The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

skeptigirl said:
I try not to ignore evidence. But you certainly are a mite impatient.

Since you are on a roll here, how about posting the evidence I originally asked for? That is the evidence that male circumcision is as harmful as the anti-circ activists claim it is.
Click to expand...

I did. You missed it. Here it is:

Ivor said:
Skeptigirl said:
I'm still waiting for that evidence of harm, Ivor. You didn't post any in the last 40+ page thread either if I recall.
Click to expand...
You and I both know there will never be any evidence of infant circumcision causing harm because there is no way of creating a control group for such a subjective measure (unless you know of a way to access parallel worlds).

What does exist is reports of adult circumcision making masturbation more difficult and loss of pleasure. It is reasonable to assume this is also true for infant circumcision.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x
Click to expand...
 
Ivor said:
What does exist is reports of adult circumcision making masturbation more difficult and loss of pleasure. It is reasonable to assume this is also true for infant circumcision.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't.
 
Darat said:
Why is removing nerve rich tissue from genitals so different when it is male then when it female?
Click to expand...
It really isn't. As noted previously, the female equivalent of male circumcision is a hoodectomy which is commonly performed to INCREASE sexual pleasure. After all, the genitals are where the pleasure generally comes from, not the skin covering it.

Of course I am not saying that they are exactly comparable however the differences are not as large as most people who defend males being chopped but don't defend women being chopped seem to want to make it out to be.
Click to expand...
Again, you're conflating things that are not the same.
 
skeptigirl said:
If additional research supported this finding I would support type 1 female circumcision in high HIV prevalence areas. The problem here Ivor is in regard to male circumcision and HIV there were many studies including prospective randomized clinical trials before the conclusion was drawn that the observed effect was real. In addition, the route of HIV entry through cells in the foreskin was well documented. For women, the corresponding surface area is minuscule, the route of entry is likely the vaginal mucosa and/or the cervix and uterus, and there is an additional risk of getting HIV from the procedure that is not necessarily going to be outweighed by the benefit of the number of cases prevented.

More research, fine. A conclusion already, I think not.
Click to expand...

The evidence is conflicting wrt Langerhans cells being the mechanism behind circumcision's effect on HIV.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/abs/nm1541.html

It has generally been assumed that LCs mediate the transmission of HIV-1 to T cells through the C-type lectin Langerin, similarly to transmission by DC-SIGN on dendritic cells (DCs). Here we show that in stark contrast to DC-SIGN, Langerin prevents HIV-1 transmission by LCs. HIV-1 captured by Langerin was internalized into Birbeck granules and degraded. Langerin inhibited LC infection and this mechanism kept LCs refractory to HIV-1 transmission; inhibition of Langerin allowed LC infection and subsequent HIV-1 transmission. Notably, LCs also inhibited T-cell infection by viral clearance through Langerin. Thus Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function.
Click to expand...


The evidence suggesting that active herpes sores assist in the transmission of HIV is well established, and both male and female circumcision would "work" to reduce that aspect.

Male circumcision has also been shown to transmit HIV when done under unhygenic conditions, so you're also in the same boat there with both genders.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1047279706002651

Circumcised male and female virgins were substantially more likely to be HIV infected than uncircumcised virgins (Kenyan females: 3.2% vs. 1.4%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.38; Kenyan males: 1.8% vs. 0%, OR undefined; Lesothoan males: 6.1% vs. 1.9%, OR 3.36; Tanzanian males: 2.9% vs. 1.0%, OR 2.99; weighted mean phi correlation = 0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.11). Among adolescents, regardless of sexual experience, circumcision was just as strongly associated with prevalent HIV infection. However, uncircumcised adults were more likely to be HIV positive than circumcised adults. Self-reported sexual experience was independently related to HIV infection in adolescent Kenyan females, but was unrelated to HIV infection in adolescent Kenyan, Lesothoan, and Tanzanian males.

Conclusions
HIV transmission may occur through circumcision-related blood exposures in eastern and southern Africa.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
I think you mean:

"Yes, it is, but I don't want it to be true so I'll deny it."
Click to expand...


No, I mean it isn't. It is not reasonable to assume that because there is some incidence of difficulty masturbating and loss of pleasure after adult circumcision, that the same is true of infant circumcision. It is unreasonable. It is not based on reason.

I can think of ten objective experiments you could do to confirm this if it were at all true. Here's one: Ask a bunch of college students to masturbate and have them record their times, then ask them if they're circumcised or not. Crunch the data.

That's a simple experiment. It's cheap, it's easy and it's objective. If your "reasonable" assumption is true, it will show up in this experiment clearly.

