The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[jdp]

I think you've read an awful lot into an off-hand remark.

I am at a loss here; do you mean I read a lot into an off-hand remark for saying that I was pretty sure you would agree with the assertion I made or was it something else?

The problem with this analogy is that the perceived benefit from the vaccination is very easily addressed. The perceived benefit from circumcision is much more difficult to address, since it's based on cultural rather than medical issues.

So can we then agree that circumcision is essentially a cultural issue rather than a medical one? Based on your previous post I think that you would agree with that but I just thought I would check.

What do you base that on?

Linda

There was a lot in that paragraph but I am assuming your asking me about the assertion regarding whether or not doctors are making an effort to reduce the demand for circumcision. I think it would be difficult to find a solid resource to say one way or the other.

But we can look at actions taken since say 1972. De-listing the procedure from Medicaid for example. This is something that could have been done rather quickly but wasn't. It took nearly 10 years from when the AAP decided that circumcision should not be routinely performed to when it was dropped from the first Medicaid plan. And then 20 more years before there was much more movement afterwards. Now I know the individual Drs or Dr groups don't directly control this but the snail's pace I think speaks to how motivated they are.

September 1, 1982 - California
1986 - North Dakota
c. 1994 - Oregon
before 1999 - Mississippi, Nevada, Washington
August 1, 2002 - Missouri
October 1, 2002 - Arizona
December 1, 2002 - North Carolina
January 1, 2003 - Montana
July 1, 2003 - Utah Florida
February 3, 2004 - Maine
before April, 2005 - Louisiana
July 1, 2005 - Idaho
August 1, 2005 - Minnesota

Though it isn't really clear to me that delisting circumcision from public medical plans drives change in and of itself. Like you said it is largely cultural and they do try and find ways to pay. Dropping it from insurance might work if it is simultaneously discouraged by medical professionals. As it is now, in the US, I get the feeling that Drs feel out parents for their opinion and just let them go either way but that is just my impression and I realize it is a broad generalization.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The cute qualifier "any idiot can become a parent' is quite often used by people cornered by the reality that they are talking out their ass when dispensing parenting advice to people who actually have children.

You think I think you have me cornered?

Idiots aside, in general most parents face issues in real life that are just "topic fodder" for you to cannon ball about on the internet.

Being a parent means having to deal with the actual consequences of these decisions which is why its a difficult decision to make.

It's only difficult if you project your own irrational fears and prejudices onto your child and everyone else. About 50% of boys in the US are not circumcised now. I seriously doubt if many of their female peers are going to bothered either way by their circumcision status.

Look at it this way: many other countries have made the transition from virtually 100% infant circumcision to less than 10% without any major emotional damage being inflicted on their men (or women).

You didn't mention if you were circumcized or not. And you skipped over whether you are biased because of it. I will assume since I was right about you not being a parent (very obvious in your posts) that you are uncut and irrational when discussing it. Hence the nasty comments about the women's labias. Do you think I'm just being spiteful and lying? Because obviously you are doing that?

So it's ok for your friends to make negative comments about a man's foreskin because they really mean what they say, but when I try to make a point about how irrational their opinions are by reflecting them onto the state of womens' genitals you think I'm being nasty?

Most women do prefer circumcized here in the states. Why does that bother you so much? And I'm curious if you are in a relationship now?

How many is most? 51%? What does "prefer" mean? What bothers me is you seem to believe being uncircumcised could be a big issue for a boy growing up in the US in 2008. If that is the worst of his problems, he's doing really well.

And kudos to you for not being too shallow to deal with China's clitoris but I doubt very much you'll find another man who is not simply trying to win an argument who wouldn't be bothered by it.

It is only one characteristic of many to like or dislike about her.

 

[Lonewulf]

EVIDENCE PLEASE? I'd really like to see this because I've never heard this. Since you only use facts and evidence I'd like you to back it up.

I was circumcised when I was older (10, I think). It was unpleasant. Very very unpleasant. The day after was even more unpleasant, when the pain killers wore off.

(Of course, you would probably disregard that as babies can't possibly feel pain as a 10 year old can, I'm sure, so whatever).

Why the antisemitism? Its very off putting.

I wouldn't really call it antisemitism. Loss Leader is proud of being Jewish, and uses his religious beliefs as pretty much the core of his defense for circumcision. It seems that if he weren't Jewish (and if his kid could get into Jewish schools and jobs without being circumcised -- Loss Leader has himself said that that's one of his primary fears), he'd have no problem with not circumcising his child.

 

[Shuggy]

The request for circumcision by the parents isn't based upon the perceived medical benefits, but upon cultural considerations.

