The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[six7s]

I knew I'd seen a thread on this...

Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ?

It only runs to 1,856 posts... might make interesting (if not stimulating) bed time reading for any expectant parents

 

[Rasmus]

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.

No.

The human rights argument simply says that you should not have the right to simply chop of bits of your baby just for the heck of it unless there is a necessity to do so.

An adult can later chose to cop as many of himself - the risks and consequences might be different, but that still doesn't give anyone more reason to chop of bits from babys.

Necessity: It is not necessary to chop of bits of someone if a regular wash has the same or better effect. It is not necessary to chop bits of someone if using a condom has the same or a better effect.

I might well be wrong, but who serious circumcises their own baby because they have carefully considered the situation and concluded that it's a worthy step towards the reduction of a STD risk? Does anyone really make the actual decision like that? Personally, I tend to file that away under "lame excuse". (And where are the same parents that pre-emptively have their babies' appendixes removed? Where are the risk comparisons?)

 

[fls]

Earlier this week my wife and I found out that we are going to have a boy this October. As we shared the good news, we unknowingly ran smack dab into a debate with very passionate advocates on either side: Were we going to circumcise our son?

My wife and I had half-discussed it in the past, but it was still sort of a maybe-we-don't-have-to-deal-with-it issue so we didn't really invest any energy into it. My wife is taking the cowards way out* by saying that it has to do with penises, so it's my responsibility to decide.

So, I'm bringing the question to the board. I'm starting from a default position that the kid should not be circumcised. Does anyone have medical reasons why this is a good idea? Can anyone persuade me that this would be a mistake based on medical reasons?

I always thought that Dan Savage gave kind of a practical response to this question that also addresses what I think are the real reasons parents in the US even consider this procedure.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/SavageLove?issue=32386

Add to that that it's not considered a recommended procedure (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;103/3/686.pdf).

Linda

 

[Magyar]

Every time... every single time the topic comes up, someone comes out with that female genital mutilation, and pretends it has some bearing on male medical circumcision. Sad but true. To me, it is not only wrong-headed, but also it serves to trivialize female genital mutilation.

I don't see your point at all and I think the comparison IS valid.
YES, I recognize that female genital mutilation IS far more damaging and dangerous, BUT it is done for EXACTLY the same idiological WOO. And most of the danger comes not so much from the proceedure as it does from the lack of competency of the people doing it and the tools they use. So perhaps if Sumalies just got the equivilant of a moyle (sp) ??

And are we now going to accept some woo simply because it's less harmful!?

I can also play devils advicate and claim - based on the utter lack of science one way or the other - that IF ONLY female genetal circumcision was performed at the same age as male circumcision well then all the negative effects would be just as nulified and would not be any more of a deal. It is simply a big deal becuase it is being done on pre-teen girls and like with adult or teenage male circumcision THAT's WHERE that problem is! Sumalies should simply start circumcising their women/girls at six day like the Jews do with the boys and then as some one put it in here perhaps the girls would go back to acting perfectly normal 5 or so minutes after the proceedure too.

Oh and I can further continue the falacious arguement that women circumcision can't really be all that harmful or dangerious as claimed since there are are STILL Sumali women around advocating for it. So while the rare mishap happens - as with male circumcision - it REALLY can't be that big a deal so we might as well let them continue doing it.

 

[Loss Leader]

I thought the real reason circumcision was invented was to make it less convenient for boys to masturbate.

I had never heard that. I had heard that the egyptians used it to mark people as slaves and that the Jews adopted it as kind of a badge of honor, but I've never heard that.

It's easier when you have a foreskin to roll, minimising friction, over the glans. Without the foreskin you need to rub the glans directly, causing friction and requiring lubrication.
...
Has anyone here had the procedure? Perhaps you could tell us of your experience.

Trust me when I tell you that I have no problem masturbating (although sometimes I get a little shy in front of tourists). I still have sufficient foreskin to manipulate without the use of lubricants and, when I choose to use lubricants, I have sufficient access to all manner of the same (frequently supplied by the tourists).