Only, it won't show up because it's not true.

Why philosophise when you can just test? My reasonable conclusion is that it is because you know that testing will show you to be wrong and you don't want to create evidence of your epic failure.

Can you think of nine other objective experiments to test your "reasonable" assumption? I can.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
I can think of ten objective experiments you could do to confirm this if it were at all true. Here's one: Ask a bunch of college students to masturbate and have them record their times, then ask them if they're circumcised or not. Crunch the data.
Click to expand...

Wait, what the hell does time have to do with this?
 
Loss Leader said:
No, I mean it isn't. It is not reasonable to assume that because there is some incidence of difficulty masturbating and loss of pleasure after adult circumcision, that the same is true of infant circumcision. It is unreasonable. It is not based on reason.

I can think of ten objective experiments you could do to confirm this if it were at all true. Here's one: Ask a bunch of college students to masturbate and have them record their times, then ask them if they're circumcised or not. Crunch the data.

That's a simple experiment. It's cheap, it's easy and it's objective. If your "reasonable" assumption is true, it will show up in this experiment clearly.

Only, it won't show up because it's not true.

Why philosophise when you can just test? My reasonable conclusion is that it is because you know that testing will show you to be wrong and you don't want to create evidence of your epic failure.

Can you think of nine other objective experiments to test your "reasonable" assumption? I can.
Click to expand...

How can you test for what might have been? The experimenter and the subjects have no baseline to judge the level of satisfaction or difficulty against. I might think McDonalds' Big Mac is great if I've never tried Burger King's Big Whopper.

The evidence is that the vast majority of uncircumcised men, except for medical reasons, do not elect to be circumcised; the loss of a foreskin substantially changes the mechanics of and sensations from masturbation; men who have had experience of both states tend to find masturbation easier and more pleasurable with a foreskin than without.
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
How can you test for what might have been? The experimenter and the subjects have no baseline to judge the level of satisfaction or difficulty against.
Click to expand...


Are you arguing that difficulty masturbating does not necessarily mean that the act of masturbation would take more time?
 
skeptigirl said:
If you felt the evidence noncompelling, then say so. You claimed there was only a single argument and that was tradition. That is dishonest.

Are you qualified to claim your assessment of the medical risk and benefit is superior to the medical professionals who don't agree with you?

BTW, no one is arguing for circumcision to prevent HIV in low prevalence areas. That is a straw man.
Click to expand...
Okay, let me modify my statement then:

There is no evidence suggesting circumcision is a good idea outside of Africa.

It might be a good idea for Africa, but I think a solid education program and more condom distribution would help a lot more.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
Ah yes, religion :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, a strange religious mandate, too.

"I belong to this religion, therefore, I must surgically alter my son's genitals in accordance with my religion's demands."

Personally, I would distinguish between things I do to and for myself and things I to do and for a helpless child.
 
Last edited:
We're left with too objections, aren't we?

The first, Skeptigirl's main one, is "It's not really that bad". This seems to contradict any sensible reading of the medical literature, which explains at length the sensational and functional components of the male foreskin and its role in sexual intercourse. If you remove a huge chunk of sensitive tissue, sensation is reduced. Recent studies seem to confirm this rather obvious statement.

The second, which seems prevalent in LossLeader's posts and might be paraphrased as something like "Those circumcised in infancy won't know any different anyway" is similarly absurd, but far more troubling. Such a justification could be used to support any number of horrific behaviours carried out on infants, and as such strikes me as an extraordinarily bad argument.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Yeah and the same goes for all the vaccinations we give our kids, seatbelts, smoke alarms, and a gazillion other things. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing the so-called "medical benefits" of circumcision with the benefits of vaccinations, seatbelts and smoke alarms, or did I miss something? :eek:

skeptigirl said:
An adult is past the point where there would be a medical benefit unless there was some specific issue. So your comparison is not valid. It is the infant and young child that has the greater risk of UTI and potential serious complications.
Click to expand...
But that's not what Joe was saying. He was saying that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin and he doesn't care about having it or not.

Loss Leader said:
My children weren't helpless. I was helping them.
Click to expand...
Helping them with what, exactly?
 
volatile said:
We're left with two objections, aren't we?

(...)

The second, which (...) might be paraphrased as something like "Those circumcised in infancy won't know any different anyway" is similarly absurd, but far more troubling.
Click to expand...

Agreed... Not well thought out either... Most people are of course perfectly satisfied with their lot, but really, who would turn down a free extra bit of sexual organ?

Plus when a guy's intact there is a certain type of sex that takes place in a certain location which is much less of a pain in the, uh...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom