I was circumcised when I was a week old. I couldn't walk for nine months.

-------------------------------------------
Did you hear about the boy that was born without eyelids?

They used his foreskin as a replacement. He's a little cock-eyed.

-------------------------------------------

Good video. I don't have kids, and 99% chance I never will. I agree with them.

But what about the studies by W.H.O. that found circumcision has reduced the spread of AIDS by up to 60% in Africa?

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

A lot of my Jewish friends just had babies and were stressed about this. Luckily they had girls.

Forget it, Ian.

Health and safety factors? Sure - they're important to most of us.

But if anything is religion related, Amy considers it horrendous, and the people that use it to be the most ridiculous of teh stoopids.

Activist atheists are like that.

I am very religious, and I am 100% against circumsizing boys or girls. It's barbaric and does their sex life with their future partners no good. Can you imagine if people starting getting their little girls boob jobs because they "preferred they way it looked" or because you wanted them to look like mom? I doubt that would go over well. People would call them pedophiles and worse. But chopping of part of your son's penis because you prefer the way THAT looks or because daddy had it? How is that ok?

But what about the studies by W.H.O. that found circumcision has reduced the spread of AIDS by up to 60% in Africa?

and...

Health and safety factors? Sure - they're important to most of us.

Those health and safety factors are also insulting when applied to children. What, I'm too irresponsible to use a condom and other safe sex methods? I need someone to make my decision for me by cutting my genitals before I can consent? If that's what my parents think of me, I have some very unpleasant things to say to and about them.

Not that any of that benefit helps much in the Western world. Our HIV problem is male-to-male sexual transmission and shared needles. Circumcision helps with neither. And that 60% is in relative risk of f-to-m transmission. That absolute risk is small. Relative risk with no context is a marketing tool to make people abandon logic and critical thinking.

That first part really broke my heart! I'm so glad I moved to Norway and had a baby boy here. They don't do it here, not even the religious people.

Ian: if those stats were correct, don't you think Europeans would be affected as well?

This was a bad piece when it was originally done, and additional evidence collected since then just make it worse. But it's an emotional issue for most, rather than a medical one, so let's address this on an emotional level.

Look at the anti-circumcision activists they're interviewing. Do they look mentally healthy? Look like they've got a lot going on in their lives? Do you think that if circumcision wasn't an issue, they'd be happy and content individuals? Or would they just find something else to obsess about?

Meanwhile, what are circumcision advocates up to? Preventing AIDS in Africa, and controlling the banks and the media. Only half joking: we've done this experiment. There's a whole culture that practices circumcision, and it doesn't exactly lead to disaster. Or to extinction on account of its members can no longer function sexually. If you think about it, it's one of the few religions that doesn't seek converts. It reproduces biologically, parent to child. Hmmm...

Cochrane was 2003. You know there has been work since then? Of course you do. But you don't go there, because you know it doesn't support the outcome you want to hear. You're indulging in emotion, while attempting to appear like you care about evidence.

So let's stop pretending and get right to the emotion: These people are freaks. A tiny, vocal group not even as successful in at promoting their cause as anti-vaxers. Compare to the millions of successful and healthy (mentally and physically) circumcised men out there.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/137442660/sub-saharan-africa-adopts-circumcision-program

As Charlie Sheen would say, "Winning!"

Husband is circumcised. We have sex. All the time. And it is awesome.
Both our boys are circumcised.
You don't want to do it to your kids, fine. Don't tell me what to do with mine, please.

Ian said:
But what about the studies by W.H.O. that found circumcision has reduced the spread of AIDS by up to 60% in Africa?

If circumcision is so great at reducing the spread of AIDS, ask yourself why, among first world nations, the U.S. has by far the highest circumcision rate and the highest rate of HIV?

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

Possibly for the same reason that the US performs so relatively poorly on other measures like education, infant mortality, and crime: we have a diverse population, and the American subcultures that are dysfunctional are really dysfunctional, enough to skew the overall numbers. (And also, in this particular metric, generally not circumcised.)

If you have to resort to simplistic analysis of averages, without regard to - much less properly controlling for - other factors, you've already lost the argument.

(See this for an example of how simple averages can lead you astray: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html )

I'm a raging atheist. That's why I believe the data, and aren't swayed by arguments that something is "icky". I also don't fall for logical fallacies of "If a little of X is good, even more must be better! If more is demonstrably not better, then a little X can't be good either." Or false comparisons between procedures that do not take into account the different costs. Or even bigoted arguments of the form, "Nothing that comes out of religious tradition can be good." Ideas must stand or fall on their merits. And this religious idea turns out to be a good one.

penn and teller are bullshit

... Ideas must stand or fall on their merits. And this religious idea turns out to be a good one.

Voluntary adult male circumcision has been shown to reduce the relative risk of female-to-male HIV transmission in HIV-risk populations by 60%. Despite the possible methodological problems, I'm content to concede that that's been proven. So what? That's not what's being discussed.

So, the test you use is: The genitals of most newborn males are healthy. No surgery is indicated. We might prevent something later if we cut their genitals now. Thus, we may cut their healthy genitals.

That's logical? That idea stands on merit? How? You omit voluntary, adult, absolute risk, costs of the surgery, and the transmission characteristics of the epidemic when applying it to the U.S. The alleged merits of your analysis are crap. The ability to achieve a result from an intervention does not make its application to a healthy individual any more ethical.

Your test could be applied to demonstrate that any number of interventions might have some potential benefit in the future and "should" be permitted for parents. We don't give those hypothetical interventions any weight because they're not already ingrained in our culture. We didn't start with the conclusion and then perpetually seek to find new justifications for continuing the practice.

...Do they look mentally healthy?... These people are freaks. ...

What's your test for that? Please provide proof.

