The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Skeptic Ginger]

Congratulations on the baby boy!

As for circ vs. un-circ, my husband and I had our first child, a boy, last summer. My husband's from England, and no one that he knows is circumcised, so he was horrified at the idea that anyone would wield a scalpel anywhere near his offspring's man-bits.

I took the stance that 1) I'm American, so I've seen more circumcised penii than not, and 2) I'm a female and I have no idea how it would feel (physically, initially or with added emotionalism somewhere down the road). So I opted for your wife's point-of-view: I left it up to my husband to decide.

Naturally, he decided to NOT circumcise our son, and the pediatrician told us that more and more newborn boys are remaining un-cut, so it's pretty common now (he bandied around the 50%-of-the-male-population-is-now uncircumcised-in-the-US figure).

Afterward, I took an unofficial poll of all the males I know (friends, relatives, co-workers; probably 30 in all). There was ONE guy who was glad he was circumcised, but other than him, EVERY other guy was either non-circumcised and happy about it, or circumcised and wished he wasn't. In fact, two of the guys had had nerve damage where the flap of skin would otherwise have protected them.

So I'm glad you made the choice you did. It seems based on sound rational thought. And I'm leaning even more strongly into the camp of those who say that unless it's to correct a current medical condition, it's better not to cut.

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The level of objection isn't because of an "overwhelmingly negative" effect. The level of objection is due to a demonstrably negative effect, however slight it may be, coupled with the facts that the procedure is 1) performed on people who have no say in the matter and 2) irreversible.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you went around the planet and offered to give adult males a free circumcision you wouldn't find many who would take up your offer.

So medical/religious/cultural reasons aside, you really have no good argument here.

This whole circumcision thing makes for a good study in large numbers of people selectively ignoring evidence.

I see no mention of the well sourced thorough review of the medical literature here, just the one poorly done study showing circumcision affected the study population in one outcome measure out of many outcome measures.

If there was no benefit, you'd have a case. Instead you ignore the medical benefit because it is inconvenient.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It bothers me that circumcision is not reversible. An otherwise healthy body part is removed, on the off chance that it might cause problems in a small number of boys? Several have said that parents make life-altering decisions for their children all the time, but I disagree that the vast majority of those 'life-altering' decisions can compare to removing part of their child's penis forever. Being that it's an infant being circumcised, adult sexual pleasure can't be measured (until we can give men the chance to bodyswap so they can compare their feelings to that of an uncircumcised male). No one cut as an infant can know if it affected their sexual pleasure.

HIV transmission makes sense in places where it flows freely among the population. However, this case is in the US, where men are not so likely to encounter the virus (and are more likely to wear a condom anyway). The benefit to a boy in regards to HIV is less in the US. As to the UTI, the horrors that a parent may have to watch their son's health!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have to admit that I'm as utterly floored by the response this thread has received as I am by the emotionally charged, and unsolicited, advice we've gotten on this subject in real life. People feel very strongly about a topic I've hardly given any thought to. I kinda feel like I blundered into the wrong bar and in inadvertently started a brawl.

I'd just like to thank everyone again for their input. As I said pages and pages ago, we'll listen to what the doctor says, but unless she has some super compelling reasons to do so, we are not going to have the kid circumcised.

You think this is bad, check out the 40+ page thread.

There was one person (not gonna say who) that brought the subject up in about 10 subsequent unrelated threads still trying to convince people of the crusader message. I had never heard anyone was up in arms over circumcisions until I read it in this forum. I found the uproar quite intriguing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...No one cut as an infant can know if it affected their sexual pleasure.....

But surely men know if their sex life is satisfying. You probably don't know what you're missing if you've never have sex with Pamela Anderson or Angelina Jolie either.

 

[kellyb]

I see no mention of the well sourced thorough review of the medical literature here, just the one poorly done study showing circumcision affected the study population in one outcome measure out of many outcome measures.

.

WOW!

This is a kind of case study in how extreme bias affects cognition. So, you seriously have only seen a single study cited in this thread so far from the anticirc crowd? Wow!

I know you're smart, so this is an excellent example of how beliefs can influence perception.

 

[NewtonTrino]

1:43 on the first try. I think I can improve that quite a bit.

Skeptigirl, I really don't know what skin you have in this game but you are coming across as extremely biased in favor of circumcision. Getting away from the evidence for and against do you have some personal experience which causes you to be pro-circ?

