The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Tsuka are you really that eager to start a dialogue with me? After insulting me? I'm not interested.

Cheers.

Take your ball and go home.

I would think so. I think people are making too big a deal of this. The conflict arises when the cultural norm is one way and people don't conform. And yes we all know that conformity is not good. We've all seen The Dead Poets Society. Of course its very easy to talk about the fact that women should not care or to raise all this shocked and stunned arguments yadda yadda.

But to actual parents this isn't a philosophical discussion on an online message board. In real life things are different.

In the real world you took a lot of time to say nothing.

I mean why not argue then that a parent shouldn't care if their child is over eating because any decent woman would love a man no matter how fat he is.

False analogy. Maybe when most parents worry about their kids over-eating, they aren't concerned about their future ability to find a mate.

Just maybe.

This kind of thinking is what I perceive as extraordinarily narrow minded and selfish.

Like circumcising your child because you don't want to have to worry about for too long?

The idea that a parents view is the one that matters is no different than arguing that the supposed child's view that no one yet knows but presumably is going to be opposite of what the parent wants should be honored.

False dichotomy.

The point has been raised about how devasting it would be to a man to realize that someone else decided how his penis should look. All well and good in theory.

But in reality the social norm is generally circumcized in the US. A penis, when depicted in media for example is generally depicted as circumsized. This is what a "penis" looks like. So NOT to circumsize is choosing what the penis is going to look like as well.

Hm, I expect most people who have taken Moral Dilemmas 101 would disagree here. The result of an inaction is ethically distinct from the result of an action.

In a more base approach, choosing not to circumcise is letting the child choose what his penis will look like.

Also, as has been pointed out, half of kids today are uncircumcised. Do you really think the social norm does not change from generation to generation?

What I wonder is if I was a man and my parents had made the decision not to circumsize based on the idea that I wouldn't want it, well if I was a guy I'd want a circumsized penis because I think it looks nicer. If my parents had not gotten it done I'd be annoyed because its much easier to do it as a newborn than as an adult. I'd be pissed that they allowed their flakey new age sentiments to get in the way of common sense.

Then it would be rather easy to fix, and under your control to get rid of your foreskin.

Now what if it was vice versa?

What I wonder is if I was a man and my parents had made the decision to circumsize based on the idea that I would want it, well if I was a guy I wouldn't want a circumsized penis because I think it is an unnecessary, cosmetic surgery. If my parents had gotten it done I'd be annoyed because now I don't have a foreskin. I'd be pissed that they allowed their irrational, cultural sentiments to get in the way of common sense, like not chopping off a bit of your child's penis so that it is easier for him to get action with the ladies.

There's a million ways to look at this argument. None of them are more righteous than the others.

And we live in a monotone world of grey. ID and evolution are equally valid theories.

 

[osmosis]

So NOT to circumsize is choosing what the penis is going to look like as well.

Then, by your logic, by not killing you today, I have decided your fate tomorrow.

 

[Gravy]

It's much higher in Brooklyn, NY and Dearborn, MI

Q: Why do Jewish men get circumcised?

A: Because Jewish women can't resist anything that's 10% off!

Ba-da-bump!

 

[Shuggy]

I don't know. Some people certainly have decided opinions on this topic, and that you went to the trouble of attempting to research the idea suggests you at least had an interest (which often also suggests an opinion).

We are in New Zealand, our parents were subjected to the pressure to circumcise, and we lived through its decline. We have an opinion about the usefulness of circumcision, we have no opinion about the historical facts. Again, why should we?

There were other, more valid, alternate explanations for the data you presented. That you chose instead to draw conclusions that weren't really supported by the evidence, suggests a pre-existing bias.

Interesting you claim to know more about the history of circumcision in NZ than we do, without presenting any evidence at all. Have you read the paper, or just the presentation? (Have you read the whole presentation?)

Then wouldn't it have been useful to attempt to document doctors promoting circumcision, in particular, promoting it prior to its common use? It's not like there weren't other influential institutions that could have influenced its use, with doctors merely riding the wave.