But what about the studies by W.H.O. that found circumcision has reduced the spread of AIDS by up to 60% in Africa? Posted by: Ian
They were terminated long before any significant data could be collected

Health and safety factors? Sure - they're important to most of us. Posted by: Pete the Streak
Given there is a compelling argument to be made that more children die from complications of the surgery than can be proven to have NOT been infected with HIV, I’d suggest it is not really that important to you

There's a whole culture that practices circumcision, and it doesn't exactly lead to disaster. Or to extinction on account of its members can no longer function sexually. Posted by: Jason
There are cultures that practice all sorts of things we’d find abhorrent that don’t affect survivability. Neck ringing, foot binding, slavery, rape, female circumcision

If you think about it, it's one of the few religions that don’t seek converts. It reproduces biologically, parent to child. Hmmm... Posted by: Jason
Since when did Christians stop seeking converts? It’s practically rule #1 to bring more followers unto Jebus

You're indulging in emotion, while attempting to appear like you care about evidence. Posted by: Jason
Oh you want evidence, odd that thus far you haven’t provided any yourself. Will you be leading by example or just bleating like you have been so far?

Compare to the millions of successful and healthy (mentally and physically) circumcised men out there. Posted by: Jason
If they are all so healthy why is there a billion dollar industry in curing erectile dysfunction?

As Charlie Sheen would say, "Winning!" Posted by: Jason
Seriously? I have to be the one to point out that you are endorsing insanity by invoking Charlie Sheen as a good thing?

Husband is circumcised. We have sex. All the time. And it is awesome.
Both our boys are circumcised. You don't want to do it to your kids, fine. Don't tell me what to do with mine, please. Posted by: UW Girl
So those of us who want to can have our girls circumcised then?

If you have to resort to simplistic analysis of averages, without regard to - much less properly controlling for - other factors, you've already lost the argument. Posted by: Jason
As opposed to the study you are championing which shut down early and had no other choice but to draw simplistic analysis of amputated data and was unable to control for any cultural factors as it never ran long enough to even identify cultural factors to even try to control for?

And this religious idea turns out to be a good one. Posted by: Jason
For a guy clamoring for proof you have yet to provide your own

A few thoughts, complications are far more prevalent than may are willing to admit.

The reason so many hospitals push it has nothing to do with health or safety. Foreskins are a billion dollar industry, skin growth, cosmetics, bio production of hundreds unique cellular chemicals used in a myriad of products

Studies also show female circumcision reduces HIV transmission; why is that never discussed?

1 in 1`2 women will get breast cancer at some point in their lives – that is far more than the number who will get HIV, no one suggests infant mastectomies

Cosmetic surgery of any type in infants is pointless. There is no way to gauge how large an infant’s penis will become, therefore how can you accurately gauge how much of the foreskin to remove?

Er... yes Christianity recruits but it doesn't require circumcision. Judaism, which does not recruit, does require it.

I'm against it myself, and have no compelling reason to circumcise any sons I might have. I don't think it is going to become illegal anytime soon.

@lujlp- you obviously don't know a thing about anatomy if you're comparing female circumcision to male circumcision. Female circumcision traditionally involves the complete removal of the entire clitoris, and surrounding tissue, as well as having the labia sewn together. This would be like hacking the entire head of the penis off and then sewing the shaft to the male's body.
Secondly, circumcision as practiced in the Jewish faith was never intended to restrict sexual activity, which is what female circumcision is all about.
If I thought that having my boys circumcised would scar them physically or emotionally, I would have not done it. But I can say from first hand experience (all in my pre-matrimonial life) that every single circumcised man I encountered a) loved sex and b) wasn't spending time brooding over the loss of his foreskin.
If I also thought that circumcising my sons would have caused any public health threat, again, I wouldn't have done it.
I have two happy, healthy boys and a husband who would love to get laid every day if he could, so again...
Tell me how my personal personal religious choice is any of your business??

The study was terminated because it was working so well that it would have been cruel to deny the benefits to the uncircumcised controls. We are talking about preventing HIV here.

Even in the first world, there are plenty of benefits, primarily the benefit of UTIs. The complications are so low that it provides a huge benefit for the cost. Cost-benefit analysis is something that is deliberately ignored by anti-circumcision activists who make the comparisons to female circumcision or pre-emptive mastectomies, which are far more invasive and traumatic procedures. Infant circumcision also has far lower costs (and therefore a much higher benefit:cost ratio) than adult or youth circumcision, which cause much more pain and are more prone to complications.

Consider that men who don't get UTIs don't use antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is a big issue these days. Women don't really have this option, and will be the hardest hit if (when) antibiotic-resistant infections show up. By delaying the day that happens, circumcised men provide a very large benefit to uncircumcised men and women.

Even if you dislike the idea, you should keep it to yourselves. You're free-riders on someone else's (minimal) risk. A rationally selfish woman or anti-circumcision parent would promote it for everyone else, while making full use of the antibiotics that still work to cure their own issues. Enjoy it while it lasts. You're welcome.

I've never had UTI in my life. Neither has DH. Neither have any of my kids, nor my siblings while I was at home to have known about it, nor my mom....do we really need to remove a part of half the populations' body to lessen the risk of something most people never get anyway?

I'm not sure why chopping off part of a man's penis in Africa is easier or cheaper than handing out condoms and showing how to use them, either. Nor am I sure what African transmission risks have to do with us here in the US. It's not like we all sleep under mosquito netting here because that lessens the risk of malaria in Africa.

We say women should have the right to decide if they want an abortion or not. I say men should have the right to decide if they want to be circumsized or not. If you think men are too stupid to make this decision for themselves then that's a different topic.

Nor is infant circumcision less painful. They simply can't complain like an older person. They have the same nerves carrying the same pain signal to the same brain. The fact that we discount baby and kid pain doesn't mean it's not there. Brain scans show it is. Not only does it hurt as much, it's an open wound sitting in urine and feces frequently. Ouch. Have you ever gotten pee in a paper cut? It stings.

Amy, you can oppose circumcision all you want, but it is NOT cutting off the penis. I'm circumcised, and every time I look down, I see the head and the shaft and they are intact.

There may be no genuine scientific reason for circumcision, but don't exaggerate what it does. And, like it or not, it doesn't compare, IMO, to the actual BUTCHERY of female circumcision, where the entire clitoris (as I understand it, basically a penis that's undeveloped due to lack of testosterone) is removed.