 

[I Ratant]

But surely men know if their sex life is satisfying. You probably don't know what you're missing if you've never have sex with Pamela Anderson or Angelina Jolie either.

.
I've wondered since my very first experience as to the emphasis sexual pleasure has in the population.
Sex with a partner is more fun, but solo sex ends with the same relaxation.
"This is what everyone is so excited about?" I asked myself after the first time with a woman.
I rather doubt the more famous sex queens would be any "better" than any willing partner, other than for the bragging rights.
How many men -really- get concerned about their partner's pleasure, as well as their own?
The "roll over and go to sleep" ending seems more common than anything else.
I like to cuddle.

 

[JoeEllison]

Skeptigirl, I really don't know what skin you have in this game but you are coming across as extremely biased in favor of circumcision.

That's really strange, because she doesn't seem particularly biased in either direction... which seems to indication your bias more than hers.

 

[Southwind17]

I have to admit that I'm as utterly floored by the response this thread has received as I am by the emotionally charged, and unsolicited, advice we've gotten on this subject in real life. People feel very strongly about a topic I've hardly given any thought to. I kinda feel like I blundered into the wrong bar and in inadvertently started a brawl.

I'd just like to thank everyone again for their input. As I said pages and pages ago, we'll listen to what the doctor says, but unless she has some super compelling reasons to do so, we are not going to have the kid circumcised.

Well done buddy - great to see sense prevailing.

I do love the perennial circumcision thread. Second only to weddings and funerals, it never fails to bring distant acquaintances together for a good old knees up!

Incidentally, I'm still intrigued to learn your response to my earlier question (Post #92):

I'm assuming you already knew your wife was pregnant, and that you've just identified the gender(?). But then I'm a little puzzled. What revelation(s) might have led you to share bad news?!

 

[rocketdodger]

If there was no benefit, you'd have a case. Instead you ignore the medical benefit because it is inconvenient.

No, I simply choose not to conflate the issue of medical benefit with the issue of sexual cost. Those issues have nothing to do with each other. If you think there is a medical benefit, so be it. If you also think that medical benefit outweighs the sexual cost, so be it -- at least you are thinking about it.

That is probably why I qualified my statement with:

So medical/religious/cultural reasons aside

My concern is with people that assume there is no sexual cost. And I feel they think this partially because of people who blind them with purported medical benefits while downplaying the sexual effects -- which is exactly what you are doing here.

So I wanted to bring up the fact that effectively zero percent of the adult male population of Earth elect to be circumcised outside of medical/religious/cultural reasons. If your arguments about the "inconclusive" results of circumcision were correct, I would expect to see a much higher number -- if it is 'no big deal' then why don't more adult men have it done?

 

[devnull]

.
"This is what everyone is so excited about?" I asked myself after the first time with a woman.

How many men -really- get concerned about their partner's pleasure, as well as their own?

You sound like an absolute sexual dynamo

Perhaps you are doing it wrong?

 

[zosima]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the recent economist has a neat article about circumcision. They cite a sort of social evolution reasoning for circumcision.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11579114

Its a pretty entertaining hypothesis, although its science news, so if you're really interested you should probably track down the paper. What I can't figure out is what they think the mechanism is by which circumcision decreases the probability of fathering a child.

 

[Southwind17]

No, I simply choose not to conflate the issue of medical benefit with the issue of sexual cost. Those issues have nothing to do with each other. If you think there is a medical benefit, so be it. If you also think that medical benefit outweighs the sexual cost, so be it -- at least you are thinking about it.

That is probably why I qualified my statement with:

So medical/religious/cultural reasons aside, you really have no good argument here.

My concern is with people that assume there is no sexual cost. And I feel they think this partially because of people who blind them with purported medical benefits while downplaying the sexual effects -- which is exactly what you are doing here.

So I wanted to bring up the fact that effectively zero percent of the adult male population of Earth elect to be circumcised outside of medical/religious/cultural reasons. If your arguments about the "inconclusive" results of circumcision were correct, I would expect to see a much higher number -- if it is 'no big deal' then why don't more adult men have it done?

Hang on. I might be missing the point here, in which case please feel free to put me straight, but putting aside medical/religious/cultural reasons, what possible motivations would a male adult have for opting for circumcision?

 

[Southwind17]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the recent economist has a neat article about circumcision. They cite a sort of social evolution reasoning for circumcision.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11579114

Its a pretty entertaining hypothesis, although its science news, so if you're really interested you should probably track down the paper. What I can't figure out is what they think the mechanism is by which circumcision decreases the probability of fathering a child.

