The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

...
Joe and Skeptigirl, I don't want to attack you just your arguments. You both come across as very pro circ though.
You ignored what both of us said, we are neutral. Why do you insist on distorting that position?

...'m not convinced at all that stopping UTI's makes any sense at all as we went down this route in the other thread and it seems clear that UTI's just aren't that great a reason to do this.
And that is fine, but that is your opinion. For other people, they come to a different conclusion. And you are wrong to impose your personal preferences on people who have made different choices. There is no evidence supporting your decision over theirs. The evidence is a wash. There is a cost and a benefit either way. The costs and benefits are evaluated using different standards. This is a free county.

......So bottom line, we just need way way more info on this. My gut says it's worse than common knowledge says but we just don't have the proof yet. ....
The evidence does not support the claim that circumcision has a significant impact on sexual function or sexual satisfaction.
 
You have not presented anything convincing Ivor, not in this thread nor in the 40+ pages of the other one, nor in the dozen other posts in related threads. You simply give your opinion with little supporting evidence.

In the meantime, I am looking at some of the evidence. There is no shortage of activists web sites claiming supporting research just as there are web sites claiming supporting evidence of a lot of things from conspiracy theories to homeopathy.

From one of the articles cited earlier I have weeded out the worst unsupported opinion pieces, the reports with sample sizes less than 5, and the reports which merely document the nerve endings in the foreskin which no one is disputing. That left the following which I am going to post here but need to go back over more carefully later. If I don't post them, however, I'll have to sort through the list again or save it in a Notepad file which I'll just have to copy to the thread later anyway.

So here are the studies I will be going over later. Once again, a brief review does not find a compelling anti-circ argument even here in these studies that were complied by an anti-circ web site.

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/richters1/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bleustein2/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/senkul1/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/denniston3/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/boyle2004/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/solinis2007/

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/



But a more careful review is in order....later.
 
I'm not surprised you think I have not presented any convincing evidence, since you have already stated you require an impossible standard of evidence to change your mind. No matter - I'm not trying to convince you (or Loss Leader).

All the evidence I need you have already quoted:

Facts:

1) Less than 1% of boys contract a UTI in their first year of life. Thus ~100 boys are circumcised for no medical benefit. If you adjust for other factors, the ratio becomes even larger. IIRC, the uncirc./circ. UTI incidence was ~1 in 140 / ~1 in 550 in one of the studies you quoted. That's a RR of less than 4.

2) It is recommended to avoid unnecessary traumatic experiences, since these can affect the establishment of breastfeeding.

3) The complication rate for circumcision is estimated at about 2%, though it depends exactly what is classed as a complication.

While you like to call people who disagree with your irrational opinion 'anti-circumcision', I can assure you I am not against circumcision at all. All I require is a rational justification for the procedure to be carried out on a child. I.e., an obvious physical defect, or, more generally, likely serious harm if the procedure is not performed. You know, the normal, rational and ethical reasons for parents choosing (and a physician performing) irreversible surgery on a child.

As for Africa, here's a story I found some time ago about what's going on there (copied from another thread):

http://ww2.mg.co.za/article/2007-08-03-zambia-forges-ahead-with-circumcision-plans

There is standing room only in Room 3 of the urology clinic at the University Teaching Hospital (UTH) in Lusaka, Zambia's capital. About 30 young men and a handful of mothers with male children listen attentively as Sitali Mulope, clinical officer, briefs them on the benefits of surgically removing the foreskin of the penis.

Running through a list of advantages that includes hygiene and because "it looks nice and smart", Mulope mentions the reduced risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

Although he downplays this particular benefit, he and his colleagues are well aware it is one of the main reasons why the room is so full.

...

Simpungwe confirmed that research by the Health Department found that some Zambians believed they could have unprotected sex after being circumcised. "It worries us a lot, because then we think we'll be reversing our achievements," he said. "When we start doing mass circumcision we will bombard them with the correct health education."

...

He appears to be struggling to provide information that is relevant and appropriate to the young men in the room as well as the mothers with small children. Asked how long the wound will take to heal, he advises adults to be "very reserved" for at least a month after the surgery. Only towards the end of the session, in response to a question, does he bring up the necessity of continued condom use after circumcision.

In the absence of detailed guidelines from the WHO, Bowa admitted "we struggle with what is the minimum counselling message, because the period we have to deal with these clients is very short and if the message is too long people get discouraged".

The article also reveals that circumcision costs $69. How many condoms could be provided for $69?
 
Last edited:
While I think the decision process you went through to make your decision was rational and reasonable, your survey of 30 some friends or colleagues is bad science and inconsistent with the results of several larger and better done surveys.

