's book, she lays it all out. But I also know from independent research. Most Africans in the hardest hit areas have multiple long term concurrent relationships 2, 3, 4 wives and/or girlfriends. This is very uncommon in the West where serial monogamy is the rule. I assure you it's a different situation then what you've faced.

lovelysoul said:

So, what I'm gathering from you is that Africans are genetically predisposed to HIV, dry out their vagina with herbs, and both the men and women have multiple sex partners...but they're not "promiscuous". And this makes the African CDC studies worthless in terms of female-to-male contraction everywhere else in the world.

Yes, between cultural factors, biological factors, and economic factors people in Africa really strike out. They are no more promiscuous than people in the West. Over a life time, on average, we have the same number of partners only those in the West tend to have one partner at a time. The studies weren't conducted by the CDC, and yes they don't apply outside of that setting, that is what has been published in most Western countries, or did you miss the two examples I provided?

lovelysoul said:

I feel much better now, whew! As long as my son doesn't get with some crazy African witchdoctor woman with herbs inside her, he'll be fine. :)

No, I'd say as long as your son is intelligent and remains in the low-risk heterosexual group (that means isn't having relationships with someone who is known to have or suspected to have HIV), the odds of his contracting HIV are on the order of 1 in 500,000 to perhaps 1 in 1,000,000. Virtually all kids and adults fall into that category. Just to put this in perspective, the chances of someone in your family getting injured next year in a bubble bath are 1 in 1.3 million (source: The Odds on Virtually Everything, Heron House, 1980). You're in about as much danger of being struck by lightning (1 in 600,000), in grater danger of having your house bombed (1 in 290,000), or being murdered (1 in 11,000). Clearly the risk increases if your son is gay or engages in sex with people in a high-risk population. There has been no demonstrated benefit for the former group and if he is in the later group he can get circumcised pretty easily. It's an out patient procedure done with a local.

lovelysoul said:

Clearly, you are very committed to this subject, and I commend you for all the research...which I can't read, but I'll take your word for it.

I am committed to children and in this case boys specifically.

lovelysoul said:

It certainly isn't debilitating or a huge impediment to pleasurable lovemaking for most men.

It depends on the man, not all are that lucky.

lovelysoul said:

Like I said, if sex could be BETTER, then what does that really mean? An extra ejaculation per day...per week? More masturbation than is already taking place(look at the huge online sex industry!)? More cheating and outside affairs? More busted-up marriages? I mean, how much better does sex really need to be?

If sex could or might be better, why wouldn't you want it better? It's like too much money or too much fun, there is no such thing.

lovelysoul said:

And, you know, personally, as a woman, we could talk about how much better sex could be for us if we didn't spend most of our lives with clueless partners. But, hey, if you men can get an extra bit of sexual sensation, then that's what's really important!

Sorry to be so skeptical, but I watched my ex jerk off almost every day for 20+ years, then have sex twice a day with me, then apparently go out and have multiple affairs too, so it's a bit hard to swallow that he needed a foreskin to make it even "better" for him!

Of course, maybe he was just trying to replace his lost foreskin...that magical flap with superpowers to make men amazing lovers...bond mother and sons together...prevent HIV...maybe even bring about world peace!

You're not being skeptical you're being condescending. Is that really necessary?

Ok, I got it to work...guess you have to put "www" in front. lol

I'll try to go through them one at a time because there's just so much information. Not saying I'm right, at all, but just offering a counterpoint to the data...

Regarding this one:
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/sorrells_2007.pdf

It doesn't surprise me at all that the "most sensitive part" would be the circumcision scar. I have a C-section scar, and I'm sure if you put pressure on my whole stomach area, that would be the "most sensitive" spot, even though it's been 18 years. So, no surprise there.

And the uncircumcised male's skin is naturally going to be much tougher. It is exposed during sex, masturbation, and everyday life, rubbing against underwear, etc. That would obviously toughen up the outer skin to pressure.

However, to me, that doesn't necessarily translate into a lack of sexual pleasure. First, because of my vast anecdotal evidence with circumcised males, I don't believe it's squeezing or applying pressure to individual points on the penile shaft that really causes arousal.

In fact, arousal is quite hard to quantify. It is largely mental. We women do not have a very sensitive vagina either - it is mercilessly made tough (and probably toughened up even more during sex) so that we can bear children without going insane. My guess is that the internal vagina is far less sensitive than either the circ or uncirc penis.

Yet, the feel of pressure there, however slight, can be extremely arousing. I don't need a zillion nerves within my vagina to experience sexual pleasure from the feeling of fulfillment and friction. Just knowing a man is inside me is sexually exciting.

So, I question whether any pressure studies are relevant in determining true sexual pleasure response in circumcised males.

And it is also odd that they claim that the circumcised men are less sensitive, yet they are also the ones who have the most premature ejaculations. Isn't that counterintuitive? If circ men are so insensitive, why would they come faster?

That is definitely not my experience with circ men, but I suspect premature ejaculation varies for a lot of reasons.

"But you didn't answer the question, would you be a condescending to him as you are to those who were unhappy with being circumcised?"

If I met a man like that - which I haven't (except perhaps now) - I wouldn't be condescending, but I'm sure I would question if there were other factors involved. The idea that sex "might" be better is exactly as you describe it - like the idea that you "might" should have more money or more fun. It is subjective. If a man told me he couldn't orgasm, I would be very sympathetic, but if he was functioning normally and only had a vague sense that he should have "more sensitivity", I would indeed liken that to someone who always feels he should have more money or more fun. It may be that there is an emotional emptiness that is more relevant than the circumcision.

I just realized you were asking me the reverse. Why would I be condescending to a man for wanting a circumcision? I'd completely understand.

The idea that sex "might" be better is exactly as you describe it - like the idea that you "might" should have more money or more fun. It is subjective.

You misinterpreted the point. It's not subjective, wouldn't you want more money? More fun? More sexual pleasure? Why would I want potentially less if I could have more? Why would I give up more money, more fun, or more sexual pleasure because you can't have enough of either. There's no such thing as too much.

I just realized you were asking me the reverse. Why would I be condescending to a man for wanting a circumcision? I'd completely understand.

So why would you understand why the man would want a circumcision yet you would belittle someone who wished he wasn't circumcised? The fact is you can say to the man who wished he was, fine go get circumcised. You can't do that for the other guy.

I'm sorry, Joe, I don't mean to belittle your feelings.

I do believe you can have "too much"...or consistently want "too much". My ex has more money than he can ever spend, more sex than he can ever truly appreciate, yet it's never enough. That's not what creates happiness.

The difference is that the uncut guy who wants a circumcison knows exactly what he is giving up - not what he doesn't have. Longing for what you don't have is...well, a natural human condition, I'm sure. Yet, there can't be that much certainty that sex would be better. If a magic fairy came down and gave you a foreskin, you might find there was really no added pleasure...no greater connection with your lovers...no magic answer, you know?

We all want more, but sometimes we blame a certain aspect of life for our discontentment, when that really isn't what we hunger for. The key to life is really learning to appreciate what we HAVE, not what we don't.

lovelysoul said: I'm sorry, Joe, I don't mean to belittle your feelings.

Don't feel sorry for me, I've never said I was dissatisfied.

lovelysoul said:

The difference is that the uncut guy who wants a circumcison knows exactly what he is giving up - not what he doesn't have. Longing for what you don't have is...well, a natural human condition, I'm sure.

The point is it's something they had that was summarily taken from them. And that isn't right. If you sympathize with an intact guy who wants a circumcision you must give due respect to the reciprocal condition. And again the difference is that one state can't be changed. If everyone is left to their own decision, your guaranteed a good outcome.

No, you wouldn't be "guaranteed" a good outcome. There might be no improvement or even a worse condition.

You know, it's not dissimilar to plastic surgery. I know women who think a little nip, a little tuck, here and there, will improve their lives. But often, they feel just as dissatisfied - and actually the results can be horrific. Yet, they'll keep trying because they're chasing something that isn't attainable.

I've seen too many men have amazing responses sexually to believe that it REALLY makes such a big difference either way...circ or uncirc.

And I do know that most women prefer your uncircumcised penis. I, for one, think it's MUCH hotter! :) 95% of women would rather go down on you, Joe...than 4%...or was it 2%...these studies are killing me! lol

So, rejoice! Life is good. I understand you feel sensitive to the whole child-right's issue, and I get that, but nobody was trying to deny you sexual pleasure, and I really don't believe anyone did.

The goals of female circumcison and male circumcision are entirely different - one is made by loving parents who actually hope it will IMPROVE your sex life (more fellatio, better appearance, better hygiene, etc). The other is designed to destroy sexual enjoyment.

You and the others may "feel" that sexual enjoyment has been reduced, but that is far from proven in my view. Why would Ray's brother be "happier" that he got circumcised?
One thing I know about men is that they aren't likely to give up sexual pleasure. If the foreskin is so critical to pleasure, nobody would give it up! Case closed...no need for a study.

Actually, I meant your circumcised penis...lol

lovelysoul said:

No, you wouldn't be "guaranteed" a good outcome. There might be no improvement or even a worse condition.

Yes you are guaranteed a good outcome. Those who eventually wish to get a circumcision get what they want. Those who prefer to say as they are can stay as they are. Everyone is happy, how does that not guarantee a good outcome?

lovelysoul said:

You know, it's not dissimilar to plastic surgery. I know women who think a little nip, a little tuck, here and there, will improve their lives. But often, they feel just as dissatisfied - and actually the results can be horrific. Yet, they'll keep trying because they're chasing something that isn't attainable.

Which might happen to those who eventually chose circumcision but that is their choice.

lovelysoul said:

I've seen too many men have amazing responses sexually to believe that it REALLY makes such a big difference either way...circ or uncirc.

And I do know that most women prefer your uncircumcised penis. I, for one, think it's MUCH hotter! :) 95% of women would rather go down on you, Joe...than 4%...or was it 2%...these studies are killing me! lol

Anecdotal evidence doesn't make something ethically right. And as far as your study it would depend on where you did the survey and their experience.

lovelysoul said:

So, rejoice! Life is good. I understand you feel sensitive to the whole child-right's issue, and I get that, but nobody was trying to deny you sexual pleasure, and I really don't believe anyone did.

The goals of female circumcison and male circumcision are entirely different - one is made by loving parents who actually hope it will IMPROVE your sex life (more fellatio, better appearance, better hygiene, etc). The other is designed to destroy sexual enjoyment.

But these are all subjective. If you ask women where circumcision is unknown, rare or even where there is an even mix, they give you a different story. And preference isn't an ethical reason for a surgical intervention (unless it's an adult).

Again, Indonesian parents submit their girls to hospital controlled FGM and I am sure it is for all the reasons you listed above. Does that make it right?

lovelysoul said:

You and the others may "feel" that sexual enjoyment has been reduced, but that is far from proven in my view. Why would Ray's brother be "happier" that he got circumcised?
One thing I know about men is that they aren't likely to give up sexual pleasure. If the foreskin is so critical to pleasure, nobody would give it up! Case closed...no need for a study.

Why he wanted it is not relevant, he was an adult and got to make a choice. Why do some guys get Prince Alberts? They say it enhances sexual experience and some women like it. Does that mean parents should have it done to infant boys? All parents should respect their boys like Ray's parents respected his brother. Though considering that you didn't mention anything about Ray, I would not be surprised if Ray's brother had a condition at birth that prevented the circumcision.

"Again, Indonesian parents submit their girls to hospital controlled FGM and I am sure it is for all the reasons you listed above. Does that make it right?"

Joe, I am SURE Indonesioan parents do not circimcise their girls so they can have more cunnilingus!!!

Removing the clitoris is the same as castrating your whole penis. American parents do not wish that or decide that for their sons!

Most women do prefer the circumcised penis - no matter what they say to be politically correct. In private, it is a different story. I know women from all over the world. Maybe if they've been totally sheltered and never seen a cut man, they would prefer uncut - or if they are of the "earth mother" type sentiment - but any worldy woman, who's had experience with both types, is either completely neutral or prefers cut. I know very few women who prefer uncut, especially those, like me, who enjoy fellatio.

I mean, it just makes sense. We like to see the head of your penis, even when you're not erect - it's much sexier. And though I've never gone down on an uncut guy, I can't imagine it would be as nice as cut. It's smoother and cleaner.

So, yes, parents in the US do consider that issue. If female preference is for circumcised - which it is - then we want our sons to be the most desirable. It is really, as one study suggested, almost a bilogical impulse - to make our sons so attractive that they can reproduce with the highest quality partner.

So, no one was trying to harm you by choosing circumcision. Right or wrong, parents feel circumcision is an enhancement.

They may feel the same for female circumcision too, but for different reasons - by taking away her sexual pleasure entirely, the daughter is more marketable as a wife. She is less likely to stray from her husband if she feels no sexual desire. She is just chattel.

So, one procedure is done to enhance sexual prospects, while the other is done to decrease them. Those are entirely different parental goals!

I understand the rights issue, but you have to view it in that context, which surely explains why laws should be against it for girls, and not necessarily for boys. One is complete removal of all sexual pleasure, and that is - for any culture that values equal sexuality - a crime.

Actually, to be totally accurate, I know NO women who prefer uncut...except for "Momof3", who I don't really "know". That's the truth - and I have a lot of very sexy and sophisticated girlfriends.

lovelysoul said:

Joe, I am SURE Indonesioan parents do not circimcise their girls so they can have more cunnilingus!!!

Removing the clitoris is the same as castrating your whole penis. American parents do not wish that or decide that for their sons!

No they do it, with a Doctor, in a hospital because they love their daughter and want to make her desirable right? Mom was done and she isn't missing anything. Besides how could she know even if she was right? And we shouldn't try and stop them because it's important to them and their culture right?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837

lovelysoul said:

Most women do prefer the circumcised penis - no matter what they say to be politically correct. In private, it is a different story. I know women from all over the world. Maybe if they've been totally sheltered and never seen a cut man, they would prefer uncut - or if they are of the "earth mother" type sentiment - but any worldy woman, who's had experience with both types, is either completely neutral or prefers cut. I know very few women who prefer uncut, especially those, like me, who enjoy fellatio.

