Circumcision - advice sought

[Sateryn76]

@MsWhatsit

Potential loss of sensitivity (minor reason), inflicting unnecessary surgery on a child unable to make an informed decision for himself (major reason), combined with the fact that the increased risks you mention are extremely small. (Also, as I believe someone said up-thread, uncircumcised men appear to actually have decreased risk of UTIs, so you can strike that one from your list. )

I wouldn’t cut off my child’s earlobes to reduce his risk of earlobe cancer by .1%, either. Or his pinky toe, or any other body parts deemed to be unnecessary. Besides which, the accounts of men who are uncircumcised themselves, and of men who were circumcised when they were old enough to remember the difference, leave me convinced that the foreskin does serve a purpose. I believe that I would not care to slice off a sensitive portion of my own genitalia, even if it left the genitalia still able to perform its basic function. So I chose not to do it to my sons, and MrWhatsit concurred.

Since you asked.

Thanks!

The CDC study cited above says “Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men” so UTI are more common in non-circumsized men. It makes sense - those extra skin folds trap bacteria, which can lead to all sorts of infections.

Although that study notes that studies in the US have been limited, it has been found that “In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection [24]. In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion”

In Africa, where it has been studied more, they found that "When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. " Those are huge numbers.

OTOH, the risks from the surgery as an infant in the US were negliable “In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0%. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection.”

And, economically they found “A large retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis.”

I just don’t see why there is a push to not circumsize, unless it is based on an emotional response.

[Cat_Fight]

@Sateryn76

No, you misunderstand me. What I was trying to say is that I don’t understand why people feel so strongly about not circumsizing their boys, because the cost of the procedure is so small compared to the potential costs of the future illness.

Could someone explain to me why you wouldn’t get the circumsizing done? I think the pain factor is moot, since anesthesia is used regularly. Is it some kind of issue with the “earthy-ness” of that little flap of skin?

I think that, unless they’re particularly religious, they assume that any working parts a healthy baby is born with are best left unaltered 'til compelling evidence suggest otherwise. I can’t imagine spending nine months in pain and discomfort while pregnant and heaving a sigh of relief to find he’s healthy only to decide ‘Well… maybe one more little snip will really do the trick.’ Same goes for the tip of a baby girl’s clitoris.

I’m not even entirely against circumcision, but I wonder what other type of preventive (minor) surgery on infants could also be justified with similar medical claims.

[Broomstick]

@Sateryn76

Could someone explain to me why you wouldn’t get the circumsizing done? I think the pain factor is moot, since anesthesia is used regularly. Is it some kind of issue with the “earthy-ness” of that little flap of skin?

Well, why don’t we remove the appendix at birth, too? It is FAR more likely to cause trouble than a penis is to develop cancer.

I think you’re overemphasizing the lifetime risk of some problems (penis cancer) and neglecting that for others circumscision alone isn’t very protective without other steps (HIV prevention, for example - condoms are MUCH more effective than circumcision).

For that matter, I’m also opposed to piercing the ears of infants, too, although that is even less risky than circumcision. I just don’t feel it is ethical to make permanent alterations, even minor ones, in someone else’s body without their consent. And an infant can’t give consent.

That doesn’t mean I think pierced ears in infants or circumcision is child abuse, I just look at it as a breach of ethics and in many cases even a little stupid. For people with a religious or cultural justification… well, I cut them a little more slack but it is contrary to MY culture.

[Casserole]

For the record, I had my foreskin removed because it was interfering with urination. I was pretty young at the time, and I don’t regret having it done.

There seems to be a very vocal group out there who are absolutely outraged that they (or their parents decided to) were circumsised. However, I get the feeling that it’s more of a baseless temper tantrum - more like a child’s “if I see someone with something, and I don’t have it, even if I don’t need it, I want it”.

Personally, I see the benefits - reduced risk of disease (as cited above), and “lasting longer”, which is perhaps more anecdotal, but makes sense. I’ve always figured lasting longer was something the ladies preferred

Would I circumsise my children? Doubtful, unless there was a medical reason, like mine. Not because I regret anything, but because it does seem a little excessive for little gain.

My opinions seem to jibe with most others’ here.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Sateryn76

Although that study notes that studies in the US have been limited, it has been found that “In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection [24]. In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion”

It might surprise you to learn that some of us read the rest of the original paragraph in which the above appears. I bet you did too. So we both know that the results are more mixed than your account might lead people to believe.

[Happy_Poster]

Even if you do it with the best intentions, your son may hate you for it when you are older, and he will have a point

There is no excuse for this mindless butchery of infants. It should be illegal imo.

[Malthus]

@Broomstick

Well, why don’t we remove the appendix at birth, too? It is FAR more likely to cause trouble than a penis is to develop cancer.

You are making the same error as the person you are critiquing, only in the opposite direction - in every case, what is necessary is a weighing of the risks against benefits. The appendix may be more likely to cause trouble (IANAD and don’t know), but obviously the risks of removing it are greater as well - it is, in fact, an internal organ as opposed to an external bit of tissue.

My own opinion is that the risks of removal of foreskin are tiny, and the medical benefits tiny also - but greater than the risks.

Arguments for that I have found persuasive are: easier to teach the kid hygene; small but real medical benefit.

Arguments against I have found persuasive: reluctance to engage in any surgical procedure preventatively.

Arguments for I have found unpersuasive: “will look just like daddy”.