That's a wild generalisation. Whenever it's discussed in fora like these, "medical benefits" are constantly bandied about. (I agree that they're not the real reasons, because they keep changing.) Are you calling "to look like his father" and "because women prefer circumcised", "cultural"?

I'm talking about the present, rather than the circumstances over a hundred years ago (unless you are prepared to present an argument that it is relevant).

Of course it's relevant. Babies are circumcised now because men are circumcised, who were circumcised as babies, for/by men who were circumcised as babies, going back to the latter half of the 19th century.

Doctors (to the extent that they form a cohesive group) don't promote non-procreative sex

We don't see medical articles listing reasons for and against non-procreative sex ("To **** or not to ****"?) the way we do about circumcision.

and they don't promote circumcision, but they will provide safe and effective means of achieving those things, upon request.

Isn't it a little odd that this is the ONLY surgery that they will do on a healthy child upon request, and then only on a male child? I provided a link to a dozen anecdotes about parents being pressured by medical people, but apparently that is contaminated in your eyes, so I won't provide it again. Also on that contaminated site are analyses of the position papers of a variety of US medical bodies showing how they are biased towards circumcision.

I read the article at the link provided earlier.

That's the presentation. You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. The presentation summarises our evidence that doctors introduced it - it simply wasn't discussed outside medical circles, any more than any other sexual topic in polite society - and then discouraged it, facing considerable parental resistance in the process. Even if significant numbers of men had to be circumcised during WW1 (for which we found no evidence), "therefore my newborn son must be" is not an idea that would fall into most mothers' or fathers' minds as a result. As we point out, in the first part of the century, NZ doctors very much followed Britain's lead (their medical association was a branch of the BMA), and you can see how UK doctors promoted circumcision in Rob Darby's much more comprehensive "A Surgical Temptation".

But it really shouldn't be a surprise that it fails, right?

Tell me how it fails. Specifically, how it overstates the case against circumcision.

Haven't you already made it pretty clear that you are not really interested in taking this under consideration?

No I have not. I really would welcome corrections to the inaccuracies that you claim riddle the site.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You know the "why is it even asked" question is very weird. Many people prefer circumcision. My doctor asked because he was ready to go home and wanted to know if he'd be needed. I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill over this point.

How many unrelated cosmetic procedures are brought up when you go to the doctor?

E.g., "I noticed your nose is rather large perfectly normal. Would you be interested in rhinoplasty?"

 

[fls]

I am at a loss here; do you mean I read a lot into an off-hand remark for saying that I was pretty sure you would agree with the assertion I made or was it something else?

The reference to Ivor's quote about parents having a "yes or no" answer already prepared.

So can we then agree that circumcision is essentially a cultural issue rather than a medical one? Based on your previous post I think that you would agree with that but I just thought I would check.

Yes.

There was a lot in that paragraph but I am assuming your asking me about the assertion regarding whether or not doctors are making an effort to reduce the demand for circumcision. I think it would be difficult to find a solid resource to say one way or the other.

But we can look at actions taken since say 1972. De-listing the procedure from Medicaid for example. This is something that could have been done rather quickly but wasn't. It took nearly 10 years from when the AAP decided that circumcision should not be routinely performed to when it was dropped from the first Medicaid plan. And then 20 more years before there was much more movement afterwards. Now I know the individual Drs or Dr groups don't directly control this but the snail's pace I think speaks to how motivated they are.

Yeah. If you have the time and resources to influence Medicaid reimbursement, you are probably going to spend it on those many issues which have a higher priority.

Though it isn't really clear to me that delisting circumcision from public medical plans drives change in and of itself. Like you said it is largely cultural and they do try and find ways to pay. Dropping it from insurance might work if it is simultaneously discouraged by medical professionals. As it is now, in the US, I get the feeling that Drs feel out parents for their opinion and just let them go either way but that is just my impression and I realize it is a broad generalization.

Yeah, I don't think you can count on one thing (or a few things) to drive change.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

As we point out, in the first part of the century, NZ doctors very much followed Britain's lead (their medical association was a branch of the BMA), and you can see how UK doctors promoted circumcision in Rob Darby's much more comprehensive "A Surgical Temptation".

<snip>

I've been reading a few other forums with threads on circumcision and it's amazing how many people believe the old wives tales about hygiene, sexual performance, etc.

Isn't one of physicians' responsibilities to educate their patients?

How many even ask why parents want to have their child circumcised?

Of those, how many provide correct information to parents, which in most cases boils down to "It will hurt and there is no clear medical benefit to doing it."?

I bet most physicians follow the maxim "The customer is always right" when it comes to parents requesting infant circumcision.