There was one, the Plunket Society, and we document how the Plunket nurses seem to have promoted circumcision contrary to the advice of its head, a doctor. What others did you have in mind? You do realise that the population of New Zealand in 1900 was about 540,000, and in 1950, 1,900,000?

Word of mouth was far more important than printed documents, especially on a topic about which respectable people only spoke in the most guarded terms.

And when declines in the rate of circumcision are preceded by years to decades of physician disapproval without apparent effect (we have examples from other countries as well), how do you determine that 'this time' it worked? I can appreciate that this is a dynamic process, but why ignore the more direct association with changes in whether it is done at public expense?

We don't.

 

[Shuggy]

You've missed the point of the analogy. The analogy is with respect to what drives the use (physician promotion vs. patient request), not as to the benefits of the procedure (I'm not sure why you even thought that).

The benefits of a procedure are usually the main thing driving its use. I can't see any other analogy between cutting part of a healthy baby's genitals off and prescribing a drug to prevent pregnancy. When The Pill was announced in the media in the 1960s, women began asking their doctors for it. There never been any need for doctors to push it. The "benefits" of circumcision to prevent masturbation were not announced in 19th century newspapers, but in obscure medical textbooks and journals. Please clarify.

It does not help your case that you refer to circumstitions.com. The information provided at that site has been chosen to present a biased, rather than objective perspective.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective perspective about circumcision. The nearest thing we can get to that is a "Martian" perspective, approaching it as if we had never heard of it before. From that perspective, it's unbelievably outlandish, especially the way it has become "normal" in so many societies. Perhaps your problem is that you are looking at the site from an "Earthling" (circumcised is normal, foreskin is extra, natural whole penis is "uncircumcised") perspective.

The site itself says

This site does not pretend to be "balanced". The case for circumcision has been made daily for decades in public media such as TV sitcoms, magazine articles, by medical "authorities" and by word of mouth. Now, thanks to the Internet, the opposition has a chance to be heard uninterrupted. This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it.

.

I'm a physician who thinks that boys should not be routinely circumcised, and that physicians have a duty to discourage the practice

I'm really glad to hear that, and may there be many more of you.

(for which I have been lambasted by other health care providers ),

So I don't know why you're so skeptical about our claim that the rise and fall of circumcision in New Zealand in the 20th century was mainly doctor-driven.

but that doesn't mean I think it is reasonable to present biased and sometimes frankly inaccurate information for the sake of supporting my cause.

Please let me know what "frankly inaccurate" information it contains, and I'll, um, pass it on to the webmaster.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I would think so. I think people are making too big a deal of this. The conflict arises when the cultural norm is one way and people don't conform. And yes we all know that conformity is not good. We've all seen The Dead Poets Society. Of course its very easy to talk about the fact that women should not care or to raise all this shocked and stunned arguments yadda yadda.

But to actual parents this isn't a philosophical discussion on an online message board. In real life things are different.

Is the status of a boy's or man's penis a big deal where you live? As Linda has already said, would you want your son to get involved with a woman so shallow she rejects him based on his circumcision status?

I mean why not argue then that a parent shouldn't care if their child is over eating because any decent woman would love a man no matter how fat he is. This kind of thinking is what I perceive as extraordinarily narrow minded and selfish. The idea that a parents view is the one that matters is no different than arguing that the supposed child's view that no one yet knows but presumably is going to be opposite of what the parent wants should be honored.

Not at all. The idea is that because the child is incapable of making an informed choice, the choice should be delayed until he can. What's the rush? You're free to tell your son how horrible you think his penis looks until he is of an age to make the choice for himself.

The point has been raised about how devasting it would be to a man to realize that someone else decided how his penis should look. All well and good in theory.

But in reality the social norm is generally circumcized in the US. A penis, when depicted in media for example is generally depicted as circumsized. This is what a "penis" looks like. So NOT to circumsize is choosing what the penis is going to look like as well.

No, it isn't. Not circumcising allows your son the choice of how his penis is going to look and function. Circumcising him as a child removes that choice.

What I wonder is if I was a man and my parents had made the decision not to circumsize based on the idea that I wouldn't want it, well if I was a guy I'd want a circumsized penis because I think it looks nicer. If my parents had not gotten it done I'd be annoyed because its much easier to do it as a newborn than as an adult. I'd be pissed that they allowed their flakey new age sentiments to get in the way of common sense.

What "new age sentiments" would they be? The vast majority of men who are left intact as children do not choose to get circumcised as adults.

Not circumcising is not assuming anything about what your son might or might not want. It is giving him freedom over how his body looks and functions.

What looks nicer about a circumcised penis? When erect it's quite difficult to see any significant difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Check out the pictures on this page, about 1/3rd the way down on the right.

There's a million ways to look at this argument. None of them are more righteous than the others.

Do you value having choice over how your body looks and functions?

 

[fls]

We are in New Zealand, our parents were subjected to the pressure to circumcise, and we lived through its decline. We have an opinion about the usefulness of circumcision, we have no opinion about the historical facts. Again, why should we?

I did not say that you had an opinion about the historical facts. I stated the conclusions (specifically, that circumcision was driven in and out by doctors) you drew were not supported by the historical facts that you presented. I cannot speak as to whether your presentation of the facts is biased (only that it is obviously incomplete in the referenced article), as I don't know anything about the history of circumcision in New Zealand.

Interesting you claim to know more about the history of circumcision in NZ than we do, without presenting any evidence at all.

Where did that come from? At no point did I claim to know anything about the history of circumcision in New Zealand. This is why I struggle with your conclusion. The only facts available to me (at the time I read the article) were what you presented, so it becomes confusing when what you present does not match up with what you conclude.

Have you read the paper, or just the presentation? (Have you read the whole presentation?)

I read the article at the link provided earlier.

There was one, the Plunket Society, and we document how the Plunket nurses seem to have promoted circumcision contrary to the advice of its head, a doctor.

I think you did a decent job of showing that the Plunket nurses promoted circumcision contrary to the advice of its head, a doctor. However, I am baffled as to why you think that shows that doctors promoted circumcision.

What others did you have in mind?

I don't know. Wasn't that what you were supposed to be doing when writing the article - finding the relevant information?

You do realise that the population of New Zealand in 1900 was about 540,000, and in 1950, 1,900,000?

How is this relevant?

Word of mouth was far more important than printed documents, especially on a topic about which respectable people only spoke in the most guarded terms.

I appreciate that the information available to you was scanty.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not New Zealand, but close enough to be relevant:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.ne...ent&task=category&sectionid=6&id=71&Itemid=50

Where the Australian experience differs most markedly from the British is in the long survival of routine circumcision – which reached its peak incidence at over 80 per cent per cent of boys in the 1950s – after Gairdner's debunking of "congenital phimosis". The reasons for this have not been studied, but it may be related to the increased influence of US medical advice (particularly Benjamin Spock's Baby and child care) as a result of the Second World War, and the substantially greater incidence of the procedure at that point, meaning that there was a higher peak from which to descend, more mothers not knowing how to look after a foreskinned penis, and more circumcised fathers not wanting their sons to look different. Although Gairdner's paper was approvingly discussed as early as 1953, it was not until the late 1960s that it really made an impact, and not until 1971 that the Australian Paediatric Association decided to recommend that "male infants should not, as a routine, be circumcised". This policy was cautiously endorsed by the Medical Journal of Australia, and the incidence of circumcision then fell steadily to its current low of about 12 per cent. The trend was accelerated by a stronger statement issued by the Australian College of Paediatrics in 1983 and slowed down by a weaker and rather equivocal one which mysteriously appeared in 1996. It is likely that the detailed policy issued by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in 2002, confirming the original stance that there is no medical justification for routine circumcision, will lead to the resumption of the declining trend.

The sequence observed, therefore, is that routine circumcision began slowly as a doctor-driven innovation; became established in the medical repertoire and spread rapidly; and then declined slowly as doctors ceased to recommend it, but parents, having absorbed the advice of the generation before, and many fathers themselves being circumcised, continued to ask for it. Even today surveys find that a high proportion of young mothers of British origin, especially those living in country areas, continue to expect their sons to be circumcised and are resentful when doctors refuse to do it. A significant factor in the decline of circumcision in the 1960s – before the paediatricians took a stand – was the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from non-circumcising European countries, most of whom settled in the cities; a recent study in Western Australia found a higher incidence of circumcision in country areas, with their greater proportion of older Anglo-Celtic stock, than in major urban centres, with their more multicultural and better educated populations.