The problem here is the distorted picture presented when a number of evangelizers (in this case anti-circ proselytizers) shout and bully their position making it appear as if the beliefs are more widespread than they really are. Adding unscientific anecdotes is not consistent with evidence based belief systems. It implies one only need be a skeptic when it is convenient.

skeptigirl,

I'd appreciate it if you didn't call my after-the-fact informal poll "bad science". As we both know, it's not ANY science at all and I believe I indicated that with my use of the words unofficial poll

I know what good science can be, so please don't make it seem as if I was trying to conduct a rational scientific experiment here. I'm also not a frothing-at-the-mouth proselytizer regarding circumcision. I'm very sorry if my post gave you that impression. It was merely an anecdotal incident. Period.
 
Skeptigirl, you can claim that you are neutral but you certainly don't come across that way.

Do you disagree with Ivor's latest post and the analysis in it? Keep in mind that he hasn't even crossed over into the sexual dysfunction argument at all.

Also, just because we don't have much evidence of it causing sexual dysfunction doesn't mean we should allow the procedure. We have a lack of evidence, not positive evidence that it doesn't cause sexual dysfunction. I have a really really really hard time believing that removing the foreskin doesn't effect sexual function at all (e.g. it's 100% neutral or better). You are removing nerves, are you not? You are removing skin that is used during masturbation, are you not? The brain is pretty good at making up for this kind of stuff but perfect? I don't think so. Again lack of a good study on this isn't evidence that we should continue to cut children for no other benefit.
 
But nobody, anywhere in the world, ever has a random circumcision. Why is that?

Well putting aside arguably semantics regarding the word "random" (random tattoo?!) why is it that you claim this? Can you prove it? I would not be at all surprised to learn that many adult males, albeit essentially zero by proportion to the total male population, but many nonetheless, undergo voluntary circumcision on a whim, maybe at the behest of their partner, for sexual kicks maybe?!

Not all uncircumcised boys get UTIs and not all efforts to keep the area clean are sufficient.

Yes, I suppose the same can be said of ear infections, a small proportion of which, no doubt, lead to permanent loss of or diminution of hearing ability. Now what should we preemptively do about that, I wonder? I know, we could graft amputated foreskins over the ear openings to keep the insides clean/dry. How does that sound?
 
Well putting aside arguably semantics regarding the word "random" (random tattoo?!) why is it that you claim this? Can you prove it? I would not be at all surprised to learn that many adult males, albeit essentially zero by proportion to the total male population, but many nonetheless, undergo voluntary circumcision on a whim, maybe at the behest of their partner, for sexual kicks maybe?!

I claim this because I haven't heard of any examples of circumcision on a whim.

I have seen a few examples of men who claim they did it because their partner insisted due to cleanliness (or lack therof) or appearance.
 
I expressed a similar sentiment in the previous marathon circumcision thread but I'll reiterate:

In however many years it takes for humans to cease the act of routine child circumcision for any other reason than necessary medical, and it's only a matter of time, just like many other abuses of basic human rights, and counting, I wonder how people then, looking back, will view the reasons and justifications that people did it today. My guess is that they will see it similarly to how we today view long-obsolete barbaric practices and rituals. Essentially, ignorance and misplaced beliefs being allowed to take precedence over what every rational and intelligent person, in the 21st Century, should really see and know to be truly morally and ethically correct. History will repeat itself, but people like Loss Leader will find "rational and justifiable" excuses for their ancestors' behaviour, and hence take comfort.

I find it both sad and irittating, indeed bordering on annoyance, that not all people are capable of holding the future view today. Whilst many of us clearly do, many others either do not, or instead allow their self-gratification, however you wish to cut that, to prevail. I can't help feeling that such people, in some way, have in inferior train of thought, rationale or comprehension, or combination thereof. I'm not necessarily criticising them personally for that, but would tend to put the "blame" at the door of the authoritarians who claim to act in the best interests of the people whom they represent, and whose puppy-dog followers faithfully and blindly revere and pander to them, without question. The kind of people such as the "religious authorities" that the likes of Loss Leader "trust".

Oh how I value free-will and free-thinking!
 
The evidence does not support the claim that circumcision has a significant impact on sexual function or sexual satisfaction.

No. The evidence does not support the claim that circumcision has a significant impact on sexual function or sexual satisfaction in everyone. Which is a claim that nobody has made here.

You have been made aware of the facts that 1) some males loose some sexual function and satisfaction when they have no foreskin, 2) some females loose some sexual function and satisfaction when their partner has no foreskin.

This is information gathered from people who have experienced both states. Who are you to tell these people that they are wrong about this? Seriously, who do you think you are? Are you the absolute authority on human sexuality now?

Did you miss that post where I explicitly stated that I have been regrowing a foreskin, and that I can clearly note a difference, even at only 50% completion? Do you really think you are so intelligent that you know my own sensations and feelings better than I do?
 
I claim this because I haven't heard of any examples of circumcision on a whim.

I have seen a few examples of men who claim they did it because their partner insisted due to cleanliness (or lack therof) or appearance.

And out of the total World male population what percentage, approximately, would you say you know the circumcision-on-a-whim status of? Feel free to cite your sources.
 