Well I read this part as being it:

Some forms of genital mutilation have obvious effects on fertility. For instance, several African and Micronesian societies practice testicular ablation—the crushing or cutting off of one testicle. Some Australian aborigines engage in subincision, which exposes part of the urethra and thus causes sperm to leak out of the base of the penis. Circumcision does not have quite such clear-cut effects. But there are several ways it may affect fertility: most obviously, the lack of a foreskin could make insertion, ejaculation or both take longer. Perhaps long enough that an illicit quickie will not always reach fruition.

To my mind it's a pretty weak argument, and I'm certainly puzzled by the "insertion speed" aspect. How, exactly, does a foreskin help, and how much time difference are we talking here? From my experience the foreskin is always retracted before insertion, the limiting factor being lubrication (oh, and not forgetting foreplay, of course!).

Please don't tell me I've been doing it wrong all these years, notwithstanding I have three boys, none of whom, incidentally, are circumcised, and none of whom, incidentally, have ever suffered any UTI, and none of whom, incidentally, have needed any real formal education or parenting as regards genital hygiene. A simple daily dip in the bath tub seems to keep the UTI demons at bay!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the recent economist has a neat article about circumcision. They cite a sort of social evolution reasoning for circumcision.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11579114

Its a pretty entertaining hypothesis, although its science news, so if you're really interested you should probably track down the paper. What I can't figure out is what they think the mechanism is by which circumcision decreases the probability of fathering a child.

His hypothesis might be worth entertaining as more than wild speculation if he had any evidence at all that circumcision decreases fertility in the way that he suggests. I suspect that if his idea has any merit at all, it is more likely the case that circumcision is just a cultural relic of the more severe forms of genital alteration that are mentioned in the article.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You think this is bad, check out the 40+ page thread.

There was one person (not gonna say who) that brought the subject up in about 10 subsequent unrelated threads still trying to convince people of the crusader message. I had never heard anyone was up in arms over circumcisions until I read it in this forum. I found the uproar quite intriguing.

That would be me. I was not trying to convince people, just you. But don't worry, I've mentally put you in the same group as Lossleader now. It will not happen again.

As for convincing people, I'll let the evidence and their basic goodness (as KK put it in another unrelated thread) do that.

BTW, given a healthy child the decision is not 50:50, it's 100:1 against circumcision.

 

[volatile]

Unless the Bible is actually the word of God, in which case you're wrong.

Seriously, Loss? You're invoking Pascal's Wager as a justification for circumcision now? Seriously?

 

[Loss Leader]

Seriously, Loss? You're invoking Pascal's Wager as a justification for circumcision now? Seriously?

I believe it was one of six or seven non-medical justifications that I gave for circumcision. I gave them in no particular order and, if you find it so silly as to not merit attention, you can turn to the justifications I listed that do not depend upon the existence of God.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Others may assign higher values to benefits such as:

Obeying the revealed word of God;

A) There is no god. B) You have never professed religious belief on this forum, so while that argument may work for others, it doesn't work for you.

Family membership in a close-knit ethnic group;

A family that hurts it children is not a family worth having.

Traditions and ceremonies that increase family and community bonding;

Please demonstrate that uncircumcised men have weaker family and community bonds. If they do not, then this argument fails.

Honoring the sacrifices of one's ancestors (as recently as one's parents) who were persecuted for their beliefs;

Do you shave? Do you stone to death disobedient children? Do deny crippled men access to the synagogue? All those things, ancient Hebrews did. Even if there is a good way to honor one's ancestors by following their traditions, consider first what you owe your children and their children, rather than your departed dead. Should children be injured to honor the dead?

Traditions and ceremonies that increase one's bonding with one's own history;

Being enslaved by Egyptians would build solidarity with the Hebrews of Exodus, that doesn't reccomend it. In my opinion, the Jewish tradition of (men at least) studying the writen word of ancestors thousands of years dead is, I'd argue, a much better way to honor them then chopping bits off.

Carying out obligations so as to minimize family friction and receive economic and non-economic benefits from such family members;

There are things I would do for money, but hurting my own child is not among them.






It cannot. Whether you like it or not, parents make irreversible decisions for their children every single day. The status of parent, in fact, creates a moral obligation on a person to substitute his judgment for his child. That's the exact oposite of what you said.





Answered, I believe, in sufficient detail above.[/QUOTE]