 

[fls]

The benefits of a procedure are usually the main thing driving its use. I can't see any other analogy between cutting part of a healthy baby's genitals off and prescribing a drug to prevent pregnancy.

The request for the pill is driven by the desire for non-procreative sex. The pill is seen as a safe and effective way to achieve the non-procreative part. The request for circumcision is driven by the desire of the parents for their son to be circumcised. Asking a doctor to do it is seen as a safe and hygienic way to achieve this. The request for circumcision by the parents isn't based upon the perceived medical benefits, but upon cultural considerations.

When The Pill was announced in the media in the 1960s, women began asking their doctors for it. There never been any need for doctors to push it. The "benefits" of circumcision to prevent masturbation were not announced in 19th century newspapers, but in obscure medical textbooks and journals. Please clarify.

I'm talking about the present, rather than the circumstances over a hundred years ago (unless you are prepared to present an argument that it is relevant). Doctors (to the extent that they form a cohesive group) don't promote non-procreative sex and they don't promote circumcision, but they will provide safe and effective means of achieving those things, upon request.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective perspective about circumcision.

I agree. I am suggesting that under those circumstances, it is preferable to make the attempt than to wallow in your biases.

The nearest thing we can get to that is a "Martian" perspective, approaching it as if we had never heard of it before. From that perspective, it's unbelievably outlandish, especially the way it has become "normal" in so many societies. Perhaps your problem is that you are looking at the site from an "Earthling" (circumcised is normal, foreskin is extra, natural whole penis is "uncircumcised") perspective.

I am truly sorry that you see my suggestion that you provide information that supports your conclusion as a "problem".

The site itself says.

This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it.

But it really shouldn't be a surprise that it fails, right?

I'm really glad to hear that, and may there be many more of you.

So I don't know why you're so skeptical about our claim that the rise and fall of circumcision in New Zealand in the 20th century was mainly doctor-driven.

Um, because I don't know anything about New Zealand specifically, you have not relieved my ignorance with the information you have provided, and it is inconsistent with my pre-existing knowledge of the rise and fall of circumcision in other countries (Canada and the US, for example).

Please let me know what "frankly inaccurate" information it contains, and I'll, um, pass it on to the webmaster.

I suppose that was to let me know that I've put my foot in it and that you or someone close to you is the webmaster. Haven't you already made it pretty clear that you are not really interested in taking this under consideration?

Linda

 

[fls]

Apparently a little Skepticism 101 is in order.

Using the tools of confirmation (looking for information that confirms your idea) and affirmation (interpreting information as though it supports your idea) bias, it is possible to present almost any idea as thought it has rational merit.

These biases are counteracted (and the process is strengthened) by considering what sort of information would disconfirm the idea and actively pursuing that information.

A skeptic follows this process, not just for those ideas they don't believe, but much more importantly for those those ideas they do believe.

If someone points out that disconfirming information has not been considered, or that confirming information is absent or scant, it does not necessarily mean that they are saying the idea has been disproven.

Linda

 

[truethat]

Is the status of a boy's or man's penis a big deal where you live? As Linda has already said, would you want your son to get involved with a woman so shallow she rejects him based on his circumcision status?

Again, fine to prostylize on a message board but in real life women reject men for physical reasons all the time. Why is this so different than anything else? Honestly its a little foolish to me to chide the idea of women being shallow. All people are in general shallow when it comes to sex. Being in a relationship with a woman is not the same as starting a relationship with a woman and if its a turn off then its not going to go any further.

Not at all. The idea is that because the child is incapable of making an informed choice, the choice should be delayed until he can. What's the rush? You're free to tell your son how horrible you think his penis looks until he is of an age to make the choice for himself.

Now you've crossed a line. This was supposed to be a mature conversation and you take to insulting my child because you can't find another way to win your point? You must be so proud of your cleverness.