And I've lived all over the world and have never heard this, of course I am a guy and don't run with shallow crowds.

lovelysoul said:

I mean, it just makes sense. We like to see the head of your penis, even when you're not erect - it's much sexier. And though I've never gone down on an uncut guy, I can't imagine it would be as nice as cut. It's smoother and cleaner.

So, yes, parents in the US do consider that issue. If female preference is for circumcised - which it is - then we want our sons to be the most desirable. It is really, as one study suggested, almost a bilogical impulse - to make our sons so attractive that they can reproduce with the highest quality partner.

And how do you know it's cleaner? Why is it that given their relative dimensions it’s funny foreskin should be seen as a harbinger of putrification when women, who have no problem staying clean, walk around with a far lusher petri-dish between their legs. By saying that you're saying after millions of years of evolution, nature messed up and not just with men but all mammals. Or if you're a religious person, then god messed up his perfect creation.

That study you hang yourself on is one study in the middle of Iowa IIRC. To make a child look perpetually erect, seems almost pedophilic to me.

lovelysoul said:

So, no one was trying to harm you by choosing circumcision. Right or wrong, parents feel circumcision is an enhancement.

And how do you know I wasn't harmed? We've already given two examples of death that occurred in the west in the last year, is that not harm? Who knows how many more died or suffered serious complications but does it matter? Or is it fine because at least he'll look good in the casket? Is there a threshold for non-medically indicated procedures? As long as no more than 1% have problems it's ok. Or is it higher or lower?

lovelysoul said:

They may feel the same for female circumcision too, but for different reasons - by taking away her sexual pleasure entirely, the daughter is more marketable as a wife. She is less likely to stray from her husband if she feels no sexual desire. She is just chattel.

So, one procedure is done to enhance sexual prospects, while the other is done to decrease them. Those are entirely different parental goals!

Again not necessarily the case, and enhance by whose measure shouldn't it be the guy who gets to decide? Some think piercings are an enhancement yet we don't routinely put them in infants genitals and I am sure if you asked, you'd get CPF sent after you too.

lovelysoul said:

I understand the rights issue, but you have to view it in that context, which surely explains why laws should be against it for girls, and not necessarily for boys. One is complete removal of all sexual pleasure, and that is - for any culture that values equal sexuality - a crime.

Laws aren't already passed because people consider it a religious issue. Nothing more than that. For any culture that values equality both should be a crime. Intent is not important, Parents in Indonesia think they are doing something good for their girls, the doctors agree that it's fine and do it. They wouldn't harm their children any more then we would harm ours but they do and so do we.

"By saying that you're saying after millions of years of evolution, nature messed up and not just with men but all mammals. Or if you're a religious person, then god messed up his perfect creation".

Oh please. That's like saying women shouldn't shave their armpits, legs, dye our hair, or get boobs...do anything to enhance what "God gave us". Some earthy types believe that too....they walk around with unshaved legs, long skirts, no deodorant and skunky-looking hair. I bet you, and most men, don't find that too hot though.

I had all my pubic hair lasered off just to make that area as attractive as it could be. Feels sexier and it looks much nicer. And I assure you if there was a way to enhance hygiene there without destroying my sexual pleasure, I'd do it in hearbeat.

You guys are lucky - at least the circ ones are. I've often envied the fact that the cut penis stays so clean. We women spend a lot of time worrying about odor and appearance down there - at least those of us who are "shallow" enough to care about what we look like...and what we taste like.

Every year, women risk their lives to get big balloons stuck in their chests so you guys will find us more attractive. Throw in the botox, the restalyne, the billions of dollars in cosmetics, and we do quite a lot to enhance and outright re-do "what God gave us".

I mean, you can be like some caveman - just grow a long, nasty beard to go with your smelly uncut penis...and yeah, we women LOVE that "God-made" look! Just like you love us "au naturale"...sure!

I bet more women die each year in plastic surgery than infant circumcision. And yes, it's their "choice"...except I've known women whose husbands basically said, point blank, "you've got to go make your boobs bigger."

Then, if she survives the life-threatening surgery, she can come home all bandaged up, and maybe listen to him whine about his neonatal circumcision. "Oh, why, oh why, did my parents mutilate me?...I could've had even MORE pleasure...better sex...more masturbation! Hey, wanna watch some porn? I know you're in pain, but how about a blow job?"

It's kind of hard to feel that sympathetic, guys. Your little foreskin issue - it just seems kind of self-indulgent...which is typical, really. We're used to it being all about you and your pleasure above all else...like you said, MORE MORE MORE...

If you want to have better sex - like mindblowing sex - you might concentrate less on your penis and more on your woman.

Last week, my bf greeted me with champagne at the door...towels and pillows laid on the bed, set up for a full, professional-style massage, with oils and candlelight...he even had blueberries to feed me.

And the best part was that it wasn't any special day...it was just...Monday!

So, I guarantee you that great sex has nothing to do with your FORESKIN and much more to do with your FOREPLAY.

Yeah, it is off-point. Sorry, Amy. It's because this is getting old.

As a child advocate, I have a much higher standard for "mutilation". I think it's just some feel-good cause - save the "mutilated" children! For FGM, I totally agree, but this just isn't comparable to that.

But if you all believe it is, then obviously, I'm not going to change your mind, and I've been the lone voice here for about 20 pages now, so I'm done.

I just truly hope that circumcised men don't become instinct....that they'll choose to do it when they're older then...because it is an enhancement and quite possibly beneficial.

lovelysoul:

Since it's reasonable to assume you're ignoring my request, I'll just comment on one final point that fascinates me and gets at my request.

So, yes, parents in the US do consider that issue. If female preference is for circumcised - which it is - then we want our sons to be the most desirable. It is really, as one study suggested, almost a bilogical impulse - to make our sons so attractive that they can reproduce with the highest quality partner.

Why not adopt arranged marriages for our children? Since parents get to mold their children into their own vision of the perfectly desirable sexual vehicles for reproducing, we can't trust that they'll choose a partner wisely. I mean, choice is great, but what if he chooses differently from what you think he should choose?!?!?! We can't have ugly grandkids or a daughter-in-law (son-in-law) who likes foreskin on her (his) partner.

Of course, you'd reject arranged marriage because parents controlling their daughters' sexuality is offensive and always wrong. For sons, though, it wouldn't be offensive if parents have good intentions (according to your "objective" opinion). Then it's not control.

You've said it yourself. You want him to be desirable. He should - and will - want what you expect him to want. You just know. It's BADBADBAD to alter a girl's genitals in any way to meet a man's expectation. But because you're psychic, it's GOODGOODGOOD to alter a boy's genitals in a specific way to meet his future partners' assumed preference, based on your ability to know that every woman enjoys sex exactly as you do. (Even the politically correct ones who lie and say they don't mind/prefer a foreskin.) I mean, clearly if men force women to get implants, they're controlling pigs. But if women insist on circumcised males - to the point of circumcising infant males - that's just an enlightened way to encourage the best possible pair-bonding for your son.

Right?

Or maybe the obvious explanation works. Molding someone else's (healthy) body into your preferred outcome is control. Subjective evaluations of results and potential benefits do not decide whether control occurs. How much clearer than what you've written does sexual control over males have to be for you to acknowledge this as a factor? And since controlling sexuality for females is ethically wrong, it is equally wrong when done to males. Non-therapeutic infant circumcision should be illegal, regardless of the child's gender.

I don't expect to change your mind, but you should acknowledge that you adhere to an incoherent, subjective, factually-incomplete "what I like should be legal/what I don't like should be illegal" approach to parental proxy consent.

Enhancement? To who? You? Again, if a man wants it, a man can get it. Doing otherwise early says you really think you know better what's good for him than he does. Would you want a man to have that power over you? You are chopping before they can object, because object he would, for no medical reason whatsoever. If you chopped your son's penis because that's what you're sexually attracted to, then that's just icky, for lack of a better word.

I think great sex stories have no business in this discussion, but I could beat you 100 times easily, with an uncut guy. Absolutely unrelated to the topic.

As I've said, Tony, it's pointless to continue to argue this with any of you.

Yes, ok, I'll acknowledge it's largely subjective. I think I've acknowledged the subjectiveness of it many times. "At worst, it's a cosmetic enhancement, and at best, it may indeed have some health benefits."

But, you're right, parents don't really know for sure. Yet, although you may discount it as a factor, better hygiene equates to better health in the minds of most parents. Historically, and from practical experience, that tends to be true. So, despite its religious origins, I think that's one reason circumcision gained such popularity with most parents in this country, and continues among Jews, who are some of the most intelligent people on Earth.

Even if you are right about this in principles of governance, which you may well be, what bothers me is the anger I sense whenever you talk about girls and their supposed "protections". You may cloak it under "child rights", but this seems to be mainly a gender issue for you. It's another case of the "poor, disadvantaged male" mentality.

Despite the fact that girls truly have no protections - other than meaningless political rhetoric - and are completely dominated in many parts of the world, you keep insinuating that men - and boys - have it worse off! That it is some sort of gender bias, rather than the fact that the procedures are nowhere near comparable.

I find that disturbing. It's fine to fight against genital mutilation, but don't equate this mild, relatively harmless procedure - practiced by loving parents with no intention of harming their son's happiness in ALL areas of life - socially, sexually, and emotionally - with FGM.

It gets people going to equate it - and many will reactively follow your logic - particularly those who are antisemitic. But it's not fair. They are not the same in any way, other than involving genital tissue and minors.

It is simply not the same to circumcise your son in hopes that he'll go off in the world - where he is FREE to choose a mate (or ten) - and that he will be found most appealing to a VARIETY of women, with whom he will hopefully have many pleasurable sexual exploits throughout his lifetime.

This is the complete opposite of castrating your daughter - removing or mutilating her entire genitalia - so you can basically sell her to ONE man as his property...forever.

I wish you would at least acknowledge that difference - and the fact that girls have it far worse than boys do - regardless of what impotent laws governments make towards protecting girls.

lovelysoul:

On Thursday morning, I wrote this:

- FGM is evil.
- Most forms of FGM are far worse than MGM
- The worst forms of FGM are the most commonly practiced around the world

I can't make it clearer.

Where the law discriminates, I do not advocate less protection for females. Where the law is inadequate to protect females and their rights, I expect better laws and enforcement. (Although FGM laws in the U.S. aren't as toothless as you imply.)

I also expect people to acknowledge that males have the same rights that deserve and require protection. You're almost there when you write:

They are not the same in any way, other than involving genital tissue and minors.

Change that to "other than involving healthy genital tissue and minors" and you've found the core of my argument. Imposing genital surgery on a healthy individual who can't consent is wrong.

That's a principle for legislating what parents may and may not do to their children. If we deviate from this core principle, every vile hypothetical discussed above is no less legitimate than what you advocate because all of it would be subject to parental intentions. Parents would merely need to claim that they're acting with good intentions (i.e. in the best interests of their child) to demand immunity. If you study parental justifications for genital cutting, you'll find this is a widespread claim among parents from around the world, whether they're cutting their sons or daughters.

Instead, you pack on all of these extra exemptions convenient to what you want to do, based on your subjective preferences. Then you claim that you love your son, while those other people are bad parents. I don't doubt that you love your son and that you've acted in what you thought was his best interest. But your actions are separate from why you acted. Subjective vs. objective.

And you continue to reject the reality of male circumcision. At its worst, circumcision is a death sentence. That is very rare, thankfully, but pretending it isn't true does not make it untrue. Do you think those few boys who die care that they would've been protected from HIV and that American women would've found their genitals less icky? Until we find psychic ability to predict outcomes, every parent choosing circumcision forces that risk on their healthy son.

Cutting the genitals of healthy infant males is a violation of their bodies and their rights. That is as irrefutable as the statement would be if we replaced "males" with "females". Hence, it's appropriate to leave gender out of the principle. Cutting the genitals of healthy infants is a violation of their bodies and their rights.

Lovelysoul, I am aghast at your obvious gender bias. You are certain your daughter comes to you about all matters sexual, and one assumes you trust her to wipe the smegma from her vulva. Yet you can not trust your son to use condoms, nor to wash his own penis. Insane. I realize your husband twisted your opinion of men, but you can not treat all men like incompetents incapable of making any decision about their own bodies.

So you think the only reliable sources are the pro-circ ones? You're not biased at all.

You do realize that female circumcision is, most frequently, made by loving parents who want what's best for their daughter. In their culture, what's best is virginity, a husband, and fidelity. The girls get stoned to death without any one of the 3. The parents are trying to ensure she doesn't get stoned to death. So, there is NO difference in her loving parents and you, is there? Except for your obvious anti-man bias.

I appreciate you get great sex-I'm a little envious since I"m in the midst of that pregnancy, birthing, raising little kids sex drought. But your experiences are not everyones. Your sexy sophisticated friend's experiences and preferences aren't everyones. IF a man cares about attracting that type, HE can CHOOSE to get cut. Why is that hard? If he chooses not to, then getting laid isn't nearly the motivational factor for men that I've been raised to believe. Or, maybe he's doing just fine on his intact own. Either way, it's his body, his choice. Why is that hard for you?

Joe Said:

"By saying that you're saying after millions of years of evolution, nature messed up and not just with men but all mammals. Or if you're a religious person, then god messed up his perfect creation".

lovelysoul said:

Oh please. That's like saying women shouldn't shave their armpits, legs, dye our hair, or get boobs.
..

You guys are lucky - at least the circ ones are. I've often envied the fact that the cut penis stays so clean. We women spend a lot of time worrying about odor and appearance down there - at least those of us who are "shallow" enough to care about what we look like...and what we taste like.

There is a difference between maintenance issues that you describe and forced surgical alteration. Alterations such as boob jobs, tattoos, piercings, and circumcisions should be left up to the individual. If you lazered all your hair fine I am sure it came out great and I hope you like it that way, if you got a boob job same thing. But it is shallow to judge people because of their natural bodies and those kind of attitudes shouldn't be tolerated.

lovelysoul said:

I mean, you can be like some caveman - just grow a long, nasty beard to go with your smelly uncut penis...and yeah, we women LOVE that "God-made" look! Just like you love us "au naturale"...sure!

Please, give me a break. How do you know intact men are smelly, you yourself said you've never even been with an intact guy.

lovelysoul said:

Every year, women risk their lives to get big balloons stuck in their chests so you guys will find us more attractive. Throw in the botox, the restalyne, ...

I bet more women die each year in plastic surgery than infant circumcision. And yes, it's their "choice"...except I've known women whose husbands basically said, point blank, "you've got to go make your boobs bigger."

They're wasting their money but it's theirs to waste and it's a choice they make. Now even before that if their husbands are forcing them to do this I don't think that is a good relationship to be in. Sure, maintain yourself to a reasonable standard but what you describe is a sign of a troubled relationship with a shallow man who they might be better off leaving.

lovelysoul said:

Then, if she survives the life-threatening surgery,

More crap.

lovelysoul said:

Last week, my bf greeted me with champagne at the door...towels and pillows laid on the bed, set up for a full, professional-style massage, with oils and candlelight...he even had blueberries to feed me.

Sounds like a nice guy, what's the point though?

lovelysoul said:

I wish you would at least acknowledge that difference - and the fact that girls have it far worse than boys do - regardless of what impotent laws governments make towards protecting girls.

All I can say is read Tony's post carefully, he lays it out more clearly and carefully than I ever could.

This is not just a fight to protect boys, girls are fought for too. In some countries neither girls nor boys are not protected, we acknowledge that. In the West girls are protected and not boys, the Danish are trying to rectify that problem.

Anti male circumcision groups frequently work with anti FGM groups like at semi-annual genital integrity conference where both sides come together to deal with both issues. It's not one or another it's not one over the other.

To draw an analogy, just because one crime is a worse than another doesn't mean we ignore the lesser in the law. Fighting crimes on/of person doesn't detract from crimes on/of property. It doesn't detract from the issue of FGM to fight MGM rather it strengthens protections for girls when boys are also protected.

And just to be clear it's never about what was or wasn't done to a person or what a parent did or didn't do. People do their best with the information they have and when better information comes along it's about what they do with that new information.

Again the question has to be asked, what is the harm in letting the boy make his own decision on this issue. Nothing is lost and you're guaranteed he gets what he wants, whatever that might be.

Look, you've hammered me enough. I know I speak for a lot of parents out there, and I can take the heat - the nasty attacks on me as a mom and the immature competitiveness with me as a woman.

I was just trying to be helpful in sharing personal stories, particularly to the men who question their circumcisions. I thought hearing a woman's intimate perspective on it might be reassuring.

I chose circumcison for my son at birth because we never know what life circumstances will be in the future. I might not be around to assist him. We (or he) might be too poor to afford health insurance or elective surgery.

It was something I had the money and convenience to do for him at the time, and I was pretty sure then - and am even more so now - that my son would want to be circumcised...like his father and almost every other man he knows.

I believe - and surveys tend to prove - that there are more men, at least in this country, who wish they were circumcised than those who wish they weren't. You all make it sound like it's as easy as running down to the convenience store to have a circumcision whenever you feel like it, but I doubt it's that quick and easy - or inexpensive. And surgery on older individuals usually involves a longer, more painful recovery, along with more risks.

Tonight, I read that uncircumcised troops in WWII were actually lost because of penile complications in the unhygenic environment of war. Many HAD to be circumcised then. In Desert Storm there were also serious complications for uncircumcised men.

My son is an outdoorsman, as well as a pilot and has ambitions to fly in the military, so for him - not for YOUR child, just my own - it seems I made the best choice. But maternal instinct and foresightfulness is not the only reason I made that decision.

The rate of kidney infections within the first year of life is 10 times greater for uncircumcised infants. Sometimes those infections can scar or permanently damage the kidneys. Though rare, death may even occur.

You all keep asking me how I'd feel if he died during circumcision, well, how would I have felt if he suffered a damaged kidney from NOT being circumcised? These are scary hypotheticals that all parents ask themselves when making medical choices of any kind. You weigh the odds, look at the potential benefits, and hope for the best.

And we've already been throught the UTIs. Yes, they are survivable, but WHY? Why expose your child to higher risks for childhood ailments he can avoid? Just to preserve a flap of skin that most medical experts agree isn't critical?

I don't feel circumcision caused my son any harm whatsoever, and definitely may have prevented many health issues for him throughout childhood and in the future.

Yet, there are no legitimate, controlled studies that say FGM produces even one certain health benefit for girls. I understand why parents do it, but to deny their daughters future sexual pleasure is a consequence that shouldn't be allowed when there is no medical gain and substantial risks. With FGM, the flesh they are removing IS critical.

In male circumcision though, that isn't an issue that is being weighed. It is simply: remove this skin that isn't really necessary and avoid health problems that could indeed turn serious.

Parents who choose that, to me, are no more "abusive" than parents who choose an elective tonsillectomy of a minor - to avoid persistent sore throats. That is something that a parent can legitimately weigh against the risks and benefits and make a reasonable choice to do preventively.

I know you all don't believe that. To you, the fact that it is genital tissue - no matter how incidental or disposable - should prevent a parent's right to choose, even in light of sound medical benefits.

That is your perogative. You may also accuse me of whatever you want, and attack me personally as a mother. But I am not a "mutilator." I've spent over 20 years defending abused and neglected children, and this is a logical parental choice, not child abuse. Your extremist views on the matter make you unable to see the difference or to be tolerant of other perspectives.

I think it's best we just respectively agree to disagree.

...respectfully agree to disagree..:)

Amy wrote: "The majority of the population is not Jewish, after all, but the majority are circumsized."

Well, mostly you are talking about the past. The current (2007) circumcision rate in The US is 56% so that there is a bare bones majority. The circumcision rate as late as the late 1990's was near 90%. At this rate of decline, the majority of newborns in just a year or two will not be circumcised.

"How about educating doctors and parents? That will probably be more effective in the US, at least at first."

That is exactly what is being done and it is being effective but would you have advocated first educating doctors and parents first in the FGM issue? Are you aware of "The Seattle Compromise?" Doctors are notoriously resistant to education from any source other than their own fraternal groups and in this issue, even from that source. The AAP has not recommended neonatal circumcision for 35 years and the rank and file doctors have completely ignored their recommendations.

"And I must admit, as rational as I try to be about it, I have a kneejerk reaction against banning it, and I don't think I'm alone."

The same knee jerk reaction Africans have against banning FGM? It would appear you are a slave to your culture. Wouldn't you prefer to be an independent thinker?

"Though I've read the opinion of men who believe they were mutilated, I guess I don't see the loss of ability to get pleasure that is the hallmark of FGM. I dont think they're very comparable."

Have you read the writings of Hanny Lightfoot Klein? She is one of the leaders in the anti-FGM movement and she sees Male Genital Mutilation as comparable. Try reading this:

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/authors/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm

And this:

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

"Some parents may make irrational choices based on religion, tradition, misinformation or vanity, but as long as the child isn't being killed, then it's nobody's business if you do."

The sad but hidden fact is that children are being killed and maimed. Three separate studies over 20 years have found a consistent death rate from male infant circumcision at 229-230 deaths per year since the first study in 1978. That is more than twice the deaths from 9/11 but there is no outrage. Why is that? Why do we want to protect such a procedure when it is so destructive?

"Such punitive actions against parents for raising their children the way they see fit is part of our nanny-state problem."

Since when is protecting children from death a problem of a "nanny state" government? Isn't his a valid function of government?

"Is it wrong that the Female Genital Mutilation Act in the United States makes no distinction between lesser forms of FGM that are physically similar to MGM and the worst disfigurements of FGM? Is that a trivialization of the latter?"

Well, yes it is wrong. As a matter of fact, some legal scholars believe it is unconstitutional. The Equal Protection Clause of The 14th Ammendment states that there can be no discrimination against any segment of our population and the FGM Law does just that. It names the specific female parts that are protected but no male parts and thus, the intent of the law appears to be discriminatory against males. For this discrimination to hold up to judicial review, a case must be made that the government has a compelling interest in the discrimination. That will be an exceedingly difficult case to make.

Male circumcision was instituted as a misandrist procedure and it remains so. It was instituted to dull the sexual sensitivities of it's victims to prevent masturbation. In the following 135 years, the medical profession has found no benefit that can not be obtained by less invasive measures and with those less invasive measures, no one dies. It is time for this to come to an end. If that takes legislative action, I am all for it. As a matter of fact, I support a legislative solution. A cultural change will take decades representing thousands of deaths and a single death is one too many for a needless cultural wounding.

.

The reason circumcision rates in the US appear to be declining is mostly due to our vastly increasing hispanic populations. They do not circumcise.

"Recent statistical evidence from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) agencies indicates that in the United States (US) newborn circumcisions among non-immigrant boys have increased over the past 2 decades. The CDC found that the total US newborn circumcision rate rose very slightly (from 64% to 65%) over the two decade period, from 1979-1999, but the breakdown of these statistics is revealing. There have been increases in circumcision among blacks (from 56 to 64%) and in newborns from the Midwest (from 74 to 81%) and the South (from 56 to 61%), areas of the country with the fewest new immigrants. In specific communities high circumcision rates are being reported: 84% in Atlanta, Georgia, 85% in Houston, Texas. Falling circumcision rates in the West, particularly in California, reflect the fact that over 50% of births in the state are in Hispanics who do not circumcise on a cultural basis. Among non-Hispanic males the rate remains about 80%."

Immigration is often the impetus for positive change i this country.

Further statistics suggest that the longer hispanics stay in this country, the more likely they are to circumcise. They become informed about the health and hygiene benefits and choose it also.

Regarding the comparisons between FGM and Male circumcision in these comments; both were adopted in the United States in the 1800s for behavior control. The book “On Becoming a Woman” by H Shryock Md. published in 1951 and reprinted in 1968 recommends female circumcision to prevent masturbation. Medical insurance, Blue Cross / Blue Shield, covered this procedure until 1977. It never became popular; however one of the female regional directors of NOCIRC suffered this at the age of 5.
Regarding circumcision information; no one is accusing parents of intentionally harming their sons. Their ignorance is understandable and forgivable. What is unacceptable is the ignorance and denial of many American Doctors and medical authors. Some very good studies have been published overseas because American journals will not accept them. The internet far from being a source of misinformation has made these, other studies and medical society policies available to all. Here are a few quotes from medical societies:
American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Report 10. December, 1999.
The foreskin may contain specialized sensory cells. The term "non-therapeutic" is synonymous with elective circumcisions. www.cirp.org/library/statements/ama2000/
American Academy of Family Physicians. Position Paper. February 14, 2002.
The small medical benefits of circumcision lead many to consider routine circumcision to be a cosmetic procedure. This leads to questions regarding medical ethics. www.cirp.org/library/statements/aafp2002/
American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy Statement. March 1, 1999.
These data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. One study suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/
Royal Australasian College of Physicians (six medical groups in Australia and New Zealand). Policy Statement. September 2004.
There is no medical indication for routine circumcision. Reports of complications vary from 0.06% to 55%. Circumcision may contravene human rights. www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
Canadian Pediatric Society. Policy Statement. 1996.
A recent report has described numerous nerve corpuscles in the inner mucosal surface of the prepuce. Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed. www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm

College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia. Policy Statement. June 2004.
Circumcision removes the prepuce. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhage leading to death. Circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non-therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; it is a cosmetic procedure. Ethics points us to corrective vision i.e. to question practices that have become routine. www.cirp.org/library/statements/cpsbc2004/
College of Physicians & Surgeons of Saskatchewan. Memo. February 2002.
You can, and should respectfully decline to perform the procedure [circumcision] just as you respectfully decline to carry out other requested medical acts that you regard to be inappropriate.
www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/
British Medical Association, United Kingdom. The law & ethics of male circumcision, guidance for doctors. June 15, 2006.
Doctors must consider whether their decisions impact on a person's human rights. The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning the health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/

The vaccinne/autism furer was started by an article in The Lancet in 1998. This study was based on 12 kids. The researchers conducting the study were paid, by parents, to prove a link. The study was retracted in 2004, in the same journal. Parents want reasons, they want blame, and they want to be able to sue. I get that. But I would think maybe they'd be a little more worried about getting the RIGHT reason, the right blame.
Vaccine/autism links to studies :
Wakefield, A.J., et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351: 637-641, 1998. Click here.

2. Uhlmann, V., et al. Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Clinical Pathology: Molecular Pathology 55:1-6, 2002. http://mp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/54/6/DC1?eaf

3. Taylor, B., et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 353:2026-2029, 1999. Click here.

4. Dales, L., et al. Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. JAMA 285:1183-1185,2001. Click here.

5. Kaye, J.A., et al. Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis. Brit Med J 322:460-463, 2001. Click here.

6. Taylor, B., et al. Abstract. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. Brit Med J 324:393-396,2002. Click here.

7. Madsen K, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. NEJM 347:1477-1482, 2002. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477

8. Bailey, A., et al. Autism as a strongly genetic disorder: evidence from a British twin study. Psychol Med 25:63-77, 1995. Click here.

9. Folstein, S., et al. Infantile autism: a genetic study of 21 twin pairs. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 18:297-321, 1977.

10. Adrien, J., et al. Blind ratings of early symptoms of autism based upon family home movies. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 32:617-626, 1993. Click here.

11. Adrien, J., et al. Early symptoms in autism from family home movies: evaluation and comparison between 1st and 2nd year of life using I.B.S.E. scale. Acta Paedopsychiatrica 55:71-75, 1992. Click here.

12. Adrien, J., et al. Autism and family home movies: preliminary findings. J Autism Devel Disorders 21:43-49,1991. Click here.

13. Osterling, J., et al. Early recognition of children with autism: a study of first birthday home videotapes. J Autism Devel Disorders 24:247-257, 1994. Click here.

14. Mars, A.E., et al. Symptoms of pervasive developmental disorders as observed in prediagnostic home videos of infants and toddlers. J Pediatr 132:500-504, 1998. Click here.

15. Teitelbaum, P., et al. Movement analysis in infancy may be useful for the early diagnosis of autism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:13982-13987, 1998. Click here.

16. Stromland, K., et al. Autism in thalidomide embropathy: a population study. In Devel Med Child Neurol 36:351-356, 1994. Click here.

17. Rodier P., et al. Embryological origin for autism: developmental anomalies of the cranial nerve motor nuclei. J Comp Neurol 370:247-261, 1996. Click here.

