The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You've taken my post out of the context in which it was pointing out the absence of mention of any medical studies of which there were many.

However, other than the one study Ivor posted showing no effect on anything except masturbation, and the physiology that there are sexual nerve endings in the foreskin which is not in question, care to post a list of those links? Because I don't recall many and I'd hate to be suffering selective memory here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.
Those with poor hygiene are supposed to be -improved- with a major operation and scar where they already have shown a lack of interest in maintaining cleanliness in the first place?
Nothing like turning a "simple operation" into gangrene and amputation!

Did you not understand my post?

If all one needed to do was increase baths, then show us that data. I do not believe the variable has been carefully studied and perhaps it should be. But the data showing the different rate of UTIs in circumcised and uncircumcised infants has been collected. I have to go by the data, not by speculation.

 

[Olowkow]

Posted by Skeptigirl:

Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in ... Also widespread is the belief that circumcision leads to reduced incidence of STIs achieved through improved hygiene, reduction in the number and severity of scratches, tears and abrasions to which the foreskin is susceptible and through earlier detection of ulcers, leading to earlier treatment.

The link requires registration.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that the foreskin is subject to scratches, tears, and abrasions in a way that the bare glans is not, but what would I know. I'm just one guy who has never scratched, torn, or abraded mine. I'm sure thousands of others have. Had poison ivy down there once....that was no fun.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The scientific evidence is that circumcision in infants provides no benefits in excess of the risks, including infection and irreperable damage. Circumcision in adults is far less risky, yet it remains an unpopular procedure.

Goodness, you just completely ignored the scientific research and made this up.

Actually, circumcision is less risky in infancy because a growing child heals much faster than an adult. And I've already posted the evidence your other claims here are just made up.

 

[JoeEllison]

Joe is also neutral, if I recall.

This tells us you see two positions, against circumcision or other.

That's right. I'm definitely in the middle, and can see the validity of arguments on both sides. If someone sees neutrality as bias towards something, that tells us that they are pretty extreme.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The link requires registration.

I hate that site. It always lets you see the first page then blocks everything else. Here's the Google search page, try linking it from there, about 3/4 down the page to this link:

Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in ... In an analysis of 13 studies from 9 African countries, ... Acceptability of adult male circumcision for sexually transmitted disease and HIV prevention in ... www.medscape.com/viewarticle/556572_3 - Similar pages

Somehow I find it hard to believe that the foreskin is subject to scratches, tears, and abrasions in a way that the bare glans is not, but what would I know. I'm just one guy who has never scratched, torn, or abraded mine. I'm sure thousands of others have. Had poison ivy down there once....that was no fun.

Not sure what this refers to. The HIV prevention is not due to preventing torn foreskin, it is believed to be due to the fact the cells in the foreskin are directly entered by the HIV.

 

[Olowkow]

Not all uncircumcised boys get UTIs and not all efforts to keep the area clean are sufficient.

What mechanism for causing UTI's are you therefore suggesting? Cleaning is not enough, but somehow circumcision is the answer...sorry I'm confused. Where do these UTI's come from?

 

[Olowkow]

I hate that site. It always lets you see the first page then blocks everything else. Here's the Google search page, try linking it from there, about 3/4 down the page to this link.
Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in ... In an analysis of 13 studies from 9 African countries, ... Acceptability of adult male circumcision for sexually transmitted disease and HIV prevention in ... www.medscape.com/viewarticle/556572_3 - Similar pages

Not sure what this refers to. The HIV prevention is no[t] due to tears, it is believed to be due to the fact the cells in the foreskin are directly entered by the HIV.

That is the very first time I have ever heard of that. I think it is time for some skepticism. Sorry, that is really a stretch for me. I would think the urethra would be a much better entry point.

Also, "acceptability" has little to do with anything when arguing the need for such a procedure.

Just curious, why are you so pro circumcision?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not so sure. Hope this has not already been posted:
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Everything you want to know about the subject:
http://www.cirp.org
I have no idea if the writers had any agenda or not, but I have read the same elsewhere:

An obvious and very important consideration, especially on the wedding night.

There is much more information on this site.

I'll get back to these. At first glance I don't see a lot. No one is arguing the foreskin isn't innervated and sexual. The argument is just how much that matters.

But I will look at the bibliography more closely later. This is enough time on this never ending subject for now.

 

[Olowkow]

I'll get back to these. At first glance I don't see a lot. No one is arguing the foreskin isn't innervated and sexual. The argument is just how much that matters.

But I will look at the bibliography more closely later. This is enough time on this never ending subject for now.

Oh, it matters, mechanically. It's like a "backup plan", if the other fails. And yes, amen for tonight.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Goodness, you just completely ignored the scientific research and made this up.

Actually, circumcision is less risky in infancy because a growing child heals much faster than an adult. And I've already posted the evidence your other claims here are just made up.

The evidence provided in this thread which I have read does not support your claims.

Let's reiterate what risks there are to circumcision in infants.

From WebMd.

* Damage to the opening of the urethra, which leads from the bladder to the tip of the penis (meatal stenosis).
* Loss of sensitivity in the penis. Some men who were circumcised have reported a loss of sexual sensation in the penis.
* Scarring of the penis from infection or surgical error. For example:
o The entire foreskin may not be removed, leaving portions of it attached to the penis (skin bridge). This may cause pain during erection.
o Scar tissue can grow outward toward the tip of the penis from the cut edge of the foreskin. Repeat surgery on the penis may be required to improve appearance or to allow normal passage of urine if the opening from the bladder has been blocked by this scar tissue.
o The outer skin layer (or layers) of the penis may be removed accidentally.
o An opening that is too small for the foreskin to retract over the penis (phimosis) can occur if too little foreskin is removed.