No, it isn't. Not circumcising allows your son the choice of how his penis is going to look and function. Circumcising him as a child removes that choice.

To what complaint? Right now you've just been going on and on in fantasy land. How many circumcized men wish they were not ?

What "new age sentiments" would they be? The vast majority of men who are left intact as children do not choose to get circumcised as adults.

But some do choose it, the fact that surgery for this is very stressful then why would anyone have it done as an adult if there was not a preference? If there are men having this surgery it shows that there's a preference among men for a circumcized penis otherwise there wouldn't be any surgery.

Not circumcising is not assuming anything about what your son might or might not want. It is giving him freedom over how his body looks and functions.

Its also making a big deal out of nothing and causing him stress in having to have the surgery as an adult if he wants it which will cause him pain.

What looks nicer about a circumcised penis? When erect it's quite difficult to see any significant difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Check out the pictures on this page, about 1/3rd the way down on the right.



Do you value having choice over how your body looks and functions?

Surely you aren't stupid enough to suggest that this one man's penis represents the lot? Keep going on your wiki search and you'll find ths

Contrary to popular belief, it does not always automatically retract during an erection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

Many women find it gross to give oral sex on an uncircumcized penis. Alot of women find the appearance of an uncircumcized penis "disgusting" and feel that they are dirty. I do understand that this is not necessarily the case however it doesn't change the attitudes.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Again, fine to prostylize on a message board but in real life women reject men for physical reasons all the time. Why is this so different than anything else? Honestly its a little foolish to me to chide the idea of women being shallow. All people are in general shallow when it comes to sex. Being in a relationship with a woman is not the same as starting a relationship with a woman and if its a turn off then its not going to go any further.

I can understand a woman having a preference, but whether a man has a foreskin or not being make or break for a relationship is really pathetic.

"She was smart, funny and pretty, but when I got her naked I discovered her breasts were only a B-cup, and I since I only like women with a C-cup, I just had to end it."

Now you've crossed a line. This was supposed to be a mature conversation and you take to insulting my child because you can't find another way to win your point? You must be so proud of your cleverness.

I have not insulted your child at all. I lightheartedly (see the smiley?) made a joke at your expense.

To what complaint? Right now you've just been going on and on in fantasy land. How many circumcized men wish they were not ?

There are some on this forum. There are many more on the web. Probably not a huge percentage of the men who've been circumcised, but they still exist. And they real shame is they can do little to undo what was done to them.

But some do choose it, the fact that surgery for this is very stressful then why would anyone have it done as an adult if there was not a preference? If there are men having this surgery it shows that there's a preference among men for a circumcized penis otherwise there wouldn't be any surgery.

IIRC, less than 0.5% of intact men elect to be circumcised for non-medical reasons. I'd say that indicates men's preference.

Its also making a big deal out of nothing and causing him stress in having to have the surgery as an adult if he wants it which will cause him pain.

And he's going to have to get a job too. Being grown up is just no fun at all!

Do you believe infant circumcision doesn't hurt?

Surely you aren't stupid enough to suggest that this one man's penis represents the lot? Keep going on your wiki search and you'll find ths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

It may not automatically retract during an erection, but it should be able to be easily retracted by hand by the age of 15.

Many women find it gross to give oral sex on an uncircumcized penis. Alot of women find the appearance of an uncircumcized penis "disgusting" and feel that they are dirty. I do understand that this is not necessarily the case however it doesn't change the attitudes.

Many women find it gross to perform oral sex on men, whether they have a foreskin or not.

An uncircumised penis need be no more "dirty" than a circumcised one. Both are a lot less "dirty" than a woman's vagina.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've found a forum for student doctors and a thread where they are discussing circumcision:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=549162

Here's a post by a medical student which is a pretty good summary of the feelings of the majority of them posting in the thread on the issue:

...

Listen, this is a nonissue. At the hospitals I've worked at the parents are asked "Are you interested in circumcision for your son?". There is non strong arming them into one way or another. 100% of the families have an answer "Yes" or "No" already prepared, so they've already made up there minds.