18. Feldman, R.B., R. Lajoie, J. Mendelson, and L. Pinsky. Congenital rubella and language disorders. Lancet 2:978, 1971.

19. Feldman, R.B., L. Pinsky, J. Mendelson, and R. Lajoie. Can language disorder not due to peripheral deafness be an isolated expression of prenatal rubella? Pediatrics 52:296-299, 1973.

20. Swisher, C.N., and L. Swisher. Congenital rubella and autistic behavior. N Engl J Med 293:198, 1975.

21. Lubinsky, M. Behavioral consequences of congenital rubella. J Pediatr 94:678-679, 1979.

22. Deykin, E.Y., and B. MacMahon. Viral exposure and autism. Am J Epidemiol 109:628-638, 1979.

23. Chess, S., P. Fernandez, and S. Korn. Behavioral consequences of congenital rubella. J Pediatr 93:699-703, 1978. Click here.

24. Chess, S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. J Autism Child Schizo 1:33-47, 1971.

So you bragging that you have great sex, and always have, is somehow ok but saying that I also have great sex on occasion with uncut-and perfectly clean-guys, is immature? How, exactly? Good for the goose but not....good for other geese? You make no sense. You are verging on hysterical in your defense. You keep, in very long posts, bringing up refuted way after way you think it's great. Yet you can not once answer the question of "why can't it be his choice later in life?". The closest you come to answering that is saying he would choose not to, which is according to you the incorrect choice, so he can't be allowed to make it. Only you know what's best for him so only you get to make the unneeded decision.

I imagine you're a great advocate for girls. I wonder what the boys, who can never be trusted you see, would say about your protection though.

For the record, I'm not Jewish, so I don't believe that.

I was thinking this over last night, and it occurs to me that there's a bit of a problem with FGM, at least as far as most of you view the proper ethics of circumcision.

Isn't it true that most FGM is performed on older girls, not infants? And if so, aren't the girls at an age where they arguably can voice a preference - just as you say a teenage boy can decide about his own circumcision?

If that is true, then it is very likely that their preference would be for FGM, since many are culturally raised to believe that female sexuality is dirty and unnecessary. They do no want that filthy flesh between their legs!

Yet, because our culture views sex as critical to both genders - pretty much the be all and end all of life fulfillment - we probably wouldn’t consider that a rational choice. I mean, I don't - my gut reaction is to be against allowing a young woman to make a decision like that. Like a typical Westerner, I think, "maybe she doesn't appreciate her sexuality NOW, but she definitely will later!"

Yet, in essence, it is very similar to your complaint about male circumcision - that we are deciding for the child what we "think" they will want in the future. And it is further comparable because it seems we may ban the procedure and potentially deny her the choice even at an age of consent.

I mean I abhor FGM, but that is sort of an ethical problem. Western culture is dictating to other cultures - and religions - how they should feel about sexuality and body "mutilation", when it can be argued that anatomic beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and strongly influenced culturally.

Certain tribes in the world put rings in their lips that stretch them, hideously by our interpretation. The rings start small in childhood and progress in size with age. These tribes also have many piercings. They consider this beautiful, and it has been their custom for generations.

So far, we don't have too many immigrants from those cultures, but what if we did? Would we allow a parent to "mutilate" a child's face like that? I can just imagine CPS having a fit!

I think we are in an uphill battle trying to enforce our view of sexuality and anatomical perfection on the world as a whole. And while it is a noble impulse to "save" children from the cultural traditions of their parents, it seems both condescending and impractical in many ways, especially when the child typically doesn't desire it.

Momof3, let's leave the autism discussion for another thread. This one is too long for that already.

"So you bragging that you have great sex, and always have, is somehow ok but saying that I also have great sex on occasion with uncut-and perfectly clean-guys, is immature?"

No, saying, "I could beat you 100 times easily, with an uncut guy..." was immature. And attacking me as a mother, in such crude ways, like talking about my daughter's vulva cleaning, is a little over the top.

I don't attack you as a mom when we disagree. If there's one thing being a parent has taught me it's not to judge other parents too harshly - the moment you start critiquing THEIR child-rearing, YOUR kid does something far worse! :)

I think there's a broad range of parental views, and just because you differ with me on a few things, I'm sure we also have lots of common ground as mothers. So, I'd appreciate if you would be respectful of the fact that I love my children as much as I'm sure you do.

And each child is different - as you must know being "Momof3...almost 4!" One child can have great hygiene, and the other doesn't. You can trust one to be more honest on certain topics than the other. So, saying, "you trust your daughter here, but not your son there!" is, well, true, because they are very different personalities. But you make it sound bad.

BTW, I didn't ALWAYS have great sex - especially not while raising little kids. I'm just lucky to have it now because of the nice guy I'm with. So, don't feel envious - you will have that again soon. The baby years don't last forever.

lovelysoul said:

Further statistics suggest that the longer hispanics stay in this country, the more likely they are to circumcise. They become informed about the health and hygiene benefits and choose it also.

LovelySoul perhaps you could answer me this question. If there were health or hygiene benefits of any significance, why would all major pediatric organizations say routine infant circumcision should not be performed?

Not all countries have a policy on RIC and virtually no country that is not anglo-saxon has one, and when they do they are much more scathing. For example:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians:

This revised policy has been developed at the instigation of the Paediatrics and Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, following critical literature analysis by a working party of representatives from a number of professional organizations.

The policy represents an agreed position adopted by the following:
• Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
• Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
• New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons
• Urological Society of Australasia
• Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
• Paediatric Society of New Zealand

...

The Paediatrics and Child Health Division, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has prepared this statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise on or undertake it. After extensive review of
the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision. [bolding their's not mine.]

I might also add once again that the Australians are considering a ban too, news clip here:

Doctors back call for circumcision ban

The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.

Doctors back call for circumcision ban

The Australian Medical Association has backed a call for laws banning the non-essential circumcision of infant boys.

The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.

The AMA's Tasmanian President, Haydn Walters, says they would support a ban on the practice, except where there are medical or religious reasons.

He says there is only rarely a medical need to carry out the procedure.

"There were quite a lot of folk myths around the advantages of circumcision. They've almost all been debunked," Prof Walters said.

"There are some minimal advantages in some circumstances, particularly in some infectious diseases, but they're overwhelmingly balanced by disadvantages in other areas," he said.

The Tasmanian Children's Commissioner, Paul Mason, says non-medical circumcision is a breach of human rights.

The Canadian Paediatric Society:

The CPS recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."

The British Medical Association states:

Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is important that doctors keep up to date and ensure that any decisions to undertake an invasive procedure are based on the best available evidence. Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.

It gets worse in non-English speaking countries where circumcision was never performed so while not to be out done, The Central Union for Child Welfare in Finland unequivocally states that:

circumcision of boys is a violation of personal, bodily, and sexual integrity. It asserts that it is only acceptable when medically necessary, and should otherwise be prohibited by law.

And of course I guess you know what the Danish have to say. Again the only people to really sit on the fence are the Americans and even the AAP say circumcision should not be routinely performed.

You asked for my links on autism and vaccinating not be related. So there they are.

I brought up your daughter's vulva cleaning because you brought up your sons-and apparently every man's-inability to clean their penis. Same thing. If mentioning your daughter's ability to wash is vulgar, chopping off part of your son's penis because you think he won't wash is beyond vulgar.

I live in texas. My DH is hispanic, If hispanics don't circumsize that's news to him, his family, and every friend he has. I am fighting them tooth and nail on this. Actually, there's no fight. I won't give consent, so no surgeon will do it. But they are fighting me.

lovelysoul:

In male circumcision though, that isn't an issue that is being weighed. It is simply: remove this skin that isn't really necessary and avoid health problems that could indeed turn serious.

The same standard - skin isn't really necessary and avoid health problems that could indeed turn serious - applies to removing the breast tissue of infant females to avoid cancer. This is the subjective "what you like should be legal/what you dislike should be illegal" approach you've taken to parental rights. It is flawed because it allows interventions like this.

I was thinking this over last night, and it occurs to me that there's a bit of a problem with FGM, at least as far as most of you view the proper ethics of circumcision.

Isn't it true that most FGM is performed on older girls, not infants? And if so, aren't the girls at an age where they arguably can voice a preference - just as you say a teenage boy can decide about his own circumcision?

There's no conundrum. The age of majority is a challenging issue, but it is only relevant after grasping the principle argued here. Until the age of consent, we should default to protecting individuals. Our stance is clear: Medically unnecessary genital surgery on a healthy individual who can't/doesn't consent is wrong. It must be prohibited. No gender distinction.

This is not about imposing views of sexuality. The ethical issue is the same for genital surgery on a healthy 10-year-old girl and a healthy 10-day-old boy. Healthy. The individual can grow up to desire and choose whatever, even if that means accepting his/her culture's limits without question. As long as they have their choice. This discussion is about correcting a discriminatory Western view of rights. It is only tangentially about sexuality.

I care about rights. Gender-neutral, fully-protected equal rights based on the principles of individual liberty. Where no objective need exists, no subjective factor justifies forcing surgery on another. To consider such subjective opinions limits the child's future choices. Her liberty. His liberty. No difference.

If American parents removed a toe from their male infants, I'd be just as pissed as I am about circumcision. The point is that the surgery is on a healthy child. It is medically unnecessary. It is a violation of the child's rights. When I include "genitals" in the discussion, it is merely a recognition that hacking up infant male genitals is our societal blindspot. Ask me about a culture that binds the feet of its daughters and I'll protest that violation with the same argument.

Because those organizations are probably a lot like our AAP - they are under increasing pressure from ant-circ groups not to recommend circumcision, despite the many preventive benefits.

This is from a doctor (Schoen) who previously held the position of Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision:

"The AAP issued statements on circumcision in 1971, 1975, 1989, and 1999. The statements have been contradictory, often biased and not supported by medical evidence. The original 1971 statement by the AAP that there were “no valid indications for newborn circumcision” represented a single undocumented sentence and the anonymous author(s) was apparently unaware of the large amount of published data on penile cancer, local infections, phimosis and genital hygiene. The most recent report, in 1999, although referencing the data showing preventive health benefits against infant UTIs, penile cancer, HIV and local problems unexplainably concluded that the “potential benefits” were “not sufficient to recommend newborn circumcision”, but no benefit to risk ratio was offered and the AAP did not say how many benefits would be sufficient. In the period since the report (1999-2005) there have been multiple published studies confirming the protective benefits against infant UTIs, penile cancer, penile dermatoses, and HIV. In addition there has been compelling evidence that uncircumcised men are more likely to be carrying HPV and the Chlamydia organism and female sexual partners are more at risk for cervical cancer. It was recommended that in the face of this new evidence the AAP update its position, since the last reference in the 1999 report was to a 1998 publication. Rather than update the 1999 report, the AAP in 2005 reaffirmed the flawed outdated 1999 report. The position of the AAP on circumcision beginning in 1971 and continuing to the present has been misleading and confusing at best and erroneous and irresponsible at worst."

For those of you who are against infant circumcision, NOTHING would be "medically indicative".

I mean, just this discussion proves that. No matter what health benefit we bring up it's, "So, what?"

UTI's/Kidney infections - "So what, you can take antibiotics for that!"

Penile cancer (which is almost EXCLUSIVELY contracted by uncircumcised men) - "So what? It's rare!"

HIV/Chlamydia/HPV/Cervical cancer - "So what? Just wear condoms!"

I mean, imagine having that discussion about, let's say, the measles vaccine - "So what? Your kid will itch a little bit - big deal! Put some cream on it!"

To me, it's the same thing. In light of the many preventive health benefits, circumcision is analgous to the benefits of vaccines in reducing childhood illness and complications.

There is probably equally mounting pressure on medical associations worldwide not to recommend vaccines either - to make them completely optional - because there is a similar outcry from anti-vac parents.

That doesn't make it right - or safer for our societies.

"The same standard - skin isn't really necessary and avoid health problems that could indeed turn serious - applies to removing the breast tissue of infant females to avoid cancer".

No it doesn't. Breast tissue clearly has a purpose - breastfeeding - which has been proven to be healthier for newborns, with many benefits.

It is not a valid comparison to foreskin tissue at all.

lovelysoul said:

Because those organizations are probably a lot like our AAP - they are under increasing pressure from ant-circ groups not to recommend circumcision, despite the many preventive benefits.

This is from a doctor (Schoen) who previously held the position of Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision:

"The AAP issued statements on circumcision in 1971, 1975, 1989, and 1999. The statements have been contradictory, often biased and not supported by medical evidence..... at worst."

Actually, that might be true except that the 'anti-circ' movement described by Dr. Schoen didn't even exist before the late 1980s. It is very unlikely they would have had any impact on the 1989 statement (or any previous statement) of the AAP. And less in Australia, Canada, or New Zealand where there isn't as much activity along those lines. The biggest groups are in the US. Those agencies came to those conclusions largely on their own.

BTW, Schoen is one of the most prominent circumcision advocates in the US. He was laughed out of Europe at least twice that I am aware of. You can see him in Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit' their circumcision episode.

lovelysoul said:

For those of you who are against infant circumcision, NOTHING would be "medically indicative".

I mean, just this discussion proves that. No matter what health benefit we bring up it's, "So, what?"

No that isn't true. There are some circumstances in which circumcision is medically justified. Including, but possibly not limited to, gangrene, cancer, frostbite, trauma to the foreskin, and phimosis which is complicated by significant scaring.

lovelysoul said:

UTI's/Kidney infections - "So what, you can take antibiotics for that!"

You have to let a UTI go and miss several symptoms for sometime before kidney's get infected which boarders on neglect. However, as a rule (this is me personally) I prefer less invasive procedures before more invasive procedures provided the outcome is very likely to come out the same. So yes, I'll take antibiotics before surgery.

lovelysoul said:

Penile cancer (which is almost EXCLUSIVELY contracted by uncircumcised men) - "So what? It's rare!"

Ok, so Penile cancer. Let's ask the American Cancer Society, they know a thing or two about that right:

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.

lovelysoul said:

HIV/Chlamydia/HPV/Cervical cancer - "So what? Just wear condoms!"

I've discussed all this and refer you again to previous statements. There are now not one but two vaccines which are better than 95% efficient at protecting against CC and they are recommended by all relevant medical societies. Indecently, I hear they are going to make an application to include boys in vaccination efforts too.

lovelysoul said:

I mean, imagine having that discussion about, let's say, the measles vaccine - "So what? Your kid will itch a little bit - big deal! Put some cream on it!"

To me, it's the same thing. In light of the many preventive health benefits, circumcision is analgous to the benefits of vaccines in reducing childhood illness and complications.

There is probably equally mounting pressure on medical associations worldwide not to recommend vaccines either - to make them completely optional - because there is a similar outcry from anti-vac parents.

That doesn't make it right - or safer for our societies.

I think what is needed here is to understand what exactly is meant by 'medically therapeutic'. The Canadian medical ethicists, Dr. Margaret Somerville, perhaps said it best:

"A common error made by those who want to justify infant male circumcision on the basis of medical benefits is that they believe that as long as some such benefits are present, circumcision can be justified as therapeutic, in the sense of preventive health care. This is not correct. A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires that:

1. Overall, the medical benefits should outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them.

2. This procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits.

3. These benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child.

None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision (source: The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit: Penguin Group, 2000).

In the example that you provide, Measles, a vaccine fits this description. Simply because, to the best of my knowledge, it is the only reasonable way of protecting against the disease. Measles is also communicable simply by circulating in public. It was a leading cause of death in US children before vaccination, and it still is in much of the world. I don't see how the two can be rationally compared.

I am aware there is an anti-vax movement but they are standing on shaky ground from just about every perspective. Though it is interesting it is easier to talk a parent out of vaxing despite the fact that no medical group recommends against it.

I suppose since you all manage to find a way to discredit almost every single study with some sort of flaw - as well as claiming people like Dr. Schoen is not credible either (because people in Europe "laughed at him" - wow that's damning!) I should just stop now.

Obviously, many of you have been in the anti-circ movement longer than I've been in this thread (though it seems like years, by now), and I can't possibly spend all my time fighting against your arsenal of ready rebuttals, links, and smear tactics.

I've seen this sort of over-zealousness in other movements - such as pro-life. They are extremely well-armed with rebuttals and seemingly supportive information and can twist every bit of beneficial data on abortion and ridicule anyone delivering it. To the point that there could be no logical discussion except to say: "No baby killing!".

It's pretty much like that here. You guys will accept nothing less than the "No baby mutilating!" mantra. There is no other side for consideration. Just yours. You are right and everyone else is wrong.

So, I'm not reading or responding anymore. I raise the white flag. I'm tired of being the lone voice. Other than momof3, I seem to be one of the only parents, even, so I'm way outnumbered and there's just no point in trying to have a balanced discussion about this topic.

Actually, the two groups - pro-life and pro-circ are quite similar, though you probably haven't noticed it. I am willing to bet that most of you who think a parent doesn't have a right to cut off a foreskin absolutely believe it's a parent's right to kill the baby in utero. An inconsistency I'll leave you to consider.

Goodbye, guys.

Well not for nothing lovelysoul but go back and look at what you've written. I provided the statements from 4 pediatric organizations which recommend against the procedure and you tell us that they are all under the control of anti-circ zealots. Do you actually think that makes any sense? All national pediatric organizations I mean come on. I am not trying to belittle you but you are trying say this whole conspiracy is responsible for those statements and all these doctors are ignoring their own science. That is a rational statement?

I want to add that I thought your earlier post about other rituals was quite interesting and plan on making some comments about it once I've thought about it.

I don't! As everyone here knows. Nor do I think parents should be allowed to opt out of vaccinating their kids absent MEDICAL reason to do so.

lovelysoul:

This is just talking to the wind now, apparently, but I'll post it anyway. It's the underlying theme of the last 150 comments or so.

... Breast tissue clearly has a purpose - breastfeeding - which has been proven to be healthier for newborns, with many benefits.

Breast tissue has a purpose, but it is not essential. Mothers can feed children without breast milk. Your standard in this discussion has consistently been that ethics do not matter in any objective, consistent manner. If an alternative to normal human anatomy and biology exists, then the normal body part is not essential. It's a parental right to remove a child's body part to satisfy their own preferences, particularly if that surgery might reduce the risk of a disease. (Only if you decide they have good intentions, of course.)

The comparison, and every other comparison made here, works because your objections are based on nothing more than what you prefer. (i.e. disease reduction, bathing effort, sexual excitement) If you ever engage the objective ethical principle involved, you'll recognize that your subjective decision-making process could apply to any parental choice, no matter how ridiculous or vile. You argue for objective criteria, but only when it suits your opinions. That's arbitrary and illegitimate for deciding what parents may impose on their children.

P.S. The comparison to abortion you left us with is a fascinating discussion. It would've been helpful if we'd had it here and actually expressed opinions before you assumed a "gotcha" conclusion for us to consider on your way out.

Awwww, y'all just miss debating with me, don't you? :) I've missed it a little too. This has been a good debate.

Tony, my view is that there are few instances of ethical consistency in life. Abortion is a perfect example. The majority of our society believes a mother should have the right to kill her child in utero, even up until the last day of pregnancy. Upon birth, however, her right to choose the child's fate is denied. Even if the child is terribly premature and suffers handicaps, if it is viable, she no longer gets a choice because the ethics of the situation have completely reversed. There's nothing consistent about that. But it is what we, as a society, have arbitrarily chosen.

And parents make arbitrary decision all the time, based on cultural preferences and norms. For instance, puncturing the ear lobes of our daughters for cosmetic enhancement. Is ear lobe tissue more important than breast tissue? I think the majority in our culture would say no. Is breast tissue more important than foreskin tissue, I think the majority in our culture would say yes.

Fifty years ago, when breastfeeding was considered crude, and most moms used bottles, the idea of performing double-mastectomies on little girls might've been been appealing. Later, young women could either get plastic boobs or have none. Yet, would that have remained our cultural norm? Probably not. A lot of men would've probably been unhappy with that aesthetically (many would find more sexual excitement with natural breasts), and as studies began to prove how critical breast milk was - providing antibodies and many health benefits to infants - our view of breast tissue would change.

Perhaps, in the same way, you all will succeed at changing our cultural perception of the foreskin, but so far, I - and most people - don't view it as a critical tissue.

But it's all fairly arbitrary...and not at all consistent. Like the tribal aesthetic of rings and facial mutilation. One culture's preference is not the others. Just like young women who grow up in a Muslim culture may view their genitalia as disgusting and unwanted.

If you all get your way, she will have to wait - living with tissue between her legs that she views as unimportant and would rather have removed - until the "age of consent". But which age of consistent? Her culture's age of consent is probably around the time of menstruation, when a girl is viewed as becoming a woman. Ours is an ungodly long 21 years! Probably well past the prime marital age in her culture. My guess is that FGM will just move underground then, and be less safe, even in medically advanced countries like ours.

So, by "saving" one child, you're punishing the other. By trying to be consistent in ethics, you've just switched the suffering from one to the other. And that's because it's nearly impossible to address the many different cultural preferences - for sexuality, hygiene, and aesthetics - in a way that will please and protect everybody.

Right now, the cultural norm in this country is to give parents a choice regarding infant circumcision. That makes you and the others unhappy, even though you are the MINORITY and still have the right to choose freely for your own children. But that's not good enough! You want to choose what's best for my child too....which is not unlike the pro-lifers. They are free NOT to choose abortion for themselves, but they want the ability to deny the choice for everyone else. And they are doing it under the convenient and emotional guise of "child protection".

Indeed, the fetus may ultimately be deemed a life worthy of protection - just as the foreskin may be proven an indispensable tissue - but, until then, if/when our culture shifts to accept that view in the majority, I just want you all to stay out of my choices as a parent, and I'll stay out of yours.

Awwww, y'all just miss debating with me, don't you? :) I've missed it a little too. This has been a good debate.

See you can't leave. ;)

lovelysoul:

... my view is that there are few instances of ethical consistency in life. ...

I agree with this, but that is a reflection of our behavior, not the validity of any ethical principle. The past is no reason to perpetuate inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions. Rights exist apart from human history and the slow embrace of reason. I've identified the principle. You haven't refuted it with anything objective.

In your example, you conclude: breast tissue > ear lobe and breast tissue > foreskin. Maybe you'd tidy that up with this: breast tissue > foreskin > ear lobe. That's my assumption, though working with either that or your explicit statement gets me the same result. Judging that progression is interesting, a spectrum for severity of punishment. But it's all off-point ethically.

The correct ethical view is that all three anatomical structures belong to the owner. The owner may place the same value on them that you do, but he or she might not. When healthy, another person's decision to remove them is invalid because they belong to the individual.

So, by "saving" one child, you're punishing the other. By trying to be consistent in ethics, you've just switched the suffering from one to the other.

This is a likely result, although we must also consider that the scale will be less than the sanctioned suffering now. We must address mutilation, working to limit it and prosecute it fully where it appears. I've said as much here with respect to girls and on my own blog with respect to boys. I think it'll be easier within countries to set norms than to establish something universal. Getting the U.S. to agree on a standard is a start. And it'll be less troublesome because we have established norms regarding respect for the law. After that, country-specific strategies will be necessary.

Still, the underlying individual rights principle is static. It's incorrect to suggest that I am the person punishing those who suffer underground mutilations if I succeed. Although I suspect those children would be mutilated legally if that remained an option, the possible increase in severity must be addressed. Of course. We could discuss that further. However, individual responsibility matters. If a parent commits a crime against a child, that parent is to blame, not the person who criminalized the act.

When slavery was abolished in the U.S., would Abraham Lincoln be responsible if one individual then enslaved another? If an action is wrong, the response to its continued existence is vigorous enforcement and punishment, not perpetual legal sanction to avoid the difficult post-criminalization challenges.

Right now, the cultural norm in this country is to give parents a choice regarding infant circumcision. That makes you and the others unhappy, even though you are the MINORITY and still have the right to choose freely for your own children. But that's not good enough! You want to choose what's best for my child too....which is not unlike the pro-lifers. ...

I thought we were working towards an understanding until this paragraph. Several points:

1. Being in the minority does not make me wrong. I reject majoritarian mob rule. Otherwise, we're back to permitting anything without regard for facts or principle. Cultures that practice FGM would be acting legitimately, as long as a majority support it. I don't think you want to endorse that undeniable analysis.


2. I have the legal option to mutilate my (male) children, not the right. There is a difference. I would not exercise that legal choice because I do not have a legitimate right to make that choice for my (male) children.


3. "If you don't like it, don't do it to your (male) children" ignores the individual rights of the circumcised. It's a worthless, narcissistic argument. The individual deserves protection from birth, despite your opinion about how his body should be altered.


4. I do not seek to choose what's best for your (male) child. I seek to let your (male) child choose for himself what is best for his healthy body because it might be different than what you would impose on his healthy body.

I'm not digging into the abortion debate because it's clear we haven't agreed on a framework for the less complex circumcision debate. Let's not unnecessarily complicate it further.

"Being in the minority does not make me wrong."

It doesn't make you right either, especially when the topic is still hotly debated, just as with abortion.

I have a problem with the minority telling the majority how to live. It is important to protect the rights of the minority, and it seems to me that your right to choose based on your own beliefs is still protected. Yet, minority interest groups, such as pro-life, and apparently anti-circ, are continually trying to find ways to manipulate and skirt around our democratic and legislative processes to criminalize or ban whatever they don't agree with. I think that's wrong.

"Otherwise, we're back to permitting anything without regard for facts or principle". No, we're not when the topic can still be debated reasonably. You are passionate about your view, but there is still another valid side, just as there is with abortion. Actually, I think the pro-life movement has a much better case than you all do. Yet, we still, as a country, have not embraced their view to ban the rights of others.

"Cultures that practice FGM would be acting legitimately, as long as a majority support it. I don't think you want to endorse that undeniable analysis." I really don't, yet I'm not sure we have the right to intervene with it either. It kills me to consider that, but I have during the course of this debate, and I'm not sure what gives Westerners the right to dictate aesthetic beauty, anatomical correctness, and sexuality to other cultures -particularly since their age of consent differs from ours. Those girls are considered old enough to choose.

"It's incorrect to suggest that I am the person punishing those who suffer underground mutilations if I succeed". I personally wouldn't blame you for it, but you know that is one of the standard pro-choice arguments. "If we criminalize abortion, girls will STILL do it - just in back allies or with coat hangers!" That's supposed to make you feel responsible, at least. The argument is that no matter how immoral and unethical taking the unborn life is, we can't legislate it because it's impractical and would harm women more.

The only compromise I see here is some sort adolescent age of consent. We could educate children regarding those choices. But at some point between 11 - 14, they'd be allowed to choose for themselves. I'm not entirely comfortable with that, as it would still allow for the potential childhood health complications of being uncircumcised, but I could live with it.

I don't think it'll fly with the Jews though...or, really, the majority of our population.

lovelysoul:

I have a problem with the minority telling the majority how to live.

By circumcising, parents tell their son(s) how they have to live. There is no difference. Someone is controlling another person. The issue is which controls on behavior maximize liberty for individuals. Laws against assault tell people how to live, but they protect liberty for individuals. The liberty to act requires a higher priority than the liberty to act against another.

...it seems to me that your right to choose based on your own beliefs is still protected.

How so? My foreskin is gone forever. I wouldn't have removed it. What, exactly, is my current choice? To not circumcise my sons? That misses the point, which is in this...

The only compromise I see here is some sort adolescent age of consent.

That's the gist of what I seek. I have no problem acknowledging a reasonable age of consent that's younger than the age of majority. The age of consent in Denmark is 15 for bodily decisions, which seems reasonable. Not all 15-year-olds will be ready, while some 12-year-olds will be ready. Some protections will be necessary to fill out the framework. Still, I'm not looking to protect people from their own decisions forever, only from the unnecessary decisions of others forced upon them before they can consent or refuse.

...as it would still allow for the potential childhood health complications of being uncircumcised...

All normal body parts come with risk. I am comfortable with parents choosing circumcision where need exists. I qualified that earlier by saying that the most conservative, effective intervention should be used when need exists. However, I'm not foolish enough to suggest that something rare like phimosis that doesn't respond to lesser treatments (i.e. steroid cream, stretching) should be left to harm the boy permanently because we must protect the foreskin at all costs.

Proxy consent is legitimate because medical decisions require judgment. Parents should make those decisions when children can't. But prophylactic decisions for another (that are generally based on culture) fail to meet a consistent standard of objectiveness applied equally.

"By circumcising, parents tell their son(s) how they have to live. There is no difference. Someone is controlling another person." Well, that's exactly what parenting is about! Raising children isn't a democracy. We are in control.

"However, I'm not foolish enough to suggest that something rare like phimosis that doesn't respond to lesser treatments (i.e. steroid cream, stretching) should be left to harm the boy permanently because we must protect the foreskin at all costs." Yes, but you're going to make it lot more difficult. Like any of these laws desired by the minority and imposed on the majority, you're going to create more red tape to navigate. It will definitely be harder for parents to get approval.

And the bottom line is that you haven't proven that the benefits of the foreskin - no matter what you PERSONALLY believe they are - outweigh the benefits of its removal. Better hygiene and decreased risk of illness such as UTIs or phimosis may seem trivial to you, but most parents do not feel that way. Those who don't have children can't understand the consequences of illnesses for children and parents. Lost school days for any illness can have detrimental effects for kids in school. They miss enough school already, just in the course of conditions that can't be prevented.

That's why most of us seek to avoid illnesses, such as chicken pox, etc - not because we fear them to be truly serious or fatal - but because we just don't want our children to be ill if it's avoidable. Most parents view circumcision as the same - a way to prevent unnecessary complications.

My son had a UTI when he was 4, right after I had his sister, so I was dealing with a newborn plus another sick child. I would've hated for that to be a chronic problem, yet that's the only penile complication he's ever had, probably because he is circumcised. Truth is, little boys are not clean. They roll around in the dirt most of the time. If there is a way to improve hygiene and prevent those complications, then most parents want that remedy, if it doesn't cause lasting harm.

And you all just haven't proven "lasting harm". You haven't proven that the foreskin is necessary, any more than the pro-lifers have proven that fetuses are "babies" worthy of the same protective status as other humans (though I personally believe their evidence is very compelling).

The fact that there are those who regret their abortions and their circumcisions - doesn't PROVE anything. In fact, I witnessed how the pro-life movement manipulated that feeling among women. If a woman had an abortion, even 20 years ago, and she was fine with it, but she heard the pro-lifers talk about how she "murdered" her unborn child...well, I saw women dissolve into tears and grief. The pro-lifers even call it "post-traumatic stress syndrome," and they'll bring women up on stage and create that reaction.

So, it seems to me the same can be done with circumcised men. If you use terms like "intact" and talk about how much "better" sex would be with a foreskin, there's a number of men, in the face of such rhetoric, who will begin to feel rage at their parents and "grief"...maybe even "post traumatic stress syndrome". But, from what I've seen, that remorse can easily be manipulated by groups who have an agenda, as the anti-circ movement clearly does.

lovelysoul:

Raising children isn't a democracy. We are in control.

Not permanently. It's a guardianship, not a perpetual dictatorship.

It will definitely be harder for parents to get approval.

I didn't say anything about government review of legitimate medical decisions. A significant portion of my complaint is with doctors, not parents. They should know better, both based on science and their oath to their patient - the boy, not his parents.

And the bottom line is that you haven't proven that the benefits of the foreskin ... outweigh the benefits of its removal.

I could say the same thing to you, that you haven't proven that the benefits of not removing breast tissue outweigh the benefits of removing it. You're basing this argument on your subjective opinion. I explained some of the functions of the foreskin above. Those combined with it being healthy at the time of surgery are all I need to make the case that intervention is not indicated. Therefore, it is not legitimate. Your personal, subjective preference for the potential benefits aren't enough.

You use the word "necessary" as a deflection. You're using flawed semantics to convince yourself that you're right. It does not prove what you seek to prove. The heart is necessary. The liver is necessary. At least one kidney is necessary. The foreskin isn't necessary. The clitoris isn't necessary. Breast tissue isn't necessary. The point is that removal of healthy, functioning tissue is not indicated. Removal from another person without his/her consent is not legitimate.

I'm playing semantics, too. However, words like "intact" and "normal" are correct. I refuse to call the normal penis "uncircumcised". The natural state is not a state of not having been altered.

But an example of chasing benefits to satisfy your request. The UTI rate in intact infant males is about 1.0% in the first year. The UTI rate in circumcised infant males is about 0.1% in the first year. You're saying that it makes sense to circumcise 990 boys to prevent 9 UTIs. Of those 9 UTIs, how many will involve the more serious complications?

If we didn't have other treatments, you'd have a point. But we have other treatments. We use them effectively on girls, whose UTI risk in the first year is 2-3%. And doctors used those other treatments on your son when he had a UTI. Risk does not demand panic surgery.

If there is a way to improve hygiene and prevent those complications, then most parents want that remedy, ...

Soap and water improve hygiene. You do not cut off any other body part to make cleaning easier. Again, the foreskin adheres to the rest of the penis at birth. It's no more difficult than cleaning his finger. After it separates, a quick rinse is sufficient. If that's too much effort, people shouldn't become parents because it gets much harder than that.

After circumcision, there is an open wound to maintain. The wound comes into frequent contact with urine and feces. That is more hygienic? And, again, we don't cut off other healthy body parts to make cleaning easier.

...if it doesn't cause lasting harm.

But it does. It removes nerve endings. It causes scarring. It toughens the remaining moist mucous membrane of the remnant foreskin and glans. You can pretend those don't occur, but they do, in every singe case. The individual suffering those harms is the only person to decide whether they're acceptable.

And then there are the complications that are not predictable. They occur, regardless of whether or not you wish to acknowledge them. They can be mild, but they can also be serious and life threatening. Loss of the glans occurs. Loss of the penis occurs. Death occurs. Those children have rights.

The fact that there are those who regret ... their circumcisions - doesn't PROVE anything.

Yes, it does. It proves that rights have been violated. I own my body, from birth. Just like you. No one had a right to remove healthy parts from your body to please their own subjective evaluation when you were born. No one had a right when I was born. Not for culture, not for religion, not for risk reduction. Nothing excuses infant circumcision as it's routinely practiced on males.

I have proven - repeatedly - that this issue is about human rights. Imposing medically unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual is wrong. That is a universal statement, applied to every other ridiculous, vile act discussed above. Gender is irrelevant. Potential benefits are irrelevant. Parental goals are irrelevant. Imposing medically unnecessary surgery on a non-consenting individual is unethical and immoral.

But I'll prove it again:

The infant male's foreskin is healthy when it's surgically removed.

There, done. Point proven. That's the irrefutable extent of my claim. I need nothing more.

You need to prove that the foreskin is damaged. You can't do that because it's healthy when it's cut. So you rely on subjective claims that matter to you. You don't question whether the boy cares. You went so far as to state that imposing it on an infant is desirable because he might not choose it as an adult.

That gets back to my first point. Parents are guardians, not owners. Parenting is not a permanent dictatorship.

You make good points, Tony. But you tend to dismiss any evidence of the VARIOUS health benefits, which I guess according to your argument is totally irrelevant no matter what the risk/benefit ratio might be. Nothing preventive would be worth the benefits to you.

Theoretically, what if a new, potentially fatal childhood disease spread among our children, and studies showed that uncircumcised boys were ten times more likely to contract it. Would you do it for your child then?

I mean, the tissue would still be "healthy", so by your definition, there would NEVER be a reasonable cause for parents to remove it.

If that's your standard, then certainly abortion must be banned immediately - a fetus is healthy tissue that has even greater potential to grow into a healthy human being. There's absolutely no reason to destroy a healthy fetus if you're removing all the social, preferential, and parental benefits from your criteria. Do you not see that as the same violation of human rights...or do you make exceptions based on your own subjective criteria?

And I'm curious - you've said yourself that you have no sexual disfunction, so when did you first begin to miss your foreskin and feel so passionately about its removal? Did you regret this all your life, or was it only after you heard from somewhere that you were "mutilated"?

lovelysoul said:

"By circumcising, parents tell their son(s) how they have to live. There is no difference. Someone is controlling another person." Well, that's exactly what parenting is about! Raising children isn't a democracy. We are in control.

Parents aren't really in control, they are supposed to protect and educate their children and hold their rights in trust. Decisions made for a child are those that necessarily have to be made at that point, like educational needs or medical necessities.

lovelysoul said:

"However, I'm not foolish enough to suggest that something rare like phimosis that doesn't respond to lesser treatments (i.e. steroid cream, stretching) should be left to harm the boy permanently because we must protect the foreskin at all costs." Yes, but you're going to make it lot more difficult. Like any of these laws desired by the minority and imposed on the majority, you're going to create more red tape to navigate. It will definitely be harder for parents to get approval.

It's wouldn't be any more difficult than determining need for any other therapeutic procedure, if your son presents with a condition it gets treated. Just like a ear ache or a cold. Approval would come in the same way as for other conditions and circumcision would require the same burden of need as a tonsillectomy, for example. Maybe there are some, unethical docs, who still perform them without compelling or therapeutic need but this is pretty rare today.

lovelysoul said:

And the bottom line is that you haven't proven that the benefits of the foreskin - no matter what you PERSONALLY believe they are - outweigh the benefits of its removal.

See and here is where we break down. All though I disagree with your statement regarding benefits of the foreskin, it shouldn't really matter. There may be no serious consequences from surgically removing my earlobes but no ethical doctor is going to do it unless the tissue is diseased, dead, or presents with some sort of other problem requiring the removal. And if I asked to have it done to my child, I bet the authorities would be quickly involved.

A therapeutic aim is the justification for all surgeries, except circumcision. (And I just realized that is not the case for cosmetic surgeries but those are, to the best of my knowledge, only performed on those who consent, unless their is a legitimate physical deformity.)

From a medical ethics point of view, if there is equal doubt as to whether or not a given procedure is medically necessary, which seems to me to be the most favorable position that, at present, could be taken in favor of infant male circumcision, then the procedure must not be carried out. In other words, in situations of equal doubt, the person with the burden of proof (the one requesting surgery specifically using proxy consent) cannot proceed. Again this only applies in the context of proxy consent. Adults are free to choose whatever they want, within reason e.g. tattoos, piercings of genitalia, circumcision (both male and female), ect.

lovelysoul said:

Better hygiene and decreased risk of illness such as UTIs or phimosis may seem trivial to you, but most parents do not feel that way. Those who don't have children can't understand the consequences of illnesses for children and parents. Lost school days for any illness can have detrimental effects for kids in school. They miss enough school already, just in the course of conditions that can't be prevented.

We suggest these benefits are trivial because they are. Those problems not only occur at a low base line but they also have several other alternative treatments, should they occur. These are far less invasive and can resolve the vast majority of the small number of cases one might expect.

Like the Australian Medical Association president said there are a lot of folk myths surrounding the benefits of circumcision. Earlier you suggested the sand myth. I did a quick literature search and was surprised to find someone actually discussed in in the New Zealand Medical Journal. Read about it here. Your assertion about hygiene seems to be another. Tell me, how hard do you think it is to get a kid to rub his dick in the shower? :)

lovelysoul said:

That's why most of us seek to avoid illnesses, such as chicken pox, etc - not because we fear them to be truly serious or fatal - but because we just don't want our children to be ill if it's avoidable. Most parents view circumcision as the same - a way to prevent unnecessary complications.

Most of those treatments can be seen as ethically justifiable in the framework of traditional western medical ethics. I think my previous posts outlines why a Measles vaccine is justifiable and can't, for example, be compared with a circumcision.

lovelysoul said:

My son had a UTI when he was 4, right after I had his sister, so I was dealing with a newborn plus another sick child. I would've hated for that to be a chronic problem, yet that's the only penile complication he's ever had, probably because he is circumcised. Truth is, little boys are not clean. They roll around in the dirt most of the time. If there is a way to improve hygiene and prevent those complications, then most parents want that remedy, if it doesn't cause lasting harm.

Chronic UTIs in boys is very uncommon and is nearly always the result of a congenital defect in the urinary tract. Further, the UTI reduction you've mentioned has only been observed in children under 1 year (actually, 6 months IIRC). To the best of my knowledge it has not been observed to extend further nor has there been any indication that a circumcision reduces the number of UTIs in children who have anatomical problems with their urinary tract. You can't really say that your son's circumcision had anything to do with his UTI at four or not getting more of them.

lovelysoul said:

And you all just haven't proven "lasting harm". You haven't proven that the foreskin is necessary, any more than the pro-lifers have proven that fetuses are "babies" worthy of the same protective status as other humans (though I personally believe their evidence is very compelling).

Truthfully, I don't think it is necessary to prove lasting harm. It's simply a question of appropriate medical ethics. Much like Tony pointed out this is more the problem of physicians than parents. The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states:

"Pediatric health care providers. . . have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. . . . The pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice.” Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314).

Parents could request whatever they want, but it's up to physicians to up hold their code of professional ethics.

lovelysoul said:

So, it seems to me the same can be done with circumcised men. If you use terms like "intact" and talk about how much "better" sex would be with a foreskin, there's a number of men, in the face of such rhetoric, who will begin to feel rage at their parents and "grief"...maybe even "post traumatic stress syndrome". But, from what I've seen, that remorse can easily be manipulated by groups who have an agenda, as the anti-circ movement clearly does.

Semantics are used by all groups, including those promoting circumcision. Like Tony pointed out the term "intact" is technically correct. Further, it isn't all the 'anti-circ' movement that raises doubt in circumcised men.

We're at a point today where, much like we are doing now, teens (and others age groups but specifically teens) around the world talk amongst themselves on their message boards about all manner of things. When, for example, circumcision comes up, American teens are often surprised to learn that their peers in New Zealand, Australia, England, and much of the rest of the world aren't circumcised. So someone might ask: "I hear many Americans are circumcised, why?" An American boy might get on and say, "My parents said it was for hygiene." The next day there might be a dozen responses from people all over the world saying: "I've never heard that before and further I've never known anyone to have any problems, what are you talking about, hygiene? You do shower over there right?" Well you get the idea.

I mean less than 20 years ago, most Americans thought, and some still do, that boys all over the world are routinely circumcised and that there was good reason for it. Thanks, in no small part, to the Internet they're learning otherwise. While some are pissed, other are not, but most realize their parents didn't have the benefit of the knowledge they now have; so, the parents can hardly be blamed. They know their parents were sold a lemon. Many, who have no religious reason to continue it, are inclined not to perpetuate it to their boys.

So it isn't simply the anti-circ movement, people are discovering this on their own too. Not that the main body of the movement hasn't benefited from the Internet. It is one of the best market places for getting out information to the public.

Here is the really amazing part of the whole circumcision issue. American and international docs haven't just started talking to each other, they've been reading each other's journals for decades. Somehow though, Americans never dropped circumcision despite that fact that virtually no one else 'bought' into the benefits and those that had, dropped it years ago. The British dropped circumcision in the late 1940s, though it was never as common there perhaps 25% of the population. New Zealand had begun to drop it by the mid 1960s, it did get as popular over there (about 90%) in the 1950s. Australia began dropping it in the mid 1970s though it was never as big here as here (about 60% at peak). And the Canadian through the 1980s and 1990s, they've been moving slow but they're down to 15% or so.

All these countries with similar populations, and heritages had been performing circumcisions routinely but dropped it. What made them successful was that the Drs finally stepped up and said, no this doesn't need to be done and were quite firm about it. They're all looking at the same data so the real mystery is why has the US been so slow on the pickup? While these countries dropped it, the US clinged to old myths, and developed new ones. Creating or exploring potential benefits that were often occurring at very low base lines or didn't really exist, things like Cancer, STDs, UTIs, and now HIV. The real question is why have we spent the last 60 years trying to chase and prove very tiny benefits? Were circumcision never performed and then suggested based on today's evidence, it would never get passed ethical reviews.

lovelysoul said:

But you tend to dismiss any evidence of the VARIOUS health benefits, which I guess according to your argument is totally irrelevant no matter what the risk/benefit ratio might be. Nothing preventive would be worth the benefits to you.

Theoretically, what if a new, potentially fatal childhood disease spread among our children, and studies showed that uncircumcised boys were ten times more likely to contract it. Would you do it for your child then?

I don't see where he, or I, have said that. Again look at what is meant by medically therapeutic. Theoretically, if there was a potentially fatal childhood diseases that was easily spread among children, like say the Measles, and circumcision was the only reasonable way of preventing it then you would likely have a case. Considering the nature of the intervention it would greatly depend on the specific circumstances. I would give it much more consideration than a new vaccine.

First, there is no known benefit from removing an ear lobe. Tonsils may be removed if a child has had 3 or more sore throats in the past year, or if he/she suffers snoring. Sore throats and snoring can both be treated by other means though, so I don't think tonsillectomies would meet your criteria either. That's probably the next child-rights "cause".

"From a medical ethics point of view, if there is equal doubt as to whether or not a given procedure is medically necessary, which seems to me to be the most favorable position that, at present, could be taken in favor of infant male circumcision, then the procedure must not be carried out. In other words, in situations of equal doubt, the person with the burden of proof (the one requesting surgery specifically using proxy consent) cannot proceed".

This is where we really break down. If that is the standard, then you must ban abortion. There is equal doubt on both sides of that debate too, yet mothers are still allowed to choose (by proxy consent) to end the unborn life, most often for purely subjective personal reasons, not medical necessity.

Although you won't address the comparison, the pro-life movement seeks the same thing as you - to remove ALL subjective criteria from the decision. The mother's desires, her economic and marital status, her age, culture, religion, etc - none of that matters. If the government or courts steps in to resolve these debates, they often do more harm than good - to someone. At the very least, a substantial portion of society may be denied the freedom of choice.

I believe that when there is equal doubt - when even doctors and health organizations disagree - then governments must stay out of legislating or banning the procedure. Parents should have the right to decide. And that is, in fact, the position the AAP has taken, which is the correct one: “It is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.”

Just as an aside, I own a small resort, so I have guests from all over the world. Last nt, we had a party at the beach, and the topic of circumcision came up again (wonder why? lol). I was at a table with 10 other women - 6 from the US, 2 from Canada and 2 from Germany. All of those women (out of earshot of the guys) agreed they preferred circumcised men.

A small survey, but 10 out of 10 seems to indicate a pretty high ratio of preference.

Just as an aside, I own a small resort, so I have guests from all over the world. Last nt, we had a party at the beach, and the topic of circumcision came up again (wonder why? lol). I was at a table with 10 other women - 6 from the US, 2 from Canada and 2 from Germany. All of those women (out of earshot of the guys) agreed they preferred circumcised men.

A small survey, but 10 out of 10 seems to indicate a pretty high ratio of preference.

While I am not surprised by the American or even the Canadians (they didn't really start coming around until the mid 1990s) I am surprised by the Germans. Most Europeans I've spoken to, when I lived there and those I see randomly, are horrified that it is done regularly here.

However having said that, some men like naval and tongue piercings both very very common in the west though, I doubt you would have those done to your infant daughter.

First, there is no known benefit from removing an ear lobe. Tonsils may be removed if a child has had 3 or more sore throats in the past year, or if he/she suffers snoring. Sore throats and snoring can both be treated by other means though, so I don't think tonsillectomies would meet your criteria either. That's probably the next child-rights "cause".

But there are no known detriments to removing an ear lobe, so it should be a legitimate choice right? I don't think the removal of tonsils will be the next 'cause' you've already demonstrated that doctors wait for problems before they even consider it.

This is where we really break down. If that is the standard, then you must ban abortion. There is equal doubt on both sides of that debate too, yet mothers are still allowed to choose (by proxy consent) to end the unborn life, most often for purely subjective personal reasons, not medical necessity.

Although you won't address the comparison, the pro-life movement seeks the same thing as you - to remove ALL subjective criteria from the decision. The mother's desires, her economic and marital status, her age, culture, religion, etc - none of that matters. If the government or courts steps in to resolve these debates, they often do more harm than good - to someone. At the very least, a substantial portion of society may be denied the freedom of choice.

Whether or not abortion is a situation of proxy consent depends on when one believes life actually begins. Some believe it is right at conception while others believe at a later point. So you either have only the mother to think about, if you believe life occurs at a later point, then it is not proxy consent or the more complicated situation when you consider the child living. In the case of circumcision, there is only one individual involved, the boy.

Beyond that I won't get into the abortion issue in a circumcision thread it is a common diversion tactic. Like Tony has pointed out before, the issue of abortion is much more complicated and requires its own separate discussion so lets not get off topic. If Amy starts a story about it I might contribute but beyond that I'll stick to circumcision.

lovelysoul said:

I believe that when there is equal doubt - when even doctors and health organizations disagree - then governments must stay out of legislating or banning the procedure. Parents should have the right to decide. And that is, in fact, the position the AAP has taken, which is the correct one: “It is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.”

That is the thing most pediatric organization don't disagree on this issue. They all say Routing Infant Circumcision is not recommended and some, as I've shown you, go even much stronger in their stance. The AAP does say: "...Culture, Religious, ect.." but that belies their own statement on bioethics which again says:

Pediatric health care providers. . . have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. . . . The pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice.” Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314).

I only mentioned the ladies from last night because the study showing female preference was maligned for "coming from Iowa" - as if it couldn't possibly reflect preferences anywhere but the Midwest.

"This contradiction demonstrates that they are treating circumcision as a completely separate ethical issue. Using your example, if someone came from a culture that put lip disc in children, I bet the Drs would rely on the bioethic statement to refuse to do it rather than being 'sensitive' to culture or demands of the parents."

It would be interesting to see what would happen in that case. The parents would most likely put the rings in themselves - which could be more dangerous, with greater risks. You're only talking about doctors, but rabbis perform circumcisions, don't they? Would we make that illegal?

I mean, we can try to mandate that every culture conform to ours, but it gets very tricky when you're dealing with deeply ingrained religious and cultural practices. I think the state should generally stay out of these decisions when the consequential "harm" to the child is genuinely debatable.

As much as you'd like that harm to be confirmed, it isn't in the minds of most people, and considering how many men have been circumcised without any ill effects, it's not likely to be seen as a detriment.

I understand you not wanting to discuss abortion because it is so close. There really is no longer a debate about life, at least at the point of viability. There is SO much evidence - fiberoptic images inside the womb, brain wave activity, etc - that proves the unborn child meets all our criteria for life.

So, the debate is very similar because it is solely about the AUTONOMY of the parent to determine what happens to that life.

This is much the same really, except the outcome doesn't usually involve death. But you certainly can't say our laws are consistent with regards to parental rights or medical ethics.

If they were, then doctors would be prevented from ending the life of an unborn child that could survive outside the womb, no matter what the parent wanted.

lovelysoul said:

I only mentioned the ladies from last night because the study showing female preference was maligned for "coming from Iowa" - as if it couldn't possibly reflect preferences anywhere but the Midwest.

Like I said, I am not surprised with the American or Canadians, I am with the Germans because in my experience that is the opposite reaction I have observed. In fact, funny enough on a separate board talking about this same question, an American ex-pat living in Germany complained about having trouble finding a Dr. to abide by their wishes. Which presumably was to circumcise their boy. What she means is she is having trouble finding an unethical Dr in Germany.

I hear it is becoming similarly difficult in Canada too. In this article last January they point out that there are only three Drs still performing the procedure in Victoria.

lovelysoul said:

"This contradiction demonstrates ...demands of the parents."

It would be interesting to see what would happen in that case. The parents would most likely put the rings in themselves - which could be more dangerous, with greater risks. You're only talking about doctors, but rabbis perform circumcisions, don't they? Would we make that illegal?

I agree it would be an interesting experiment, I think a good 20/20 style investigation would be very revealing. My guess is that the lip discers get a visit from CPS or the police, possibly before they leave the Drs office presuming the decoy does a good enough job of convincing them of their intent. The ones who want the circumcision will be given an appointment.

As far as parents doing it themselves, should they not be able to find a Dr, that has already happened at least once. Medicaid wouldn't pay for it and they couldn't afford it so the father tried to do it with a hunting knife or something. He went to prison and that is how you handle that. I'll admit it would be difficult handling religious circumcision but I don't believe Jewish boys are entitled to any less protection, that would be discriminatory. However, I wouldn't mind a law with a religious exception as an intermediate step.

lovelysoul said:

I mean, we can try to mandate that every culture conform to ours, but ... when the consequential "harm" to the child is genuinely debatable.
... and considering how many men have been circumcised without any ill effects, it's not likely to be seen as a detriment.

It is difficult to make cultures conform but when it is for the good of the child it is worth the effort. It might be that for most circumcisions, the boy only receives the expected amount of damage. Not all are so lucky. Like those two examples we posted three or four times. But I guess someone has to draw the short straw.

lovelysoul said:

I understand you not wanting to discuss abortion because it is so close. ... no matter what the parent wanted.

I didn't really say anything about the abortion debate and I don't recall sharing my opinion on it (and I won't) except to repeat that it doesn't resemble the circumcision issue in anyway other than the fact that it involves a child and it is a controversy.

From an ethical perspective, when talking about abortion, you either have one person to consider (the mother who is giving consent) or two people two consider (the mother who is giving consent and the unborn child). Either way, someone who is going to be affected by the procedure is involved in consent. That is not the case with routine infant circumcision where the person giving consent is never the person affected by the consent.

Well, from my ethical perspective, the issue of the mother's consent would be balanced by the extreme consequences, which is death in the case of abortion. If we're giving a mother the right to end her child's life, just due to the fact that it involves her body too, then it doesn't seem much for me to ask to have my son circumcised after I just spent 24 long, painful hrs delivering him!

Besides, with abortion, either outcome would involve the mother's body - either safely removing the child so it could live, or injecting it with fatal drugs so it will die in her womb.

I don't see how only her choice for death is ethically supported.

lovelysoul said:

Well, from my ethical perspective, the issue of the mother's consent would be balanced by the extreme consequences, which is death in the case of abortion. If we're giving a mother the right to end her child's life, just due to the fact that it involves her body too, then it doesn't seem much for me to ask to have my son circumcised after I just spent 24 long, painful hrs delivering him!

Besides, with abortion, either outcome would involve the mother's body - either safely removing the child so it could live, or injecting it with fatal drugs so it will die in her womb.

I don't see how only her choice for death is ethically supported.

I didn't say her choice could or couldn't be ethically supported. I said that it is a more complicated issue which hinges on when you want to believe life begins. That's it.

I've heard that excuse to, I suffered so he should suffer too. That's one of the worst of all.

"As far as parents doing it themselves, should they not be able to find a Dr, that has already happened at least once. Medicaid wouldn't pay for it and they couldn't afford it so the father tried to do it with a hunting knife or something. He went to prison and that is how you handle that".

Yes, and that occured in our country, which does not (yet) ban childhood circumcision, so imagine how often that will occur if the procedure is banned. The majority of the population in the US wants neonatal male circumcision.

World health organization: "there appears to be little decline in prevalence of neonatal circumcision in the United States. An estimated 61% of male newborns were recorded as being circumcised on hospital discharge sheets in 2000, but the true figure will be higher than this because circumcision is not routinely documented on the hospital discharge sheet used to collate the data and
furthermore, post neonatal circumcisions for religious or medical reasons are not captured. Community surveys have found higher neonatal male circumcision prevalence of 76%-92%"

When you have such a clear preference within a population, then you are just going to drive it underground. If doctors are prevented from doing the surgery, then it will become much more dangerous. That, in my opinion, will be more detrimental to boys than just continuing the freedom of choice we have now.

"I've heard that excuse to, I suffered so he should suffer too. That's one of the worst of all."

Oh, that is so bogus, Joe. That's not at all what I was saying...or how I felt at the time. It's ridiculous to assume a mother would choose circumcision for that reason.

I'm just saying it involved my body too...and heck, according to you, I could've consented to have him murdered only hours before (because he wasn't really "alive")...yet I don't get a say about his circumcision?

That's a little odd when you're supposedly interested in what's best for the child. I guess if you can pretend he's not really a child until he actually pops out of the womb, then it doesn't matter what fate he might suffer beforehand. But that's quite inconsistent with your childs-rights position.

lovelysoul said: Oh, that is so bogus, Joe.