UWgirl:

Female circumcision traditionally involves the complete removal of the entire clitoris,

"Traditionally?"

Bit of a loaded, word, considering.

Apparently it is a tribal tradition, and goes from what some consider the extreme you consider the norm, to "merely" drawing a drop of blood. In that range also include the removal of clitoral skin.

But when it comes to female newborn genitals, they're utterly sacrosanct, even the "nicking" is outlawed in most countries with any sense.

But hacking off a foreskin is A-O-KAY.

The best medical excuse is because the male child might later have promiscuous sexual intercourse, and thus drop his risk of a specific viral infection?

Secondly, circumcision as practiced in the Jewish faith was never intended to restrict sexual activity

Circumcision as practiced in the US is a result of Graham and Kellogg, not Judaism, and it was intented to restrict sexual activity.

If I thought that having my boys circumcised would scar them physically or emotionally, I would have not done it.

Why did you, then? What was your goal? What was your intent? And what would you do if you did scar them? Say "Well, gee, I didn't think that could happen?"

That's a bad level to pick from "If I thought that driving drunk would have caused an accident, I wouldn't have done it." "If I thought that X would have done Y, then I wouldn't have."

that every single circumcised man I encountered a) loved sex and b) wasn't spending time brooding over the loss of his foreskin.

Oh, well, then there's no problem whatsoever, because you didn't notice a problem. Silly people with their problems.

Tell me how my personal personal religious choice is any of your business??

Because you're bragging about it in public?

Not only does it hurt as much, it's an open wound sitting in urine and feces frequently.

And now, I just might be able to support a ban on infant circumcision! (Ewwwww!)

Jason:
The study was terminated because it was working so well that it would have been cruel to deny the benefits to the uncircumcised controls. We are talking about preventing HIV here.

As already demonstrated, the "benefits" were questionable.

But you're right, "we're talking about preventing HIV", what's a little failed science to get in the way of advocacy?

UW Girl:

The comparison of male to female genital cutting is not specifically anatomical. Although the clitoral hood is analogous to the male foreskin, legitimizing the comparison, it's not an attempt to equate removing the foreskin with removing the clitoris.

The comparison is ethical. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. It's the same way non-therapeutic arm, leg, or stomach cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. The non-consenting individual's gender is irrelevant. The keys are non-therapeutic and non-consenting.

No justification can excuse its imposition by parents, whether it's the pursuit of potential benefits or religion. That's why your choice is other people's business. Your choice was made on another's healthy body without their consent. Parents should have vast freedom to raise their children, but forcing surgery without need is too much.

I'm not sure how (or if) you fail to recognize that you did scar your sons physically. That's guaranteed in circumcision where the foreskin must reconnect with the shaft skin, as well as where the frenulum was, if you had that removed, too. It's unavoidable.

Jason:

If it would have been "cruel" to deny the benefits to the intact controls, did the researchers circumcise every male in the control group, whether or not he consented to circumcision? You can't just drop ethics entirely because you're enamored with the results. Science without consent (i.e. ethics) is a monstrosity.

You haven't proven what you think you have, either. Just because you come to the wrong conclusion doesn't mean those who disagree with you have ignored cost-benefit analysis. It is subjective. Voluntary, adult circumcision reduces the risk of f-to-m HIV transmission in high-risk populations. Yay? That's a number. What value does that number have? You consider no context. In the United States, that's not much. That's not our epidemic. More to the point, what value does it have to the individual being circumcised?

You seem to live your life in fear of HIV. Fine, your choice. I choose not to, because I'm responsible with my actions. I don't value any possible benefit from circumcision for HIV. The same applies to any other potential benefit you might name. I'll grant that each one exists. I don't care. They have no value to me. What does is what's taken during circumcision, primarily my choice over my body. You're advocating an incomplete cost-benefit analysis that considers only the costs you value. You're taking your individual preferences and drawing a population-wide conclusion that everyone should just love circumcision. The position you (and UW Girl) take is that parents' subjective opinion is a perfect - permanent - substitute for the preference of their healthy (male only!) children. That's flawed.

Your antibiotic rant is bizarre.

I have two uncircumcised little boys. My husband and I could not find a single compelling reason to cut off a perfectly healthy body part. IF he is promiscuous, it MAY help prevent contracting HIV... Not compelling. It will reduce by half the chance of a UTI... You mean from 2% to 1% ? NOT COMPELLING. (Jason's line of "reasoning" above is ludicrous. Also, a UTI does not neccesitate antibiotics.)

Bizarre, huh?

http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2003/03/resistant.htm

Learn something new every day. It's already becoming an issue.

@Ian: "But what about the studies by W.H.O. that found circumcision has reduced the spread of AIDS by up to 60% in Africa?"

So hypothetical question, if female genital mutilation of minors was found to reduce the risk of HIV infection would you advocate it equally strongly?

@UW Girl "But I can say from first hand experience (all in my pre-matrimonial life) that every single circumcised man I encountered a) loved sex and b) wasn't spending time brooding over the loss of his foreskin.
If I also thought that circumcising my sons would have caused any public health threat, again, I wouldn't have done it.
I have two happy, healthy boys and a husband who would love to get laid every day if he could, so again..."

It's good to know UW Girl's first-hand experience is all anyone need to know about the entire issue of circumcision. Perhaps you should ask David Reimer if he agrees with you?

I had problems with depression and anxiety from when I can remember, and funnily enough, I have actually "brooded", as you call it, over the possibility that maybe my circumcision might have contributed in some way - who knows? I can't discount the possibility, but I can say for pretty damn sure that the painful violent act of cutting a baby's penis is traumatic to that baby. And I say this as a Jew.

"Tell me how my personal personal religious choice is any of your business?? "

When an act of violence is perpetrated against a helpless baby, it is everyone's business, whether you like it or not. Every human has a right not to have violent abuse perpetrated against them, and it is within society's right to come to the defense of the victims of violence on their behalf when they are unable to do so.

