The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[TheDaver]

What it comes down to is that the people who are arguing that you should cut up the human body need a better argument than "it's traditional." The default position is "don't chop off pieces of the body." Not hard to realize why that's the default.

[…]

Without that level of proof, I'm inclined to say "don't cut the body needlessly."

That really is end of discussion, IMO. If you want to chop up your own body later in life, your decision. Me, I think that poking holes in the body and cutting parts of it off is silly.

Agreed 100%.

I think, in general, for any act that’s irreversible, your reasons for action should be clear and significantly outweigh your reasons for inaction. Maybe I’m crazy, but it just seems like sound logic to me.

 

[volatile]

It certainly is not correct to suggest that circumcision is not harmful.

Circumcision removes not a useless flap of insensitive skin, but up to 50% of the mobile skin of the penis, including the Frenar Ridged Band, "the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response", as well as "the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture". (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

In other words, circumcision is far more destructive than people believe.

 

[JoeEllison]

It certainly is not correct to suggest that circumcision is not harmful.

Circumcision removes not a useless flap of insensitive skin, but up to 50% of the mobile skin of the penis, including the Frenar Ridged Band, "the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response", as well as "the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture". (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

In other words, circumcision is far more destructive than people believe.

...according to a fringe nutball group?

 

[volatile]

Word of advice: while defending the use of unnecessarily emotionally-charged language, it is best not to try to slip in some more unnecessarily emotionally-charged language.

No one has cut off the end of my penis, nor my sons'. And I darn sure wouldn't let them. The foreskin is not the end of the penis and you know it.

It's certainly not simply the removal of a pointless waste of dermis, either. Circumcision removes functional parts of the male anatomy, a large proportion of which are directly related to sexual pleasure.

I agree that it's not useful to pretend that circumcision is something that it isn't. But that comes from both sides of the debate.

 

[volatile]

...according to a fringe nutball group?

The British Medical journal is a fringe nutball group? The British Journal of Urology are a fringe, nutball group? The Journal of Investigative Dermatology?

Come on, Joe. You're usually the first one to see through rhetorical defences of things that have no basis in scientific fact - what's changed here?

Do you deny that circumcision removes the ridged band, or the Meissner's corpuscles? Or do you just deny that these zones are etrogenous, as medical science seems to show?

Where, in other words, is a reasonable rebuttal of the science which shows functional damage done by circumcision?

 

[Upchurch]

So, Upchurchs, after three pages what have you decided?

Mrs. Upchurch and I have dutifully been reading the entire thread. We will still talk to the doctor and what not, but we are still unconvinced that it is something we should do.

Ultimately, I don't think we will.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In other words, circumcision is far more destructive than people believe.

Part of the problem is that most people's understanding of female genital mutilation is generally limited to the most extreme types which I think the estimated figure is that they account for about 10% of procedures. Most female genital mutilation/cutting/circumcision involves removal of a small amount of tissue or other "minor" procedures to alter the genitals. All of which are very much on par with what we generally call circumcision in males.

If the word is appropriate for one it is for the other.

The only reason we do not generally use the term "male genital mutilation" is that it is a historically and culturally accepted practise in most of our societies. To object to ithe the comparison with FGM or the term MGM is a classic example of cultural relativism.

 

[Darat]

Remember that male genital mutilation practises arose when we did not have evidence based medicine. Indeed if it was not for holdovers from pre-scientific cultures we would not even be having this conversation since any overall benefit to male genital mutilation is so small that we would never have had the evidence to consider it was an appropriate intervention in the first place.

 

[volatile]

Part of the problem is that most people's understanding of female genital mutilation is generally limited to the most extreme types which I think the estimated figure is that they account for about 10% of procedures. Most female genital mutilation/cutting/circumcision involves removal of a small amount of tissue or other "minor" procedures to alter the genitals. All of which are very much on par with what we generally call circumcision in males.

If the word is appropriate for one it is for the other.

The only reason we do not generally use the term "male genital mutilation" is that it is a historically and culturally accepted practise in most of our societies. To object to ithe the comparison with FGM or the term MGM is a classic example of cultural relativism.

I agree entirely, though I think there is also a general idea that male circumcision does just remove a little flappy piece of useless skin, which is certainly not the case.

 

[kellyb]

Like I said earlier, the evidence the foreskin is sensitive is cited as a reason not to circumcise, but there is no data showing this has a dramatic effect on sexual pleasure or satisfaction. Circumcised men are not 'ruined'. In fact, for someone with premature ejaculation, maybe they would benefit from circumcision.

I never said they were ruined. Since the OP is American, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume he knows that circed penises are quite functional.

Notice the framing.

Is removing a fingernail an amputation as well?

No.

A circ may be more than a nail trim but it is not an amputation any more than a nail trim is an amputation.

Fingernails are DEAD. Would you honestly consider the removal of your female prepuce or labia similar, in any way, to trimming fingernails (or hair)?

Fingernails also grow back.

And human rights violation? So would that also apply to an elective tonsillectomy?

I'm not sure. There seems to be something uniquely immoral about removing children's sex organs (either gender) without their consent. But a mom who brings her kid to a surgeon for an elective (non-medically necessary) tonsillectomy would strike me as a weirdo, too.

 

[Fiona]

I had understood from JoeEllison's response that routine tonsillectomy is not done in the States, as it is not done here. Have I misunderstood? Do a lot of people choose to have their children's tonsils removed when there is no good medical reason for doing so ?

 

[Loss Leader]

Circumcision removes not a useless flap of insensitive skin, but up to 50% of the mobile skin of the penis, including the Frenar Ridged Band, "the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response", as well as "the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture". (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

And everything you wrote would matter if there were any evidence that males who were circumcised as infants experience any less sexual pleasure than uncircumcised males. Unfortunately for your argument, no such evidence exists. There is no evidence of greater sexual disfunction or lesser pleasure between the two groups. And, anexdotally, I can assure you that as a circumcised male, I manage to enjoy sex just fine.

Does the religious belief have to do with a parent giving their child a circumcision, or is it that a Jewish person needs a circumcision?

Um ... the rule in Conservative Judaism at least is that Jewish men should be circumcised. It is the parent's duty (and honor) to perform this ritual on the eighth day of life. However, if one is not circumcised as an infant (by unwilling parents or because one converts), one still has the obligation to be circumcised.

This having been said, I honsestly do not care if any particular Jewish man is circumcised or not. I don't consider him less Jewish. I don't condemn him for failing to carry out a religious obligation. I don't mind his choice at all. But Conservatives are easy that way. It is possible that a more orthodox community would react differently.

(As a random side note, is "Jew" an acceptable term? It's just that I grew up in a more... racist neck of the woods and the only time I heard the term was when it was used derogatorily, so I have always instinctively identified it as an inappropriate term.)

"Jewish" is acceptably non-derogatory when used in a non-derogatory manner.

"That Jew Paul isn't at work today," is offensive.

"Paul isn't at work today because it's Passover and he's Jewish," isn't.

 

[volatile]

And everything you wrote would matter if there were any evidence that males who were circumcised as infants experience any less sexual pleasure than uncircumcised males. Unfortunately for your argument, no such evidence exists. There is no evidence of greater sexual disfunction or lesser pleasure between the two groups. And, anexdotally, I can assure you that as a circumcised male, I manage to enjoy sex just fine.

I'm circumcised too... and have horrific memories of having it done as a child. That's by the by. Circumcision does not efface sexual sensitivity, but I think it's pretty clear just looking at the biological mechanics of the procedure that it reduces it. Circumcision removes functional, sensitive tissue - by definition, it is reducing sensitivity. There is a widely-held misconception that the foreskin is a useles slither of skin; I think it's important to remind people that it actually comprises up to 50% of the penile skin, is extraordinarily dense with nerve endings, and functions mechanically to create sensations to boot.

I find it slightly bizarre that you accept both that circumcision removes a large amount of sensitive tissue (and motile tissue that interacts with other sensitive tissue), and that there is no difference in sensitivity or sensation between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis.

Surely that's pretty internally inconsistent as far as positions go?

Also: would you be defending this practice if it weren't a Jewish one?

 

[Marcus]

Since the risks on both sides are small and offsetting, we are left with the following two postulates, (others I reject as being false, such as the glans being rendered insensitive, or dry, hard , and keratinized)

-The foreskin makes masturbation easier.

-Women prefer circumcised organs.

A tossup. I will go with circumcision, as that is the cultural norm here.

 

[volatile]

The most recent study I could find: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

"The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.
CONCLUSIONS

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

 

[Fiona]

-Women prefer circumcised organs.

I still haven't seen any evidence for this at all

 

[Vic Vega]

I'm circumcised too... and have horrific memories of having it done as a child.

If you were circumcised as an older child, I would imagine that you would have pretty nasty memories of it.

If you say you remember being circumcised as a newborn, you're either a liar or you're delusional.

 

[Rasmus]

I still haven't seen any evidence for this at all

Plus, what does it matter?

Women in generally prefer tall men, but it is not generally accepted to break male babies legs to make them grow more.

 

[logical muse]

I mentioned in an earlier post that there exists a procedure for trimming or removing the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood covers and protects the clitoral glans, much like the foreskin covers and protects the penis glans (or so I'm led to believe).

Why are we not discussing clitoral hood trimming/removal? Upchurch, if you were having a daughter instead of a son, would you consider trimming or removing the clitoral hood? If not, why not? Again, let me stress that this procedure is limited solely to the clitoral hood (prepuce), not the clitoris glans or any other part of the anatomy.

 

[kellyb]

Mrs. Upchurch and I have dutifully been reading the entire thread. We will still talk to the doctor and what not, but we are still unconvinced that it is something we should do.

Ultimately, I don't think we will.

Good.

In Europe, almost no one circumcises (in infancy or adulthood), but in the US, because circ was really popular until recently, it "feels" like you're stepping outside of the norm not doing it. I remember feeling really ambivalent about our decision to not do it when my son was a little baby, but before long, you realise what a total non-issue it is. It doesn't require any fancy "care" or anything, doesn't make their penis rot off or anything, doesn't look weird, etc.
Leaving your baby whole is one parenting decision you will feel nothing but good about. Well, maybe that and breastfeeding...but nursing is tough and doesn't always work out, whereas not circumcising is as simple as telling the nurse "No, we're not" when she asks.