I guess that means you are reading, sometimes I am not sure. ;) But I have heard that one many times before. In what way does your son's circumcision impact your body, be specific.

lovelysoul said: When you have such a clear preference within a population, then you are just going to drive it underground

I have no doubt that banning circumcision will piss some parents off. Some will go to great lengths most though will not. Circumcision has been successfully curbed to nearly negligible rates in England and New Zealand, for example. Dr.s just stopped offering to do them, more followed and now it's to the point where, in New Zealand for example, most hospitals don't even have the tools to perform them. If you need one for a medical reason, you see a specialist. In Australia and Canada (where the average is about 15%) most doctors won't do them and the worst I hear is that some parents travel hours or visit multiple doctors to find someone to perform it. For most sane parent I suspect that is as far as it will go. The key is when doctors finally say enough is enough.

I very much doubt many parents would have some back alley circumcision. I think this situation has come up in this thread before. Slavery is illegal and from time to time you hear about 'underground slavery'. Where it occurs you have a prima facia case for throwing the book at them. The same would hold if circumcision were outlawed.

lovelysoul said:

I could've consented to have him murdered only hours before (because he wasn't really "alive")... that's quite inconsistent with your childs-rights position.

Please point out where I express support for or against the abortion issue. I explicitly told you that I am not going to discuss where I stand on that issue. It's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I didn't say his circumcison impacted my body. I am saying that it is inconsistent that I am able to kill him before birth - that my rights as a parent extend that far - yet, upon birth, I shouldn't be allowed to even give consent for a routine medical procedure.

I don't think circumcision is illegal in a lot of those countries, like Canada. There are still areas that have higher percentages than others, so parents can still choose. I have no problem with your campaign to educate people and try to turn the tide of public opinion. That seems to be what has happened - the desire for neonatal circumcision simply fell out of favor and decreased (while it's increased in other places).

Why not let the decrease occur naturally here too, rather than criminalizing or banning it? If the merits truly do not warrant circumcision then parents will ultimately come to that conclusion on their own.

"Most data from Canada are also hospital-based and therefore again exclude a substantial proportion of
procedures. However, in contrast to the United States, there is clear evidence of a gradual decline in circumcision
prevalence. Data from 1970-71 found that neonatal circumcision rates varied from 42% in Nova Scotia to 67% in
Alberta, and prevalence generally declined during the 1970s, with the lowest rate of 13% in Quebec, and 22% in Nova Scotia in 1978. This decline may have been partly due to the American Academy and Canadian Pediatric
Society statements in the 1970s that there were no medical indications for neonatal circumcision. A more recent study of 69,100 boys born in Ontario in 1993-1994 found a prevalence of 44%, and there is evidence of declining circumcision rates among male infants aged under 28 days in Ontario during the 1990s (inpatient circumcision prevalence of 39% in 1989/92 and 30% in 1994/95)"

lovelysoul:

Sorry for the delay, I was occupied elsewhere.

...But you tend to dismiss any evidence of the VARIOUS health benefits, which I guess according to your argument is totally irrelevant no matter what the risk/benefit ratio might be. Nothing preventive would be worth the benefits to you.

I don't value potential preventive benefits for me. Others might. I needn't deny that someone might prefer them or that they exist. They exist. (They seem to, at least.) But so what? Nothing preventive justifies imposing - with real tradeoffs - the potential benefits on another. Otherwise we're back in the vicious circle of preventive [insert bizarre, unnecessary surgery on children].

Theoretically, what if a new, potentially fatal childhood disease spread among our children, and studies showed that uncircumcised boys were ten times more likely to contract it. Would you do it for your child then?

What if mutant zombies shuffled toward the Capitol? Would I set aside my firm opposition to killing? Of course. But what are the odds?

And I'm curious - you've said yourself that you have no sexual disfunction,...

I don't think I said that. (I think Joe might've addressed it briefly. ?) I implied that I recognize that my experience is anecdotal, at best. The complications could clearly cause objective problems beyond the obvious scarring and loss of nerve endings. The point is that each man is different and values the changes differently. Just like everyone has different preferences in partners, positions, etc. It's all subjective. Parents can't know this ahead of time. Parents dictating a limited subset of the full human experience because they're okay with it is a flawed premise.

...so when did you first begin to miss your foreskin and feel so passionately about its removal? Did you regret this all your life, or was it only after you heard from somewhere that you were "mutilated"?

I was in my early 20s when I figured out the truth about circumcision. I was sheltered from sexuality as a kid, so I'd never really been exposed to the concept. And being very fair-skinned, I don't have the stark contrast of foreskin and regular skin that most men seem to have. The reality wasn't obvious to me when I didn't know better.

I questioned why it was done. When I looked at the reasons, it didn't make sense. All of this was before I heard from anyone else. My early 20s was before the Internet, so I didn't have access to others to influence me. Individual rights is an issue I've always cared about. The reality flowed from there. I spent many years keeping quiet because I didn't feel confident enough to challenge people on it.

At the risk of TMI, but a serious subject requires an honest answer: Of the inevitables from circumcision I mentioned, I obviously have the scar. I'm also missing my frenulum. The skin the doctor left me with is asymmetrical. The center line where my frenulum used to be is pulled to one side, where I have less remaining foreskin than the other side. And I have just less than enough foreskin overall, which causes painful erections on occasion.

You can assume it's debatable whether or not that qualifies as harm, but it's not debatable. Circumcision harmed me. It is not valid for someone else to decide that those results qualify as "acceptable", specifically because I was healthy at the time. Parents aren't psychics. Doctors aren't miracle workers.

[joe said:] ...if someone came from a culture that put lip disc in children, I bet the Drs would rely on the bioethic statement to refuse to do it rather than being 'sensitive' to culture or demands of the parents.

Take a quick read through the case of Harborview Hospital in Seattle from the mid-'90s. The doctors there tried this with Somali immigrants who wanted their sons and daughters circumcised in the hospital. The hospital's ethical committee agreed to "a small cut to the prepuce, the hood above the clitoris, with no tissue excised, and this would be conducted under local anesthetic for children old enough to understand the procedure and give consent in combination with informed consent of the parents."

Feminist and anti-FGM groups learned of the plan and pressed hard against it, even involving Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder, the original sponsor of the anti-FGM bill. The hospital gave up on the plan because of the publicity, even though the women said they'd send their daughters to Somalia or a midwife to have the more radical mutilation performed.

Also worth noting from the review, referring to something we touched on earlier about whether or not other cultures call us on our hypocrisy: "At the same time, Dr. [Leslie] Miller's patients have told her that they are confused that Americans encourage the circumcision of their sons, but refuse a less invasive symbolic sunna for their daughters. We will cut the whole foreskin off a penis," said Dr. Miller, relaying their frustration, "but we won't even consider a cut, a sunna, cutting the prepuce, a little bloodletting (on a girl)."

Tony, I'm sorry about your personal experience and thanks for sharing it. Your description does help me better understand why you believe there is harm done, so don't be embarrassed.

I've never seen a scar, or a marked difference in coloration. I was wanting to ask where the scar would be because I've never seen it.

And I don't think it is unusual for men not to know they are circumcised. All the studies said self-report was unreliable. Ray, down at the beach, thought he wasn't until we described it. He's 61 and never realized. A girlfriend of mine's husband yelled at her in the hospital for choosing circumcision for their son, saying "Only Jews do that, and we're not Jewish!" She had to have his father inform him that he was circumcised...and he was around 40 years old then.

My own boyfriend told me before we became intimate that he wasn't circumcised, but...uh, he IS...unless I really don't know the difference, which I suppose is possible for women too. But there's no foreskin - no loose skin at all - and the glans is exposed when not erect (listen to me all penile informed now! lol).

I don't think I'm going to tell him. After this debate, I'd worry it might wreck everything. What he doesn't know won't hurt him, right? Yet, I'm surprised he wouldn't know as he often goes to "Hedonism" in Jamaica, which is a nude resort. Plenty of opportunities to see other naked men there(though they probably don't sit around discussing circumcisions). We're both going in Jan, so I shall continue my research on this subject. ;)

You've all given me a lot to think about. I do agree it is hypocritical that we wouldn't have done that for the Somalians. I've ended up reading quite a bit about clitoral hood cutting as a result of this, and apparently, some women feel it greatly enhances sexual pleasure, so it's odd the Somalians view the cutting as a way to inhibit sexuality. At any rate, a small symbolic cut, as they requested, wouldn't likely do anything permanently harmful. I think that should've been worked out with them, rather than potentially subjecting the girls to the pharaonic circumcision.

lovelysoul said:

I don't think circumcision is illegal in a lot of those countries, like Canada. There are still areas that have higher percentages than others, so parents can still choose. I have no problem with your campaign to educate people and try to turn the tide of public opinion. That seems to be what has happened - the desire for neonatal circumcision simply fell out of favor and decreased (while it's increased in other places).

You're right, circumcision is not yet illegal anywhere that I am aware of, though this also isn't the first attempt at legislation. Religious lobbies have prevented most attempts.

Our campaign focuses mainly on education. Both for parents and for Drs, particularly US Drs. People from these groups maintain their websites, develop literature, perform research, attend trade shows and more. Here is a link [1] to some recently developed online courses for continuing education for those in the medical field (and lay persons too actually). They just finished a run last month I am not sure when they'll be offered again but education is a big part of what these groups do.

They also do other things like lobby law makers to drop Medicaid funding [2]. And yes to prohibit [3] the procedure on minors, without medical reason.

lovelysoul said:

Why not let the decrease occur naturally here too, rather than criminalizing or banning it? If the merits truly do not warrant circumcision then parents will ultimately come to that conclusion on their own.

Now, I have no illusions about the fact that prohibition in the US is a long shot, and that is being generous but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try. And in the mean time we'll work on the education and work on the Medicaid, and other insurance companies, which is easier to do anyway. Legislation is the tiniest part of the cause. In fact, what is going on in Denmark is totally independent of it, so far as I know.

lovelysoul said:

You've all given me a lot to think about.

That's all we're trying to do. The problem is that circumcision isn't risk free. And sometimes, when people are circumcised as infants, they don't even know there might be a problem. They just learn to live with whatever they have because they didn't know any better, just like your examples of people who didn't even realize they were even circumcised. People say there is a higher rate of complications with adult circumcision but I suspect that is because you have someone who can complain if something is wrong. A before and after that can be compared. In the case of an infant circumcision, how do the parents know, for example, if it was done too tight or results in an occasional painful erection, like in Tony's case. And there could be other problems too.

So that's all we're doing is trying to give people something to think about.

[1] tinyurl.com/5q82om
[2] tinyurl.com/5dw7q4
[3] tinyurl.com/5kavg5

Lovelysoul, was slavery ok while the majority supported it? The majority in the south still did at the war. So the war should not have happened?

You are very far wrong when you state that the majority of Americans support a womans' right to kill a baby up until the minute she delivers it. Late-term abortion (3rd trimester) has almost no support. Much less support than banning abortion completely currently does.

I can not follow your logic of not making something illegal, because then people will just go do it anyway illegally. If a parent goes to a backalley FGM specialist because it's illegal here, that parent belongs in jail. That is the correct response. Legalizing FGM is not the correct response. I do not think a hospital or Dr should cut a girl's genitals because the parents want them to. No matter what the parents threaten to do. I do understand their point about us allowing male circumcision. I agree with them wholeheartedly on that. They are correct that it's inconsistant and hypocritical. The answer there, however, is to protect boys too, not to unprotect girls.

lovelysoul:

Certainly. I don't actively seek out chances to broadcast such details, but I'm not embarrassed. I'm also not claiming that my experience is uncommon. Fortunately most men don't experience more extreme results, but almost all experience results similar to mine. Just as you're correct that self-reporting on circumcision status is very unreliable, most men don't know or comment on the actual reality of their circumcision.

We seem to have reached some semblance of a mutual understanding, so this next part isn't an effort to critique. I merely seek to explain my view on the Harborview example, since I didn't earlier.

It's probably not a surprise, but I disagree with your appraoch. But I view it from rights, not results. Those girls have a right to be free from unnecessary intervention. "Minor" is subjective.

In the context that we have now, though, I understand the argument. It makes sense not to close our eyes and pretend it's not going on. Other countries have laws against taking female minors to other countries to mutilate them. I don't know about the U.S., although I'd support such a law. But if the state is not prepared to intervene, I agree that less harm to children is better than more harm.

However, I reject that "if" as an ongoing policy approach. The state should be intervening where necessary. In the Harborview example, those parents demonstrated their unfitness. The state would be correct to step in to protect those children.

That's complicated, of course, because it would stop parents from coming forward. (State care is no picnic, either.) Some enforcement would have to be after the fact. That's a difficult problem without an easy solution. There is no magical formula to be implemented that provides instant perfection. I just don't think it's wise to accept certain violations because it would be too hard to pursue enforcement.

The only country where large number of male neonates are routinely circumcised is the USA. Routine circumcision is common in South Korea, but performed in the teen years. In most of the world, surgeons will refuse to perform a circumcision without a clear medical indication. If cosmetic circ is an option, the subject has to request it, after his 18th birthday.

Hundreds of millions of circumcised men urinate freely and copulate happily. But from that likely fact, one cannot assume that the foreskin is useless or unnecessary. The foreskin is a richly moving part in vaginal intercourse and masturbation. The foreskin and frenulum are very rich in nerve endings. From these facts I conclude that the foreskin should enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

American secular RIC persists largely because parents fear that a son with a foreskin will experience humiliation and ridicule in the locker room, and when intimate with women of his generation. It will stop when young American women, the future mothers, decide that to circumcise is gross and sexually weird, and that to have foreskin is simply Nature's way, which deserves our respect. YouTube suggests to me that young Americans are crossing that bridge.

As for bris and Moslem circ, it should not take place until the subject is past his 18th birthday.

You always have to take information with touch of skepticism. The foreskin has been with mankind throughout the course of our evolution, and it was evolved for a few reasons, and is a natural part of the male penis. Anyone trying to present a medical reason for removing it, must be scrutinized for ulterior motive or vested interest of their medical study. What do they gain by encouraging the majority population of adopting and popularizing the cultural practice of circumcision.