Time to end circumcision?

[richardm]

There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read.

Yes indeed, and I have heard that circumcision has been recommended in order to prevent boys masturbating. Yikes.

 

[Soubrette]

Plus I would be concerned about the small number of circumcisions that go wrong every year.

Sou

 

[Saturn]

Male circumcision, unlike female circumcision, is simply the removal of a piece of skin; it does not inhibit sexual activity (or urination) in any way, and might even have some side health benefits.

This is, of course, not the reason it was started--it was for religious reasons--but unlike some other religious practices, it is not harmful.

There's plenty of evidence that cutting off the foreskin reduces sensitivity and sexual pleasure. You can't destroy 40,000 nerves and not have that effect. In addition, there's a chance of medical complications.

Regarding "female circumcision", that's a catch-all term referring to a number of different procedures, some of which have no greater effect upon a woman that the male variety has upon men. Excising the clitoral hood is particularly analogous.

What particularly irritates me is the double standard, that parents are free to cut off a boy's foreskin but any procedures upon a girl's genitals are outlawed. If we believe in equality between the sexes, then parents should be allowed to excise their daughter's clitoral hood. Or we can stop the involuntary foreskin amputations performed upon baby boys.

 

[Supercharts]

It decreases sensitivity. It does not decrease sexual pleasure. It allows one to 'perform' for a longer period of time. This is an asset for the woman involved. [Or maybe not. When they say 'Hurry up and get it over with - I have to do my nails!']

 

[Alaric]

I find it such an strange topic to fight over which is a little odd considering how much i loath female circumscision<ugh..that word> Frankly, since it was done to me and I remember no trauma or disfunction from it<Mr Winky is doing fine thanks> I dont see why we should stop it as a general practice. If parents dont want it done-dont get it done. The end. Why regulate it more than that? There HAS been proof listed. There HAS been arguements against it listed. So what?
We also neuter our pets to prevent them from breeding. Im a big fan of the current system in comparison to our animals system. Dont compare the two.

 

[DrBenway]

I think it's not quite accurate to compare female and male circumcision.

Female circumcision, as practiced in Egypt, for example, involves removal of the clitoral hood, clitoris, and labia minora, and sewing the opening to the vagina nearly closed, save for a small passage to allow urine and menstrual blood to flow. The reason given for this practice: protection of female virginity. Removal of the female external genitalia removes most sexual feeling from the area. It's believed that women who don't feel a whole lot of sexual pleasure will stay faithful to their husbands.

On the wedding night, the vaginal opening has to be cut to allow intercourse.

In some areas, female circumcision is more benign. Sometimes it's just a symbolic cut inflicted upon the clitoral hood.

Male circumcision is far less damaging than female circumcision, and it lacks the connotation of political control and domination that female circumcision has.

Yet I don't doubt that some men are harmed by the procedure to a certain degree. So I think the rational choice is avoidance of the procedure.

Because most circumcised men do not feel damaged and believe they benefit from the procedure, if only for cosmetic reasons, it will not be outlawed.

 

[Guest]

He was under general anesthesia?

Why would anyone need general anesthesia for a circumcision?

And when you quoted the AAP article, you left out something important.

Research indicates that during the first year of life an uncircumcised male infant has at most about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI, while a circumcised male has about a 1 in 1000 chance.

That is a significant difference. More on that after this:

originally posted by Akots
... have you tried soap and water? Oh... but then you'd have to touch it. Them god fearin' folk won't allow that.

Ah, it's the "religious maniacs" conspiracy. Always gets a sympathetic audience here.

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis? Even if your son is "gifted", we're talking about a very small, very sensitive organ.
It is very difficult to clean, even without the foreskin. Try it sometime and see.

You're lucky if your kid never gets a diaper rash on his relatively huge butt, never mind some uncleanliness around the tiny area under his foreskin. It doesn't matter how good a parent you are.

 

[Tmy]

We also put our animals down when they are gravely ill, yet it's illegle to do that to a suffering human.

I couldnt imagine the horror of having Mr. Happy cut up. I was a clueless baby with no voice. Oh the horror!!!

What if the parents disagree on the proceadure? Do you need the go ahead from both mom and dad? I wonder how a judge would rule in this situation.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

Male circumcision, unlike female circumcision,

Female circumcision comes in three varieties -- clitoridectomy (the kind people usually mean), clitoridectomy + removal of labia majora and labia minora, and removal of clitoral hood. the latter form is exactly equivalent to male circumcision, and uet it's illegal in USA under our FGM laws, which prohibit any surgical alternations of genitalia that's not medically necessary.

is simply the removal of a piece of skin; it does not inhibit sexual activity (or urination) in any way, and might even have some side health benefits.

yes, it does inhibit sexual activity. First of all, it reduced penis sensitivity (that's why it started in Victorian england as a common practice -- to prevent boys masturbating). it sometimes leads to painfully tight erections in adulthood (if too much skin was removed); furthermore, women report better intercourse experience with uncircumcized males (because the foreskin allows for a much less abrasive motion -- the foreskin slides up and down the penis as a sheath, instead of the penile skin moving back and forth against labia and vaginal walls).