"And there is a danger of death or the accidental amputation of the penis. It's a small risk"

Funny thing about probabilities. We don't usually think of it this way, but that 'small risk' is close to a probability of 1 (meaning, it's near-certain to happen) - i.e. a "small risk" when applied to large numbers is not "small" but very large. Intuitively, on an individual level a risk can be very small. E.g. say a risk is 1 in a million. On an individual level the probability P is 0.000001. If that risk is, however, applied to a population of 150,000,000 million people, then the probability of the incident happening to *someone* in the population is close to 1 - a virtual certainty. So when we allow that risk to be taken, we are not taking a "small risk" but are undertaking an action that is a *virtual certainty* to do harm to *someone*. It's just who is going to be that unlucky someone that we harm.

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=488e687276f346699601a0275fc5827b&pi=2

"This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable."

So UW Girl, the activities you undertook put your children at a totally unnecessary not only of mutilation, but of death. That's right, you risked killing your own children, and then you are smug about it too. And encouraging society to continue allowing circumcision is also encouraging a path that will lead with *virtual certainty* to more boys dying unnecessarily. Allowing circumcision, kills. You are encouraging killing little boys, and gloating about it being your 'religious right' to do so. That's barbaric.

UW Girl: But I can say from first hand experience (all in my pre-matrimonial life) that every single circumcised man I encountered a) loved sex and b) wasn't spending time brooding over the loss of his foreskin.

I'm circumcised, and that certainly hasn't prevented me from loving sex. On the other hand, there is supposedly greater sexual sensitivity when you're not cut so perhaps I'd love it even more if I wasn't.

Tony: The comparison is ethical. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. It's the same way non-therapeutic arm, leg, or stomach cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. The non-consenting individual's gender is irrelevant. The keys are non-therapeutic and non-consenting.

Although I don't feel robbed because my parents made the decision they did (refer to previous comment), if I had ever had a boy of my own, I don't think I would have chosen to do it. And I have to agree with you Tony (and Amy.) If a surgical procedure is necessary, then a child should not have to consent. But surgical procedures shouldn't be performed on a child for traditional or religious reasons when that child is not able to consent.

@Tony-
So let me ask you if this. If your reason for not circumcising is that it altered another person's body without their consent, do you think that parents in the US who pierce their daughters' ears during infancy, or parents in tribes in such places as the Phillipines who tatoo their children are barbarians too? (and please don't tell me a tatoo doesn't hurt. It does. So do piercings.)

@unix Jedi - our Mohel's name was Tettlebaum. Wasn't Graham OR Kellogg. I'm not bragging about anything. I'm simply stating that people have a recognized right in this country to practice their faith, within limits, which is what we did. And it isn't just people of the Jewish faith. Muslims also perform male circumcision.

And you're right. I cannot speak for every guy out there just because all the guys I encountered were fine with being circumcised. Neither can you. Just because you personally believe every single male who has been circumcised is psychologically fucked for life doesn't make it true.

For those who haven't heard of David Reimer, it's one famous case of the sometimes very tragic consequences of male circumcision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

"David Reimer ... was a Canadian man who was born as a healthy male, but was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was accidentally destroyed during circumcision. Psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful, and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. Academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer failed to identify as female since the age of 9 to 11, and that he began living as male at age 15. Reimer later went public with his story to discourage similar medical practices. Eventually he committed suicide, owing to suffering years of severe depression, financial instability and a troubled marriage"

@UW Girl "If I thought that having my boys circumcised would scar them physically or emotionally, I would have not done it"

You don't have to 'think' or 'guess' these things - we have 'science' - and the science tells us that yes, IT CAN scar them physically or emotionally or even kill them.

Jason,

I said your antibiotic rant is bizarre, not that antibiotic resistance isn't a problem or that it isn't growing. My statement was a brief critique of your analysis and conclusion in the context of non-therapeutic child circumcision. "There's a very small chance it might become infected, so to avoid using antibiotics, cut it off instead before he can decide!" That's bizarre.

Will you address the core problems in your argument that several have pointed out here?

Husband is circumcised. We have sex. All the time. And it is awesome.
Both our boys are circumcised.
You don't want to do it to your kids, fine. Don't tell me what to do with mine, please.

Posted by: UW Girl at January 28, 2012 8:28 AM

Please, please, please tell me you support obamacare...

Others have well articulated the female circ issue so I won't go there. I will tell you I have scars from when mine was done to me as a baby. It doesn't prevent enjoyment but that doesn't make it a-okay.

@lobster -
Wow. Really, wow.
I also had depression and anxiety for years, but since I have a vagina, I guess I can't pin it all on circumcision. Darn.

Approximately 250 children are killed each year riding bicycles, and this is even with strict helmet laws in all states. So I should never allow my kids to ride a bicycle ever?

The CDC estimates that about 5,000 children are hospitalized each year due to drowning related accidents. So I should never let my children near water?

"I guess I can't pin it all on circumcision. Darn. "

This misrepresentation of what I said is a blatant lie. But I don't expect that somebody who is so barbaric as to advocate violent abuse against little boys that puts them unnecessarily at risk of death, to be worried by something as petty as lying either. Don't try paint me with a brush of twisted lies just because YOUR moral compass is broken and you're trying to justify it.

"So I should never allow my kids to ride a bicycle ever?"

Hmm, let me see, is 'riding a bicycle' the following:

(A) An enjoyable, consent-based act for children, or:

(B) An involuntary extremely painful and traumatic act in which they are held down while the tip of their penis is barbarically cut off.

And you are either one of two things: (A) Not intelligent enough to see that there is a difference between riding a bicycle and slashing a boy's dick, or (B) intelligent enough to see the difference - but morally barbaric enough to IGNORE the difference, out of your desire to perpetrate barbarism against infants.

Barbarism is wrong. We ended racism partly by shaming racists and pointing out the barbaric nature of their beliefs; similarly, other types of barbarism should be pointed out - and shamed. Shame on you for promoting barbaric violence against infants.

UW Girl,

First, please be careful which words you assign to my position. I did not say "barbarians". I have an opinion on the matter, as you'd expect, but I ask that you don't assume it with a loaded word I might not use.

To your question: Of course it's wrong when there is no consent. Both are permanent changes to the body. Both have risks. They're imposed for the parents' preferences without input from the child. Where there is no need, it is wrong.

What would it take for you to conclude that non-therapeutic infant circumcision is wrong? You stated your criteria. I demonstrated that you imposed physical scarring, one of the two types of scarring you said you wouldn't impose. I don't assume I've convinced you, but rather that you haven't considered your criteria enough to refine it to fit your action. Is there something that could convince you?

UWGirl: I'm simply stating that people have a recognized right in this country to practice their faith, within limits, which is what we did. And it isn't just people of the Jewish faith. Muslims also perform male circumcision.

I think few people would disagree with you on the principle that people should have the right to practice their faith, within limits. The debate (as usual) is over where those limits should be. I have difficulty seeing why something like circumcision should be within those limits.

And you're right. I cannot speak for every guy out there just because all the guys I encountered were fine with being circumcised.

Out of all the men who are circumcised, it would be interesting to know what percentage are like me and the guys you encountered: fine with being cut (even if we may wonder what it might be like to experience sex being uncut.) However, even if it's a majority (my guess) that still doesn't make circumcision right. While, as I said before, I don't feel robbed by the decision my parents made, that's largely because I can't compare it to having sex with being uncut. If I could go back in time and visit parallel Earth, and have all the sex I've had with the same women while being uncut, maybe I would come back here feeling robbed. Or not.

@Tony 'I did not say "barbarians"'

I guess I'm not so polite as you --- barbarism is real and wrong, and proponents of barbarism should be pointed out and shamed, loudly. What is sad is that barbarians (the morally wrong ones) have actually convinced good (morally correct) people that the more shameful act is not the barbarism, but pointing out barbarism - that we should tread lightly and not 'judge' and not use 'loaded words' and 'tiptoe' around their barbarism. Good men who say nothing because they're ashamed to point a finger at the barbarians, thereby allowing barbarians to do their thing. That is why people like UW Girl express disbelief, like "wow, just wow" when someone has the "audacity" to call them on their barbarism - because they are clearly not used to being called out on it - they have grown to feel entitled to not being called out on barbarism, and feel entitled to being able to use "magic words" like "it's part of my religion" to block any criticism to their obviously morally wrong behavior.

Tony, I apologize to you, sincerely. Using "barbarian" when responding to your post wrong, and I am very sorry. I respect that you believe that any altercation of a child's body is wrong. I don't subscribe entirely to that (obviously), but you make a good argument. I, for religious and personal reasons, think circumcision is acceptable. But as further research on both the physical and psychological front is done, I may, at a future point, change my mind. Thanks for your civility.

Lobster,
That's right. I'm a barbarian. A barbarian who spends her working days in a hospital saving the lives of people who OD'ed on drugs, went through windscreens because they werent wearing seatbelts, and have advanced infections due to HIV. Clearly, I don't give a damn about the human race and protecting it. You know what I've posted here. You dont know me. My moral compass is fine. Just because it doesn't point I the same direction as yours doesn't mean it's broken.

@JD "If I could go back in time and visit parallel Earth, and have all the sex I've had with the same women while being uncut, maybe I would come back here feeling robbed. Or not"

I've run the same hypotheticals through my head - as a circumcised guy, I don't know what I'm missing, but sex is still good. However, let me phrase the question differently to you as a thought experiment: If you had not been circumcised, do you think you would - once an adult - be particularly likely to seriously consider voluntary adult circumcision? I can fairly safely say the answer would be 'no' in my case. And if that's the case, it sort of answers the question on my 'preference'. I would prefer that I had not been cut. I will not cut my son(s), if I have any.

@UW Girl Your 'moral compass' is pointing to the promotion of initiating acts of extremely painful traumatic violence against infants who are unable to consent --- that is objectively barbaric and your moral compass needs adjusting. It's just a fact, I'm sorry if the truth hurts ... don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger ... if you actually want to repair your 'moral compass', you would actually consider that my comments might be able to *help* you to do so.

@UW Girl "A barbarian who spends her working days in a hospital saving the lives of people who OD'ed on drugs, went through windscreens because they werent wearing seatbelts, and have advanced infections due to HIV. Clearly, I don't give a damn about the human race and protecting it."

What this tells me is that at least you are probably a good person *trying* to 'do the right thing'. That is good, it means you are not a barbarian by intent, just an accidental one - i.e. it means you have moral intentions, but are just *mistaken* on the issue of circumcision ... I suspect if you really think deeply and seriously about this issue, you might reconsider and see what 'the right thing' is. I don't expect that to happen overnight - I'm circumcised and Jewish - it took me years of thinking about this from various angles to realize the core of the moral issue here and what 'the right thing to do' is - I just ask that you really think about it.

Lobster, that's your opinion. Again, you've seen a couple of posts, but you don't know me. Judging my entire moral character based upon a blog posting or two makes you come across as both irrational and aribitrary. I certainly don't think that you are going to walk into a mall and gun down 15 people because you admitted to suffering from depression and anxiety. All I take away from this is that you feel strongly that male circumcision should be prohibited.
But hey, if making me out to be some bitch from hell with the morals of Hitler makes you feel better, whatever.

UWGirl:

I'm not bragging about anything.

Then your words and your superlatives are badly misleading everybody else in this thread.

I'm simply stating

By using your example and your thoughts to extrapolate to everybody else and to insist that a non-zero chance of a problem wouldn't happen tp _you_. (or your kids).

that people have a recognized right in this country to practice their faith, within limits, which is what we did. And it isn't just people of the Jewish faith. Muslims also perform male circumcision.

That's a true statement, and one I can agree with. However, those aren't even close to most of the circumcisions performed. The case for non-Jew and non-Muslim circumcision is exactly the same mentality as what's usually lumped under "female circumcision".

And you're right. I cannot speak for every guy out there just because all the guys I encountered were fine with being circumcised. Neither can you.

Where did I?

Just because you personally believe every single male who has been circumcised is psychologically fucked for life doesn't make it true.