Major complications are extremely rare but can include:2, 3

* A complete removal of the skin covering the shaft of the penis, causing the penis to appear to have been completely surgically removed (concealed penis).
* Excessive bleeding. Stitches may be required to stop the bleeding.
* Serious, life-threatening bacterial infection in body tissue and the blood (sepsis).
* Partial or full removal (amputation) of the tip of the penis (extremely rare).

 

[NewtonTrino]

Yeah the more I think about this the more I think the procedure is just nuts.

Joe and Skeptigirl, I don't want to attack you just your arguments. You both come across as very pro circ though.

I personally would like to see a lot more research in this area because it is my OPINION based on my uncirc'd body that this procedure does in fact cause damage. I think the damange (other than the obvious stuff) is going to be hard to ferret out and design a study due to the inherent bias men are going to have that they are "just fine".

I'm not convinced at all that stopping UTI's makes any sense at all as we went down this route in the other thread and it seems clear that UTI's just aren't that great a reason to do this. The HIV thing is really a side issue to me because that isn't going to be an issue in most western countries.

The aesthetics argument is, of course, silly.

The religion argument can't be argued with and I certainly wouldn't make circ illegal at this point. If more studies did point to sexual damage then I would probably want to make it illegal though.

So bottom line, we just need way way more info on this. My gut says it's worse than common knowledge says but we just don't have the proof yet. Bah humbug

And Joe, I didn't seriously expect you to take us up. I am curious about how much revulsion you feel to the idea though.

 

[rocketdodger]

Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in ...(emphasis mine)

Is this supposed to advance your argument? Because as far as I can tell it advances mine.

Why, exactly, are these men allowing themselves to be circumcised? Could it have something to do with them being terrified of an epidemic in their environment, and their uneducated belief that circumcision will somehow protect them from that epidemic? According to that study you cited ... yes.

 

[skeptifem]

I'm not convinced at all that stopping UTI's makes any sense at all as we went down this route in the other thread and it seems clear that UTI's just aren't that great a reason to do this. The HIV thing is really a side issue to me because that isn't going to be an issue in most western countries.

i agree. its occured to me that its been said in this thread that the only time that a uti is very serious (with proper treatment) is when its an infant, but the procedure is permanent. the UTI prevention is the only benefit i have taken seriously at all, but considering that its a 1% chance and only for a brief period of time............ severing nerves over that? I just dont understand. the window of time that the potential benefit is valuable is so small.

 

[Rasmus]

Joe is also neutral, if I recall.

This tells us you see two positions, against circumcision or other.

No.

This is solely about "circumcision isn't a big deal".

If it really isn't a big deal, there should be quote a few adults electing to become circumcised without good cause - just like many people get tattoos, eat ice cream or play domino without good cause.

If it really isn't a big deal, then getting a circumcision on a dare shouldn't be much of a problem, either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Commentary:
For the last 11 pages or so, the pro-circ crowd has been going on about how “circumcision isn’t all that bad” and completely refusing to provide evidence of any benefit.

Another post that completely ignores the American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement based on their very thorough review of the medical research. Unbelievable!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No.

This is solely about "circumcision isn't a big deal".

How does this differ from what I said, the anti-circ crowd sees no place for someone who is neither pro nor con?

If it really isn't a big deal, there should be quote a few adults electing to become circumcised without good cause - just like many people get tattoos, eat ice cream or play domino without good cause.

If it really isn't a big deal, then getting a circumcision on a dare shouldn't be much of a problem, either.

This argument is fallacious. It reflects what I have said repeatedly, since there is not a good case against circumcision given the evidence, the anti-circ arguments use these emotional appeals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

i agree. its occured to me that its been said in this thread that the only time that a uti is very serious (with proper treatment) is when its an infant, but the procedure is permanent. the UTI prevention is the only benefit i have taken seriously at all, but considering that its a 1% chance and only for a brief period of time............ severing nerves over that? I just dont understand. the window of time that the potential benefit is valuable is so small.

If your child died from that UTI or suffered serious kidney damage, that would be permanent as well. In an infant, an infection in the GU tract can progress to an infection in the bloodstream and can be fatal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this supposed to advance your argument? Because as far as I can tell it advances mine.

Why, exactly, are these men allowing themselves to be circumcised? Could it have something to do with them being terrified of an epidemic in their environment, and their uneducated belief that circumcision will somehow protect them from that epidemic? According to that study you cited ... yes.

Bringing this point back to Earth and down from your emotional appeal, your claim was, why weren't adult men getting circumcised?

The benefit in low HIV prevalence areas is in infants, so clearly adults would not need one. But when there was a medical benefit, guess what? The loss of some sexual sensation was not significant enough to matter.

You can distort this all you want, but those are the facts. Your argument is not convincing. It is simply emotional appeal.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Is this supposed to advance your argument? Because as far as I can tell it advances mine.

Why, exactly, are these men allowing themselves to be circumcised? Could it have something to do with them being terrified of an epidemic in their environment, and their uneducated belief that circumcision will somehow protect them from that epidemic? According to that study you cited ... yes.

Bolded part being the critical difference. While I still think circumcision in Africa for HIV prevention is not going to work the way those who promote it think it will, if men are freely choosing it based on accurate information, and it is not impacting other proven prevention strategies, I would have no problem with it. Unfortunately, this is not happening. Circumcision is expensive, being over-hyped, the level of protection it offers misunderstood, and perhaps worse of all, boys and men are being coerced into being circumcised. But hey, it's only a little bit of skin, right?