I expressed a similar sentiment in the previous marathon circumcision thread but I'll reiterate:

In however many years it takes for humans to cease the act of routine child circumcision for any other reason than necessary medical, and it's only a matter of time, just like many other abuses of basic human rights, and counting, I wonder how people then, looking back, will view the reasons and justifications that people did it today. My guess is that they will see it similarly to how we today view long-obsolete barbaric practices and rituals. Essentially, ignorance and misplaced beliefs being allowed to take precedence over what every rational and intelligent person, in the 21st Century, should really see and know to be truly morally and ethically correct. History will repeat itself, but people like Loss Leader will find "rational and justifiable" excuses for their ancestors' behaviour, and hence take comfort.

I find it both sad and irittating, indeed bordering on annoyance, that not all people are capable of holding the future view today. Whilst many of us clearly do, many others either do not, or instead allow their self-gratification, however you wish to cut that, to prevail. I can't help feeling that such people, in some way, have in inferior train of thought, rationale or comprehension, or combination thereof. I'm not necessarily criticising them personally for that, but would tend to put the "blame" at the door of the authoritarians who claim to act in the best interests of the people whom they represent, and whose puppy-dog followers faithfully and blindly revere and pander to them, without question. The kind of people such as the "religious authorities" that the likes of Loss Leader "trust".

Oh how I value free-will and free-thinking!

I'm with you on this although I'm not sure that I share your optimism about getting everyone to the same place on this.

I wonder if Skeptigirl would be arguing the other side of this if she was a man. Skeptigirl, what would you think if people wanted to trim the labia of their female infants? I don't mean FGM or even in Africa, but just a simple procedure done in a hospital in the same manner as a circumcision. I frankly see less harm in that than in circumcision, so why not? Would you support the rights of parents to decide this for their female infants?
If not, why not?
 
I claim this because I haven't heard of any examples of circumcision on a whim.

I have seen a few examples of men who claim they did it because their partner insisted due to cleanliness (or lack therof) or appearance.

I can assure you that there are men who choose to get circumcisions in adulthood.
 
Did you miss that post where I explicitly stated that I have been regrowing a foreskin, and that I can clearly note a difference, even at only 50% completion? Do you really think you are so intelligent that you know my own sensations and feelings better than I do?
You need a hobby that doesn't involve your junk... can I suggest sudoku? :cool:
 
You ignored what both of us said, we are neutral. Why do you insist on distorting that position?

Because it isn't as much fun to argue when one side says "well, ok... circumcise your kid or don't, either way is equally valid." So, some folks have to pretend that we're as fanatical for circumcision as they are against it.
 
Because it isn't as much fun to argue when one side says "well, ok... circumcise your kid or don't, either way is equally valid." So, some folks have to pretend that we're as fanatical for circumcision as they are against it.

Well clearly you're "fanatical" about something to do with this thread. Why are you posting in it if you don't care what parents do / have done to their children's genitals?
 
I can assure you that there are men who choose to get circumcisions in adulthood.

Yes, certainly.

But I suspect that the majority of those do it for reasons other than just wanting to have a circumcision. Religious or medical reasons, maybe. Possibly to please their partners.

People doing it because they just kinda like the idea or were curious what it'd look like on them or wanted to find out what sex would be like once circumcised should be in a small minority.
 
Yes, certainly.

But I suspect that the majority of those do it for reasons other than just wanting to have a circumcision. Religious or medical reasons, maybe. Possibly to please their partners.

People doing it because they just kinda like the idea or were curious what it'd look like on them or wanted to find out what sex would be like once circumcised should be in a small minority.

There's a lot of fetishisation of circumcision or even of the act of being circumcised, too.
 
There's a lot of fetishisation of circumcision or even of the act of being circumcised, too.

Australian aborigines have a couple of interesting procedures:

http://www.bmezine.com/news/ritcircs.html

"A brother [tribesman] seizes the novice and places him face upward with his feet towards the fire. Another brother straddles him and presses his pubes against the lad's face to silence his cries, while a third grips his legs. A brother holds the shaft of the boy's penis, in order to protect "the inside bone" from injury; one of the circumcisors stretches the foreskin several inches, and another cuts it off with two or three quick slices. The rest of the brothers watch closely for it is their duty to KILL THE OPERATOR AT ONCE IF HE MUTILATES THE BOY."

...

"Just as the sun rises, the elder brothers tell two of the sister's husbands to lie on their backs, side by side with their feet towards the fire. The brothers place the youth on his back on top of the men. The brother hands the subinciser the knife, [traditionally made of stone] over which the fathers have previously sung to make it cut straight. To the accompaniment of loud chanting by the company, the man deftly slices open the youth's penis from the meatus to a point about an inch along the urethra. An elder brother holds the penis, to ensure that the "inside bone" is not cut, while other brothers stand ready to kill the inciser if he bungles the task".

Ah, the wisdom of the ancient people.
 

Back
Top Bottom