Funny thing, I don't recall saying that. But it's sure funny how defensive you've gotten about it with me and others.

I haven't mentioned my experiences. I did point out that your self-back-patting was incredibly illogical.

If you did it because your Big Shiny Light told you to, yes, you (currently) can. (Notice we've got no problem telling those from tribal areas who chop off women's parts that hey, no, that's _wrong_ and we'll not just not do it, but throw you in jail for it. Even if it's _not_ to cut off pieces. Even if it's just ceremonial and requires merely a drop of blood.)

But that's the only reason, and it doesn't explain the epidemic of circumcisions for non-religious reasons.

_Most_ guys don't have bad effects from circumcision. Hey, great for you that your two boys didn't have any problems. (That you know about). CIRCUMCISIONS FOR EVERYONE! HUZZAH!

I'm not 'making you out' to be anything, on the contrary, it is your actions that speak for themselves. You have said it yourself, you are in favor of committing extremely painful traumatic violence against infants who are unable to consent. *That's what infant male circumcision is* ... I mean let's see:

Is it very painful? Yes.
Is it traumatic? Yes.
Is it violence? Yes.
Is it against infants? Yes.
Are infants able to consent? No.

Sorry, but it seems the facts are stacked against you. I don't have to "make you out" to be anything. I don't "know you", but you've admitted yourself you are in favor of the above, and I haven't made any other claims about you other than related to your above admissions.

The abovementioned are not "matters of opinion", either. It is not a matter of opinion whether circumcision is painful. It is not a matter of opinion whether it's traumatic to the baby. It is not a matter of opinion whether it's violence - by definition it is. It is not a matter of opinion that it's against infants. It is not a matter of opinion that infants aren't able to consent.

So tell me UWGirl, which one of these is just "my opinion"? Au contraire, these are all matters of fact.

I also find the lookism/beauty angle hilarious. Yeah, the son needs to look like dad, because you know, fathers and sons have time honored traditions of whippin out the todger and comparing them, just willy nilly.

The locker room comparison is also deluded. Yeah, they might get picked on for looking different by the other boys. Oh no. Hey, newsflash lady, I got picked on for having a hairy chest/legs earlier than most boys in high school.

Lobster:

David Reimer is both good, and bad, example. His circumcision was apparently medically suggested due to phimosis. The gee-whiz nifty new gizmo for doing it faster and better screwup was just an example of what could go wrong.

So in his case, the parents weren't doing it just what for, but on the advice of medical professionals.

(That phimosis at that age should probably be left alone is another story.)

But the parents weren't doing the circumcision (and subjecting the twins to the subsequent psychological torture that caused both of them to commit suicide) lightly or on their own initiative.

@Unix-Jedi "Funny thing, I don't recall saying that. But it's sure funny how defensive you've gotten about it with me and others."

I never said anything even remotely like that either, so I had assumed she meant you, funnily enough.

@UWGirl "that people have a recognized right in this country to practice their faith, within limits, which is what we did"

I'm reminded of a quote; it used to be a custom in India to burn a widow alive at the stake after her husband died (the practice was called "Sati" and has continued until recently). This was defended against its prohibition on the basis that it 'was their custom'. General Charles Napier semi-famously remarked:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

Frankly, any civilized society should operate on the morally-based "custom" that an act of extremely painful violence against an unwilling infant should be prosecuted.

However, let me phrase the question differently to you as a thought experiment: If you had not been circumcised, do you think you would - once an adult - be particularly likely to seriously consider voluntary adult circumcision? I can fairly safely say the answer would be 'no' in my case. And if that's the case, it sort of answers the question on my 'preference'. I would prefer that I had not been cut.

Lobster, I would say it's likely my answer would be the same as yours: no. For me to choose to have it done, there would have to be some clear benefit, and I don't see what that clear benefit would be. (Numerous women I've been with have told me that they prefer cut to uncut -- specifically regarding oral sex -- but female preference wouldn't be enough for me to choose getting cut.)

That being the case, I can't say what you did: that I prefer my parents hadn't made the decision they did. Maybe my sex life would have been better but, for the most part, I feel quite blessed with the one I've had.

I was circumcised when I was a week old. I couldn't walk for nine months.

By the way, that's probably an oldie, but I'd never heard it before.
Pretty funny...thanks Jim.

UW Girl,

No problem. I didn't take offense. Having discussed this on the internet for enough years, I've encountered - and made - almost every mistake possible. So many times it's a careless word choice in the moment. From personal experience, I can assure you it's never good to say "lie" when you mean "incorrect". I've done that. So, yeah, I understand.

"If your reason for not circumcising is that it altered another person's body without their consent, do you think that parents in the US who pierce their daughters' ears during infancy, or parents in tribes in such places as the Phillipines who tatoo their children are barbarians too? "

Ear piercings aren't permanent. I waited until my girls could 1) ask for it and 2) take care of it, though. I think all parents should, but I wouldn't involve the law on it. Tattoos? Hell yes I find it barbaric and think it should not be allowed to be done to kids. Easy enough.

I find uncut more fun. So long as you know how to bathe. And if you don't, that tiny bit of missing skin isn't going to make up for skankiness all over. I've been with enough of each to know. I had a loong slutty period after the first marriage (kidless, so I could).

Lobster,

I think I am pointing out the problem to proponents of circumcision. I told Jason his argument was crap, for example. It's not about tiptoeing around the truth. That doesn't need words like "barbarian". I want to challenge and discredit the act and any argument supporting it. I can do that while separating the act from the person. As you say, good people can do bad things. What do we lose by assuming people are good while denouncing the act, even after the fact?

I think if the shoe fits, wear it. We've done enough pussyfooting while boys continue to be maimed, killed, harmed for no reason.

Let's face it, the only reason we aren't all completely and utterly horrified and revulsed by this primitive practice, is that "it's convention". If there were no such thing as ritual infant male circumcision in society, and UWGirl so boldly declared that she was going to be the first, we'd all be calling the police, every last one of us.

Here's the math on the probabilities. Probability of a boy dying during circumcison: Q = 0.0000901

Probability of a boy not dying: R = 1 - Q = 0.9999099

Number of circumcisions carried out a year in the US: N = 1250000

Probability of no boy dying each year: S = Q^N = 1.217*10^-49

Probability of killing one or more children each year unnecessarily: P = 1 - S = 0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998782748442

In other words, this means that as long as we collectively practice circumcision, we are engaging in an activity in which the the odds of NOT killing any children each year unnecessarily, are about "1 in a 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000". I.e. we are deliberately killing children unnecessarily with virtual certainty. That's to say nothing of the other negative effects, and the fact that committing physical violence against infants would be a moral issue even if it didn't also kill them.

Lobster,

But no one today is the first person to do it. It's never been excusable and it gets less so as time passes. But we have to incorporate reality. Most people mistakenly think it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, to circumcise children. It's unquestioned. Shouting at them and calling them names doesn't make anyone say "Damn, I've been wrong all this time." It makes them angry and defensive. They shut down. The chance of convincing them decreases, often significantly. I'd rather change minds than feel superior and justifiably indignant.

Not everyone has to be appalled that circumcision was forced on them, for example. JD's position here is perfectly reasonable. We don't need to convince everyone to be angry or sad or anything else. We only need to convince people of the basic fact that the practice should cease now. How we try to convince is an important part of whether or not we convince.

Tell me how my personal religious choice is any of your business?? Posted by: UW Girl
UWGirl, All forms of female circumcision are condemned and illegal in the US even the mildest form where a needle is used to draw a single drop of blood. So why is the practice of female circumcision any of your business if the girls parents are doing it for religious reasons? Also circumcision in hospitals take far, far more foreskin then the Jewish practice, And again given there is no way to tell how large a penis will be after puberty how can you accurately gauge how much to take off?

The study was terminated because it was working so well that it would have been cruel to deny the benefits to the uncircumcised controls. Posted by: Jason
Unfortunately there is no way to know if that is true or not because even without the non-circumcised control group they never bothered to follow up on any of the circumcised men to see what their rates of infection truly were

Even in the first world, there are plenty of benefits, primarily the benefit of UTIs. The complications are so low that it provides a huge benefit for the cost. Cost-benefit analysis is something that is deliberately ignored by anti-circumcision activists who make the comparisons to female circumcision or pre-emptive mastectomies, which are far more invasive and traumatic procedures. Infant circumcision also has far lower costs (and therefore a much higher benefit:cost ratio) than adult or youth circumcision, which cause much more pain and are more prone to complications. Posted by: Jason

You are an idiot, how is an open wound in a diaper full of piss and shit less prone to complications then when it is performed on someone old enough to know how to clean and dress a wound? And just because infants go into shock doesn’t mean they feel less pain. If anything the feel more pain because at the time of adult circumcision the foreskin is no longer FUSED to the head of the penis and doesn’t need to be scraped off with a modified dull knife

Consider that men who don't get UTIs don't use antibiotics. Posted by: Jason
Consider that in a society not ashamed of sex, cleaning yourself in the shower if far more effective then surgery at preventing UTIs

I'm simply stating that people have a recognized right in this country to practice their faith, within limits, which is what we did. And it isn't just people of the Jewish faith. Muslims also perform male circumcision. Posted by: UW Girl
So you’re fine with me sacrificing my son to Moloch then?

Husband is circumcised. We have sex. All the time. And it is awesome.
Both our boys are circumcised.
You don't want to do it to your kids, fine. Don't tell me what to do with mine, please. Posted by: UW Girl
Others have well-articulated the female circ issue so I won't go there. I will tell you I have scars from when mine was done to me as a baby. It doesn't prevent enjoyment but that doesn't make it a-okay. Posted by: Sio
I had a skin bridge that pulled the front of the underside of my head down and back – hurt like hell, was told it was because that’s what happens when you have impure thoughts before marriage and about women who you aren’t married to. It tore and bled and I couldn’t talk to anyone about it because I had been told I was bad and it was a punishment from god. It works fine now aside from the fact that the skin immediately behind the head of my penis is so thin it requires copious amounts of lube to keep from tearing. So maybe you aren’t as puritanical about sex as my father and his wife were UWGirl, but don’t assume that just because a guy fucked you and enjoyed it that he didn’t have a problem or two

And now a few more thoughts

1. Everyone who is a proponent skipped this so I’ll ask it again, given there is no way to determine how large a penis will become how can you accurately determine how much skin to cut
2. Circumcision does decrease the likely hood of MALES contracting certain topical condition and some STIs, the lack of natural lubrication created by the foreskin leads to vaginal tearing and increases the likelihood of male to female transmition of STI’s
3. Again another issue side stepped. 1 in 12 women will get breast cancer, that is more than the number of males who get penile cancer, UTIs and life threatening STDs combined – why are we not preforming infant mastectomies while female children are too young to “feel pain” to remember, or to be mentally or emotionally scared?
4. And finally as it had=s become apparent that people dont understand what is involved in circumcision. At birth, until around puberty the forseskin is fused to the head of the penis, much in the same way your findernails are fused to the skin of your nail beds.

In order to cut it off it must frist be SCRAPED off of the flesh, try scraping one of the nails off of your finger let us know how it feels.

At Tony, I didn't shout at anybody because this is a forum with text on the screen. I didn't call anybody names either. I just stated facts. So please don't make false accusations. That circumcision is barbaric is a fact. If the shoe fits, it's not my fault - don't blame me for pointing out facts - but I didn't call anyone names.

"But no one today is the first person to do it."

Way to totally ignore the point, and attempt to divert discussion away from the uncomfortable point - that our moral sensibilities should not be suppressed for cases of child abuse.

"Shouting at them and calling them names doesn't make anyone say "Damn, I've been wrong all this time." It makes them angry and defensive. They shut down."