And as others have stated, we do "cosmetic" stuff on kids all the freaking time. My sister had freaking surgeries on her jaw because her teeth weren't straight, but not bad enough that they affected her ability to eat. My cousin just had a hemangioma fixed, not a problem, just unsightly.

This is a NON ISSUE. If you people want to cut circumcision rates, target the freaking parents. We doctors DON'T CARE. We know there are no conclusive benefits either way so it's up to parents decision for cultural and aesthetic reasons, which is perfectly acceptable.

Any comment, Linda?

 

[Loss Leader]

Maybe you've thought about it, but you've also demontrated that your thoughts are, to say the least, biased in a certain ethnocentric way that the vast majority of us do not relate to.

So, then, I was right. You ask whether one can really appreciate having something done to them as a baby. When I say yes, you dismiss me in just exactly the way I predicted.

You want to have your argument both ways. You want to claim that nobody can appreciate the experience. Yet, when someone claims he appreciates the experience, you want to dismiss those claims as biased. But there is absolutely no more evidence that I am the biased one than that you are. There is nothing special about my position that automatically makes my opinions worthless. And there is nothing at all special about your positions that imparts any value to your opinions whatsoever.

A person coming from such a position has little hope of functioning as anything but a troll in a thread such as this.

"An individual with first-hand evidence has little hope of doing anything other than challenging my preconceptions and biases with his actual life experience."

Please tell me that you are not so insecure in your argument that you cannot withstand evidence.

 

[Lithrael]

Many women find it gross to give oral sex on an uncircumcized penis. Alot of women find the appearance of an uncircumcized penis "disgusting" and feel that they are dirty. I do understand that this is not necessarily the case however it doesn't change the attitudes.

I'd like to restate what I said earlier in this thread: there are a number of women that STRONGLY prefer uncircumcised guys as well. I would really prefer skipping the difficulty in initiating and the quarter-hour of burning pain I usually get after sex with a circumcised red blooded American man. Women like me are a small minority but nevertheless there are a crapload of us.

 

[fls]

Any comment, Linda?

I haven't the foggiest idea what point you think you're making.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I haven't the foggiest idea what point you think you're making.

Linda

Sorry, a bit cryptic. Do you think raising the question of circumcision with parents gives the procedure tacit approval by the medical profession?

You stated you were uncertain if doctors displaying a negative attitude towards infant circumcision would affect the number of parents choosing it for their children. From the attitude displayed by the US medical students in the thread I linked to and the other evidence I've posted, which indicated when professional medical organisations in other countries come out against infant circumcision the uptake drops, are you still as uncertain that the opinion of medical professionals is as insignificant as you thought?

 

[fls]

Sorry, a bit cryptic. Do you think raising the question of circumcision with parents gives the procedure tacit approval by the medical profession?

Yes. Or at the very least removes a barrier.

You stated you were uncertain if doctors displaying a negative attitude towards infant circumcision would affect the number of parents choosing it for their children. From the attitude displayed by the US medical students in the thread I linked to and the other evidence I've posted, which indicated when professional medical organisations in other countries come out against infant circumcision the uptake drops, are you still as uncertain that the opinion of medical professionals is as insignificant as you thought?

I've not stated any of that.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I've not stated any of that.

Linda

I want to think that physicians can influence social trends, but I'm not sure the evidence supports that conclusion.

Linda

That should be strongly influence.

Linda

 

[rocketdodger]

How many circumcized men wish they were not ?

Among men that have actually done their own unbiased research on the subject (at least, that I know of), a strong majority.

But some do choose it, the fact that surgery for this is very stressful then why would anyone have it done as an adult if there was not a preference? If there are men having this surgery it shows that there's a preference among men for a circumcized penis otherwise there wouldn't be any surgery.

No. We have already been through this. Adult men that choose the procedure do so for an overriding reason, such as medical necessity, persuasion by sexual partners, etc.

If you know of a man, any man, who woke up one day and said "ya know what, I think I will jog on down to the clinic and git myself a circumcision!" then feel free to document the case.

The simple fact of the matter is that the number of circumcised men who want to have a foreskin overwhelmingly outnumbers the number of natural men who want their's removed. To me, that suggests one might want to wait and give their child a choice, but then again, I respect human autonomy.