 

[fls]

That's a wild generalisation. Whenever it's discussed in fora like these, "medical benefits" are constantly bandied about. (I agree that they're not the real reasons, because they keep changing.) Are you calling "to look like his father" and "because women prefer circumcised", "cultural"?

Yes.

Of course it's relevant. Babies are circumcised now because men are circumcised, who were circumcised as babies, for/by men who were circumcised as babies, going back to the latter half of the 19th century.

If we are trying to figure out what sort of influence is feasible, a different situation (trying to reduce an established practice vs.establishing a new practice), under vastly different circumstances (the relative position of physicians as an authority figure, the enthusiasm for applying a new theory of disease/health (the germ theory), different professional ethics and educational standards, different renumerative practices, etc.), when the reasons the procedure has become established is no longer under the purview of physicians, cannot reasonably be assumed to apply.

We don't see medical articles listing reasons for and against non-procreative sex ("To **** or not to ****"?) the way we do about circumcision. Isn't it a little odd that this is the ONLY surgery that they will do on a healthy child upon request, and then only on a male child? I provided a link to a dozen anecdotes about parents being pressured by medical people, but apparently that is contaminated in your eyes, so I won't provide it again. Also on that contaminated site are analyses of the position papers of a variety of US medical bodies showing how they are biased towards circumcision.

I'm sorry, but part of my concern is that people are less likely to be persuaded by information they can easily perceive as biased. Unless it is your intention to preach to the choir, I'm not sure how that is supposed to help.

That's the presentation. You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. You initiated a discussion with me. Would you prefer that I didn't answer your questions?

Tell me how it fails. Specifically, how it overstates the case against circumcision.

No I have not. I really would welcome corrections to the inaccuracies that you claim riddle the site.

I guess this is becoming off-topic for this thread. It may be better to deal with this via PM (private messaging)?

Linda

 

[Aepervius]

I cannot make this more clear: the only properly-controlled studies on the effects of circumcision show that adult circumcision carries physical and psychological risks of sexual disfunction. The procedure, if done, must be done in infancy or you risk a much, much larger impact on your child.

The so-called "human rights" argument ignores this medical evidence.

I am jsut wonder one things.

it was repeated over and over there was no difference of perceived sexual gratification between an infant circumcised, and a non-circumcised adult, but an circumcised adult would feel sexual frustration etc...

How are the author of such study know for sure that in reality infant circumcised don't really never ever know they in reality get 1/2 the deal, but adult which get circumcised remark the difference (aka: get 1/2 the feeling) and thus get more easily depressed. In other word how do the hell they know that circumcised infant are not just used to not feel as much ?

 

[pgwenthold]

I think that if the doctors in the US could be persuaded to actively work toward reducing the rate of circumcision, rather than generally remaining neutral, it would have an effect. But I think that it makes more sense to look at ways to decrease the requests from parents. It seems like it would be easier to persuade insurance companies and Medicaid not to pay for the service (they're always trying to get out of paying for stuff, anyway), than going at it bass-ackward and introducing a number of logistical and ethical concerns.

That's actually a great point. Why do insurance companies cover it? I find it surprising that modern insurance companies would agree to cover elective cosmetic surgery.

If they stopped covering it, then yeah, the rate is going to decrease precipitously.

 

[pgwenthold]

Most women do prefer circumcized here in the states.

Now they do. I'm trusting there are opinion surveys that support this claim, yes? But I wonder, will that still be true 20 years from now?

Because I have to admit, when my baby is born in December, if it is a boy, I really don't care what "most women" prefer TODAY. That has no bearing on what happens in his romantic life 20 years from now.

The bigger question is what will they prefer then. And that, I strongly suspect will depend on the choices that parents like me are making right now. If we don't circumcize, then non-circumcision will become more of the norm and will remove the cultural expectation based on commonality. Moreover, there could be concommittant shift in assessment of what is more attractive (what do the majority of European women think?).

By using this line, you will tend to perpetuate the practice only for custom. It is a self-sustaining practice. You circumcize because others did in the past, and they did it because others did, etc. Of course if everyone continually does it because everyone is doing it, then it is going to continue. And arguments that "women find it attractive" and "it will avoid messy shower room (or daddy) comparisons" consequently are predicated on the fact that it has been done commonly in the past, ie everyone else has done it.

I find it amusing that a parent could make that type of an argument. Shoot, parents basically _invented_ the "if everyone jumped off a bridge, that doesn't make it right" retort.

 

[Morrigan]

Excuse me but bringing my child into this for any reason to "lightheartedly make a joke (see the smiley!!) is lewd and vulgar and shows your level of "joking" that you'd insult a child's penis in the process? No matter how many smilies you tack on the end of it, it doesn't change what you said.