You are right about the age of the ritual, but why is its great age any reason to continue practicing it?

The age of the ritual is not my reason for continuing it. It is the prevalance of circumcision among my cohort.

I wouldn't want to intentionally cause my son pain. End of discussion for me.

Remember that we intentionally cause our children pain every day - physical and emotional. My son had to have an IV put in at the age of 2. He screamed a lot longer and harder about that than any circumcised baby. In fact, last night I wouldn't allow him to have ice cream and he screamed and cried louder and longer than whhen he had the IV put in.

As parents, we frequently must choose to cause our children short-term pain in pursuit of greater goals: in my case, permanent identification with my religious group.

The fact that mutilated children only cry for a short time as a defence for mutilating them is more than a little bizarre. A child will stop crying after being hurt for any number of reasons, including shock.

Actually, the most common reason for an eight day-old infant to stop crying after a circumcision is that he doesn't remember it. The brain at that age is completely incapable of storing long-term memories (or, if stored, of retrieving them). A new baby might become habituated to certain things but that is much different neurologically than memory.

In the cases of my sons, I never observed any indication that either of them was in shock. Within five minutes of the procedure, they were both behaving exactly as they had before which, let's face it, isn't that exciting.

I would once again like to make it clear that I do not recommend routine circumcision for any preventative or health-related reason. I did it because I'm Jewish, full stop.

 

[casebro]

One example of religious beliefs that make decision making easy.

But still, no practical reason, only woo.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't see your point at all and I think the comparison IS valid.
YES, I recognize that female genital mutilation IS far more damaging and dangerous, BUT it is done for EXACTLY the same idiological WOO. And most of the danger comes not so much from the proceedure as it does from the lack of competency of the people doing it and the tools they use. So perhaps if Sumalies just got the equivilant of a moyle (sp) ??

And are we now going to accept some woo simply because it's less harmful!?

I can also play devils advicate and claim - based on the utter lack of science one way or the other - that IF ONLY female genetal circumcision was performed at the same age as male circumcision well then all the negative effects would be just as nulified and would not be any more of a deal. It is simply a big deal becuase it is being done on pre-teen girls and like with adult or teenage male circumcision THAT's WHERE that problem is! Sumalies should simply start circumcising their women/girls at six day like the Jews do with the boys and then as some one put it in here perhaps the girls would go back to acting perfectly normal 5 or so minutes after the proceedure too.

Oh and I can further cuntinue the falacious arguement that women circumcision can't really be all that harmful or dangerious as claimed since there are are STILL Sumali women around advocating for it. So while the rare mishap happens - as with male circumcision - it REALLY can't be that big a deal so we might as well let them continue doing it.

See, you're a perfect example of the over-emotion, anti-logical thinking that populates most of these threads. The reality, as many people have pointed out, is that it is sort of a coin toss. There's a deep sense of ridiculousness in comparing circumcision to mutilation... ridiculousness, and dishonesty, and something worse. It is as though you think everyone else is stupid enough to stop arguing with you if you make that ugliest of false comparisons.

Here's an idea: stop misusing a horrible tragedy to make a rhetorical point about a harmless medical procedure.

 

[Henners]

There's a report in The Economist this week...

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11579114

...that explains how circumcision enables older males in societies to keep younger ones under control.

So the obvious answer is: of course you circumcise your child, but bear in mind that you are doing so for purely selfish reasons.

 

[Henners]

See, you're a perfect example of the over-emotion, anti-logical thinking that populates most of these threads.

What's that matter, Joe?

Has that nasty Magyar been saying things that you don't want to address?

 

[kellyb]

Routine infant circumcision isn't really a medical procedure, per say, but more of a cosmetic/cultural/religious procedure performed by medical professionals.
And it's not completely harmless (or completely without medical benefits, either).