You're wrong, shaming racists helped end racism. Shaming other barbaric practices will help those barbaric practices. If you read all of UWGirl's respsonses, you get the clear impression of an entitlement built of years of people pussyfooting and tiptoeing around the issue - firstly, a belief that all she needs to do is say "it's my religion" and "that's your opinion" and everything is OK. Secondly, and worse, she REFUSES to argue on moral grounds or even listen to reason --- she deliberately twisted numerous points made by others in an extremely dishonest way. So you keep handling a dishonest person who practices barbaric acts with "kid gloves" and see how successful you are. She has no interest in listening to reason. I say it's time to stop trying to reason with child abusers, and start filing charges against people who wantonly commit acts of violence against infants.

@Tony This is your diplomatic approach: Dear child abuser, please please don't commit child abuse, it would be so nice! (Doesn't work!)

In the time we've had this discussion another child has died unnecessarily and thousands have been maimed; by the time this discussion is finished more will have died and thousands more will have been pushed through this violent abuse ... what are we all waiting for? Since when do we tolerate child abuse?

I say it's time to stop trying to reason with child abusers, and start filing charges against people who wantonly commit acts of violence against infants.

Lobster, wouldn't "start trying to make it against the law" come before "start filing charges"?

Maybe it will eventually be against the law but change like that doesn't happen overnight, no matter how passionately you feel about it. Take same-sex marriage. A lot of people feel very strongly that it should be legal and progress has been made (same-sex couples can legally marry in six states and the District of Columbia...and Washington may soon become the seventh state) but there's still a long way to go because the opposition also feels very strongly about it.

Lobster,

I was speaking generally in that statement, and you did refer to barbarians at one point, but I'll retract and clarify. Berating people and/or general rudeness do not help end circumcision. I mean, you're being ridiculous to me and we're supposed to be on the same side. I understand I'm not doing it the way you would, but I'm speaking from my experience in speaking with people and writing on the internet, including the evidence here of how UW Girl responded as you both escalated.

Circumcision is barbaric. It's mutilation. I don't hide my opinion on that, but I'm careful when I use those words. Unlike what circumcision proponents push, which is that parental intent excuses the act itself, I separate the two. There is usually good, if ignorant/mistaken, parental intent. Regardless, the act is wrong, always.

Where I see evidence of deviation from that separation of intent and action, I point it out. That's rare. Without evidence, I do not assume anything more than the circumcision is indefensible. I try to make my approach sensible. Without something closer to an essay, it's often difficult for people to read words like "mutilation" unexplained and not get immensely defensive. I believe that's unproductive and that this thread shows that.

I notice the sense of entitlement used to excuse circumcision. I see it in every single person who circumcises their healthy son(s). But when I write somewhere in a discussion, I strive to be viewed as the sane person involved. I don't much expect to convince the person I'm debating. I'm trying to convince, and I will continue as long as it might be possible. But that sense of entitlement is very difficult to overcome. I'm writing for them and for the next person who comes along who might be undecided. That person won't likely read vitriol and think they need to immediately convert to that way of thinking.

I'm not sure what moral sensibilities I've suppressed. I told Jason the merits of his argument were crap. I explained to UW Girl that circumcision harmed her sons physically. Where am I failing? I've advocated strongly that I think existing laws already provide the necessary tools to prohibit non-therapeutic child circumcision and that existing laws against FGC should be updated to adhere to equal rights. However, as I wrote before, we have to deal with reality. Prosecutors aren't going to start pressing charges in the near future. The courts may wake up, but that will take time, too. Yes, it will be too long, even if the world changed tomorrow. That awful truth is where we are. Being rational and pragmatic is the best step forward.

After reviewing the posts I found it surprising Jason that despite claiming that, "[You] believe the data, and aren't swayed by arguments that something is "icky".", that you failed to address Tony's point that understanding how to apply that data requires knowing and including the context; yet you've ignored it. Instead, as many circumcision advocates do, you base your support and advocacy on fear and misapplication of the data.

@JD "Lobster, wouldn't "start trying to make it against the law" come before "start filing charges"? "

Child abuse is already against the law.

@Tony "I'm not sure what moral sensibilities I've suppressed."

The point of my 'what if UWGirl were the first' thought experiment was that when the reader thinks about it that way, they realize that their "natural' moral sensibilities would indeed be to see how morally wrong it is and be surprised at just how far they suppress those moral sensibilities just because it's "convention". By detracting and twisting the 'thought experiment' you sought, perhaps unintentionally, to negate that effect. In any other context we would find such child abuse and child genital mutilation so atrocious that we would not stand for it so much as one more time. That's the moral reaction people need to have, and associate with circumcision - the correct one.

More studies on the effects of circumcision ..

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

"The study was terminated because it was working so well that it would have been cruel to deny the benefits to the uncircumcised controls."
When you write "working so well," you are assuming what has yet to be proved.

"We are talking about preventing HIV here."
Again, begging the question.

"Even in the first world, there are plenty of benefits, primarily the benefit of UTIs."
Girls have much higher rates of UTIs than intact boys and men, and girls get antibiotics. There are also more intelligent and ecological ways of dealing with UTIs, namely deliberately exposing newborns to good coliform bacteria.

"The complications are so low that it provides a huge benefit for the cost."
There has yet to be a study of the long term complications of RIC other than meatal stenosis.

"Cost-benefit analysis is something that is deliberately ignored by anti-circumcision activists..."
Because the data needed for a proper cost-benefit analysis do not exist.

"Infant circumcision also has far lower costs... than adult or youth circumcision, which cause much more pain and are more prone to complications."
Infant circumcision is NOT less painful; the pain is only easier to ignore. The circumcisions with the least complications are those performed after the penis has finished its puberty growth spurt.

"Consider that men who don't get UTIs don't use antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is a big issue these days. Women don't really have this option, and will be the hardest hit if (when) antibiotic-resistant infections show up. By delaying the day that happens, circumcised men provide a very large benefit to uncircumcised men and women."
The last word on drugs to battle bacterial infection has not been written.

"You're free-riders on someone else's (minimal) risk. A rationally selfish woman or anti-circumcision parent would promote it for everyone else, while making full use of the antibiotics that still work to cure their own issues. Enjoy it while it lasts. You're welcome."
This whole line of reasoning has no support in the medical literature, and makes strong pessimistic assumptions about the future of anti-bacterial drug research.