You appear to have reading comprehension issues. He did not insult your child, nor did he insult your child's penis. He was making a point illustrating how you, taking your position to its logical conclusion, seem to hate your child's penis.

Women who do are a minority. And while cup size might be a thing that you think is equivalent its not at all the same thing. The same thing would be like saying a woman has an extra long clitoris, ala China. If you find that gross then you are shallow and hideous.

Are you seriously suggesting that if you went to have sex with a woman and saw this, that you'd have no problem with it at all?

That's an even worse analogy than the cup size one. Chyna's clitoris is abnormally large, no doubt due to her abuse of hormone drugs. Her case is very unique. A circumcised man is not one among millions. Women with small breasts, on the other hand, are probably as numerous as uncircumcised men, or at least in proportions far similar than women who abuse substances to get deformed genitals. The equivalent in a male isn't a circumcised man, but a woman with a medically abnormal penis (either too small, too large or deformed or whatnot).

However I do wonder if in the future it might cause my son emotional damage if women tend to treat him like its not as attractive.

Are you *really* worried about your son receiving "emotional damage" from women who will tell him (which, you said, that women don't even DO) he has an ugly penis? If you really do worry about the appearance of your son's penis that much, how can you even feel insulted at Ivan's "joke", when it's the plain truth - you really think your son will have unattractive genitals and project this thought onto his future partners. Hilarious, yet sad at the same time.

 

[truethat]

You think I think you have me cornered?



It's only difficult if you project your own irrational fears and prejudices onto your child and everyone else. About 50% of boys in the US are not circumcised now. I seriously doubt if many of their female peers are going to bothered either way by their circumcision status.

Look at it this way: many other countries have made the transition from virtually 100% infant circumcision to less than 10% without any major emotional damage being inflicted on their men (or women).



So it's ok for your friends to make negative comments about a man's foreskin because they really mean what they say, but when I try to make a point about how irrational their opinions are by reflecting them onto the state of womens' genitals you think I'm being nasty?



How many is most? 51%? What does "prefer" mean? What bothers me is you seem to believe being uncircumcised could be a big issue for a boy growing up in the US in 2008. If that is the worst of his problems, he's doing really well.



It is only one characteristic of many to like or dislike about her.

You still haven't stated if you are uncircumcized and are biased and taking things personally because of it. It seems to me that you most certainly are, to which I suggest you deal with it in the appropriate way instead of taking it out on strangers on a message board.

Its not "nasty comments' they were honest opinions, unlike your deliberate mean spiritedness. You are also lying and I'm sure of it. Very few men would have no problem whatsoever with a clitoris like China's. Qualify it as much as you want, its still just message board debate. Unlike my example with my son which is reality.

I do worry that it would be a problem. Most certainly because it really is a problem. Are you married might I ask? Or in a committed relationship? You didn't answer those questions either. I wonder why.

 

[six7s]

...its still just message board debate. Unlike my example with my son which is reality

Wrong

You still haven't stated...

You are also lying and I'm sure of it...

...You didn't answer those questions either

And you, truethat, have (conveniently?) overlooked my assertion that you are peddling non-sequiturs in an attempt to sell your worldview

I wonder why.

Indeed

 

[truethat]

You appear to have reading comprehension issues. He did not insult your child, nor did he insult your child's penis. He was making a point illustrating how you, taking your position to its logical conclusion, seem to hate your child's penis.



That's an even worse analogy than the cup size one. Chyna's clitoris is abnormally large, no doubt due to her abuse of hormone drugs. Her case is very unique. A circumcised man is not one among millions. Women with small breasts, on the other hand, are probably as numerous as uncircumcised men, or at least in proportions far similar than women who abuse substances to get deformed genitals. The equivalent in a male isn't a circumcised man, but a woman with a medically abnormal penis (either too small, too large or deformed or whatnot).


Are you *really* worried about your son receiving "emotional damage" from women who will tell him (which, you said, that women don't even DO) he has an ugly penis? If you really do worry about the appearance of your son's penis that much, how can you even feel insulted at Ivan's "joke", when it's the plain truth - you really think your son will have unattractive genitals and project this thought onto his future partners. Hilarious, yet sad at the same time.

Have you seen every woman out there? Oversized labia and clitoris are most certainly much more common than you seem to think, although in China's case I admit its extreme. But the point in that is that we do reject people based on physical preference. Although some people say they wouldn't have a problem with China and I don't believe them.

As far as women with these issues, they might just be less willing to have sex because they are worried about their appearance. Therefor its not as well known.

http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty.html
http://www.afraidtoask.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000627.html


The thread was started by a parent. I am a parent sharing my example. Obviously you are not a parent or you would understand this. Excuse me if I wonder why hyper sensitive uncircumcized men are derailing a conversation from a doctor and a parent who has chosen both to circumcize and not to. My examples are expressing my concerns and realities. As a parent. Bringing a child into it was unfortunately necessary to make my point. I did expect a certain level of restraint and maturity from the adults on this thread with regard to this. I see I expected too much.




Frankly the men on this thread are coming across extremely high strung and defensive and insecure about their uncut penis which probably is going to do more to convince the OP about what way is sure to cause screwed up mental issues in their child.

Wackos.....

 

[truethat]

Now they do. I'm trusting there are opinion surveys that support this claim, yes? But I wonder, will that still be true 20 years from now?

Because I have to admit, when my baby is born in December, if it is a boy, I really don't care what "most women" prefer TODAY. That has no bearing on what happens in his romantic life 20 years from now.

The bigger question is what will they prefer then. And that, I strongly suspect will depend on the choices that parents like me are making right now. If we don't circumcize, then non-circumcision will become more of the norm and will remove the cultural expectation based on commonality. Moreover, there could be concommittant shift in assessment of what is more attractive (what do the majority of European women think?).

By using this line, you will tend to perpetuate the practice only for custom. It is a self-sustaining practice. You circumcize because others did in the past, and they did it because others did, etc. Of course if everyone continually does it because everyone is doing it, then it is going to continue. And arguments that "women find it attractive" and "it will avoid messy shower room (or daddy) comparisons" consequently are predicated on the fact that it has been done commonly in the past, ie everyone else has done it.

I find it amusing that a parent could make that type of an argument. Shoot, parents basically _invented_ the "if everyone jumped off a bridge, that doesn't make it right" retort.

I agree with this post. Regardless of the moralizing in here, I posted my honest concern. I don't sit around wondering every single day if I made the right choice. However when I've heard a woman talk about how "gross" they thought Billy's winkle was, it does cross my mind that this is what my kid is in for. Hopefully less people will do it and there'll be a mix.


I do want to point out that when I had my son I based my decision not to on the fact that I didn't see any reason for doing it. In my older two children's cases their father wanted it and asked for it and since I was a woman I didnt' chime in with any other alternative.

But what I'm sharing is what "problems" have come of it. I've posted several times that there have been no issues whatsoever in my home. And the fact that the two older ones are "different than the youngest" has never even been brought up to me at all. But people have ignored those comments for some reason.

 

[logical muse]

However when I've heard a woman talk about how "gross" they thought Billy's winkle was, it does cross my mind that this is what my kid is in for. Hopefully less people will do it and there'll be a mix.

How did you respond to this woman? Did you nod and say "eww", did you defend Billy, what? I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm just curious about this discussion.

I have a hairy back, a very hairy back. Hairy shoulders too. My chest is hidden under a forest of fur. I've seen women's faces involuntarily grimace at the sight of me topless. Does it bother me? Not in the least. Not one little tiny bit.

I guess I could shave, or wax, or go for that laser treatment, but I don't. I never even think about it. If a woman rejects me because of my body hair, I really don't care. If she tells other women how "gross" I am, I really don't care.

Really. Really and truly, I don't care at all. It never even occurs to me that I should care about it.

There's a lot more to me than some pubes, and there's a lot more to your son than his foreskin.

 

[truethat]

I'd really like to emphasize as I've said ad nauseum on here that this is a minor consideration but one I didn't anticipate having when I elected not to circumcize. I really don't understand why you men seem to be so keen at defending body image issues so much. I thought women were overly obsessed.

I have made my point and am moving on.

As far as what I said

Well of course I got a soap box and climbed up on and chimed on and on about how it was shallow of her to have a sexual preference because the decent among us have sex with anyone with any sort of feature and don't give two whits about it.

I said nothing? What did you expect me to say? "Oh SO GROOOOOOOOOSS man yeah its sooooooooo disgusting I wanna puke, I feel your pain sistah!"

Unreal.

 

[six7s]

I guess I'm on truthat's ignore list... funny that

 

[gumboot]

If it's true that American women find foreskin to be disgusting, to the point that they will refuse to continue a relationship with a male who is uncircumcised, all I can say is "chalk that up as another reason to be glad I'm not an American". The Land of the Shallow and the Home of the Ignorant.

I've never had reason to regret the presence of my foreskin, and much occasion to be glad of it.

Causing unnecessary pain to a new born child is immoral. Period. There is no justification for it.