What's more, we don't routinely perform tonsilectomy on newborns just because they might get tonsilitis. That's simply barbaric.

This is, of course, not the reason it was started--it was for religious reasons--but unlike some other religious practices, it is not harmful.

yes, it is harmful; it's both harmful physically, and it infringes upon the child's rights.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Supercharts

It decreases sensitivity. It does not decrease sexual pleasure.

it seems to decrease women's sexual pleasure.

It allows one to 'perform' for a longer period of time. This is an asset for the woman involved.

duration of intercourse is a matter of technique, and easily adjusted through practice; abrasion is a matter of physics, and not as easily handled.

 

[Saturn]

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis? Even if your son is "gifted", we're talking about a very small, very sensitive organ.
It is very difficult to clean, even without the foreskin. Try it sometime and see.

You're lucky if your kid never gets a diaper rash on his relatively huge butt, never mind some uncleanliness around the tiny area under his foreskin. It doesn't matter how good a parent you are.

FYI, the foreskin adheres to the glans until the boy is several years old. All that is needed is to wash the outside of the penis.

Regarding your ideas about UTIs, you should know that females have about four times higher chance of getting UTIs than males. Excision of the exterior labia would probably reduce this rate considerably, yet it is illegal to do so in this country. Doctors have this strange idea that proper hygiene and treatment is better than amputating the body part. But some, strangely, reject this idea when it comes to the foreskin.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

LukeT

That is a significant difference.

No, it's not. Girls have about 4 times greater chance of getting a UTI than boys in the 1st year, due to shorter lenght of the urinal tract; but you hear no stink about it. Circumcision of boys has the effect that about 4 times less than the mere gender difference -- that's certainly not significant, not as a reason for a minor surgery at any rate.

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis? Even if your son is "gifted", we're talking about a very small, very sensitive organ.

I have three sons. You know what? Within the first year, the foreskin doesn't separate anyway, so it's a moot point. Nice try though.

You're lucky if your kid never gets a diaper rash on his relatively huge butt, never mind some uncleanliness around the tiny area under his foreskin. It doesn't matter how good a parent you are.

For some mysterious reason, UTIs are a lot less frequent than diaper rashes. Must have something to do with that thing they call "natural selection".

 

[Soubrette]

Victor - out of interest, do you know if there is alot of pressure on Jewish people to perform circumcisions on their sons - even if they aren't Jewish in the religious sense?

Thanks

Sou

 

[DrBenway]

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis?

If I had to choose between suffering a UTI during my first year of life, verses possibly suffering diminished sexual pleasure for my entire adult life....

gee, what would I choose.....

 

[Samus]

When my sister visited Washington D.C. last year, she told me that there was a protest going on to end circumcision. I got a good laugh out of that, I had no idea it was such an issue!

A co-worker of mine had his son circumcised, he said that they have this new technique where they basically attach some kind of device to it, and it falls off in the diaper a couple days later. No pain, no big deal.

Being that my father's side of the family is Jewish, circumcision was pretty much a given for me. I'm not sure if they did it for religious or health reasons, though. Since I can never appreciate "how the other half lives" so to speak (I'm not going to grow a foreskin any time soon) I can't speak to whether it's a good thing or a bad.

I'll say this for it. I've never felt as though I was at a disadvantage, either for sensitivity or otherwise. To me, it's not a significant issue, as long as its done right, there's no compelling reason to end the practice.

 

[Ben Shniper]

If I had to choose between suffering a UTI during my first year of life, verses possibly suffering diminished sexual pleasure for my entire adult life....

gee, what would I choose.....

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.

There are benefits besides medical for circumcision, and the medical benefits are not necessary to show the validity of the practice. Is there a medical benefit for piercing of Nipples, Genetalia, or even ears? No, of course not. Likewise for rastafarian hairdos and other strange practices we choose to accept.

The most obvious benefit of circumcision is its requirement for joining several religious orders to have been circumcized. This is a free country. If people wanted to cut off their own finger, or sterilize themselves by medical procedure, or change their breast or penis or but size, they can. What's the deal with "getting rid of" circumcision, except to discriminate against those who are required to have it?

Also, unlike the piercings, it has an obvious alterior benefit (which is why it was first used, but not necessarily why it is currently used), of reducing infections.

-Ben

 

[Saturn]

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.
-Ben

Since it was done to me when I was a baby, I had no choice in the matter. But I have no problem with the guy with the foreskin deciding what to do with it, when he's old enough to make an informed decision.

 

[DrBenway]

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.

UTI in infancy vs. an adult life with better sexual sensitivity? I would have thought that choice would be a "no brainer."

I understand that religious groups are still very powerful and there are advantages to being a member of some of them. But most Jews I know eat cheeseburgers. Don't think they'd be excluded from all Jewish communities for not being circumcised.

 

[Advocate]

It is very sad to see that so many men have been so indoctrinated into the belief that this horrible, barbaric practice is somehow "harmless". It is a form of child abuse and like other forms of abuse, tends to be perpetuated by those who were themselves victimized.

 

[Jocko]

There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read.

Then my wife would definitely be in favor of it. If I had any more sensitivity working down there, I'd never let her leave the house.