I've already mentioned the up to 10% chance of meatal stenosis as a complication.

There's this, too...

http://www.bmc.org/pediatrics/special/PainFree/NeonatalCircumcisionEffects.pdf

It is, therefore, possible that the
greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised
without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a
post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic
and painful event and re-experienced under similar
circumstances of pain during vaccination.

Welcome to the world, baby!

 

[JoeEllison]

What's that matter, Joe?

Has that nasty Magyar been saying things that you don't want to address?

No, he's saying stupid and hateful things, and avoiding reality. The reality is that there's a difference between circumcision and mutilation, and conflating the two is insulting to just about everyone involved, including the victims of mutilation.

 

[kellyb]

What's that matter, Joe?

I think Joe really, really likes his own circumcised penis.

If you say to an American male "Circumcision is genital mutilation" it might sound like "Your penis is screwed up!".

Quite understandably, dudes don't dig that.

 

[JoeEllison]

I think Joe really, really likes his own circumcised penis.

If you say to an American male "Circumcision is genital mutilation" it might sound like "Your penis is screwed up!".

Quite understandably, dudes don't dig that.

Weak attempt... you should know better than to attempt mind reading, especially here! I'm glad(?) you're thinking about my penis though.

 

[Marcus]

I thought the real reason circumcision was invented was to make it less convenient for boys to masturbate. It's easier when you have a foreskin to roll, minimising friction, over the glans. Without the foreskin you need to rub the glans directly, causing friction and requiring lubrication.

The Masturbation Defense! This is the first reasonable argument I've heard in opposition to circumcision. The frantic cries of "you're mutilating babies!" are just silly.

 

[kellyb]

Weak attempt... you should know better than to attempt mind reading, especially here! I'm glad(?) you're thinking about my penis though.

So you're not fond of your own penis in it's foreskinless state?

Or are you just going to say that, of course you are, but that has nothing to do with why you think circumcision is da bomb?

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is a huge thread about this already.

I'm not circumcised and the whole thing is, frankly, insane sounding to me. There aren't any statistics that bear out that this procedure is safer medically than doing nothing (look at the other thread plenty of cites).

Anyway look at the other thread before you cut off bits of your child for superstitious reasons. Loss Leader has been extremely upfront in that the only reason he's doing this is tradition. This seems like really the only logical reason to do it (and I personally wouldn't do it for that but I'm not part of the tradition he's a part of).

I would probably make it illegal except for medical necessity if I ruled the universe.

I could see someone who had a medicaly nessecary circumcision what to avoid having their child go through that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It solves the hygiene problem, and slightly helps avoid some STDs, and avoids the complications of phimosis, paraphimosis, stenosis.... people don't get circumcised as adults because it is a good time.

Well most of them

 

[kellyb]

I could see someone who had a medicaly nessecary circumcision what to avoid having their child go through that.

But how often does that happen in, say, Europe?

 

[I Ratant]

I worked with a guy that had it done in his 30s or so.
He was somewhat unhappy immediately thereafter the snip.
The bandage was way obvious in the men's room!
My sister had her son circumcised after birth.
I have no idea why.
Catholics (even lapsed ones) just don't do that!

 

[SeanDamnit]

Does anyone have a link to stats of the prevalence of circumcision? I have to be honest and say that this thread is the first time I've heard that it isn't a common procedure. I live in the US, and a quick (and I assure you unintentional :d) poll of the high school showers showed me that circumcision seemed pretty universal, with one or two people without it. Porno seems to show the same. First time I saw an uncircumcised penis I seriously thought something was wrong with the person.

I think this is an important for this kind of decision too - the social aspect. I think most will agree that adult circumcision isn't a good thing to do, unless necessary for whatever reason, but an adult can become self conscious about it if they perceive that they are not "normal" in an area that already gets it's fair share of self consciousness. If I weren't circumcised for example, I would arrange to get it done, and I would resent my parents for not getting it done when I was an infant.