Arguments against I have found unpersuasive: “it is cruel mutilation and a parent has no right to make such a decision”.

IMO the best solution is to leave it up to the individual parents to decide.

[Malthus]

@Angry Lurker

Even if you do it with the best intentions, your son may hate you for it when you are older, and he will have a point

There is no excuse for this mindless butchery of infants. It should be illegal imo.

When my son is grown he’ll have plenty of reasons to hate me for the choices I’ve made on his behalf as an infant - where he will live, how he was raised, etc.

If the worst that can be held against me is that he was circumcised, I’ll celebrate.

My choices don’t need an “excuse”. I looked at the evidence and made my own decision based on it, concluding that it was in his best interest (if only minorly) to have the procedure done, and if you don’t like it, that’s just tough.

[Happy_Poster]

@Malthus

When my son is grown he’ll have plenty of reasons to hate me for the choices I’ve made on his behalf as an infant - where he will live, how he was raised, etc.

If the worst that can be held against me is that he was circumcised, I’ll celebrate.

My choices don’t need an “excuse”. I looked at the evidence and made my own decision based on it, concluding that it was in his best interest (if only minorly) to have the procedure done, and if you don’t like it, that’s just tough.

Since you have a son, I’m going to assume you have had sex at least once.

As you may have noticed, it’s really rather fun. Probably the most fun thing outside of heroin. And your actions have meant that it will always be slightly less enjoyable for him than it could otherwise have been.

Now, I don’t think that you are a bad person for this, as I’m sure you had the best of intentions, but it is still a mind numbingly evil thing to do, not terribly dissimilar to cutting his dick off. That would result in even less penile cancer and make getting STDs practically impossible.

[DrCube]

@Angry Lurker

There is no excuse for this mindless butchery of infants. It should be illegal imo.

I oppose circumcision, but this is just emotional grandstanding. No different, really, from those people who hold up giant pictures of aborted fetuses on the highway. Religious indoctrination is far worse abuse than circumcision if you ask me, and I wouldn’t take away parents’ freedom to do that either. Let’s face it, some people are going to raise their children in ways you see as unfit, so let’s just keep abuse and neglect to a minimum and let parents raise their children how they like.

And your last post was just ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[DSeid]

@Angry Lurker

… it will always be slightly less enjoyable for him than it could otherwise have been…

There is no evidence for this statement and some evidence against it.

Such as this study

Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.

And this one

No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups. … These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision.

And this one

In our study of neonatally circumcised men, we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis.

And it goes on … enough to conclude that, no, circumcision does not make sex less enjoyable, and that if you have a sexual dysfunction you are mistaken to blame it on your parents’ choice to have you circ’ed as a baby.

[Happy_Poster]

@DrCube

I oppose circumcision, but this is just emotional grandstanding. No different, really, from those people who hold up giant pictures of aborted fetuses on the highway. Religious indoctrination is far worse abuse than circumcision if you ask me, and I wouldn’t take away parents’ freedom to do that either. Let’s face it, some people are going to raise their children in ways you see as unfit, so let’s just keep abuse and neglect to a minimum and let parents raise their children how they like.

And your last post was just ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Religious indoctrination is absolutely different to an irreversible medical procedure. All children are indoctrinated in some way: if it isn’t religion it’s some other cultural standard.

[Malthus]

@Angry Lurker

Since you have a son, I’m going to assume you have had sex at least once.

As you may have noticed, it’s really rather fun. Probably the most fun thing outside of heroin. And your actions have meant that it will always be slightly less enjoyable for him than it could otherwise have been.

Now, I don’t think that you are a bad person for this, as I’m sure you had the best of intentions, but it is still a mind numbingly evil thing to do, not terribly dissimilar to cutting his dick off. That would result in even less penile cancer and make getting STDs practically impossible.

I assume that you are posting this for amusement’s sake, because no-one could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe it.

[Malthus]

@DSeid

There is no evidence for this statement and some evidence against it.

…

And it goes on … enough to conclude that, no, circumcision does not make sex less enjoyable, and that if you have a sexual dysfunction you are mistaken to blame it on your parents’ choice to have you circ’ed as a baby.

Interesting stuff, and confirms what I was able to glean on my own. I’ll add “will ruin sexual pleasure” as yet another in the list of “unpersuasive” arguments against circumcision.

[Happy_Poster]

@Malthus

I assume that you are posting this for amusement’s sake, because no-one could possibly be dumb enough to seriously believe it.

What’s the difference, except by degree?

If it were the norm for every man to have their dick cut off, women would find men with a dick less attractive than those without dicks. Reproduction would still be possible if the testes remained. And there would be less STDs too

The above scenario sounds ridiculous, this is true - but so would circumcision if we were civilised people.

As for DSeid’s “cites” you are performing the classic human error of looking for evidence to support your position, rather than evidence against it. For cites supporting my point of view, start here.

P.S. Do you support female circumcision, or as it is more properly called genital mutilation (as the male equivalent should be)

[Malthus]

@Angry Lurker

What’s the difference, except by degree?

If it were the norm for every man to have their dick cut off, women would find men with a dick less attractive than those without dicks. Reproduction would still be possible if the testes remained. And there would be less STDs too

The above scenario sounds ridiculous, this is true - but so would circumcision if we were civilised people.

As for DSeid’s “cites” you are performing the classic human error of looking for evidence to support your position, rather than evidence against it. For cites supporting my point of view, start here.

P.S. Do you support female circumcision, or as it is more properly called genital mutilation (as the male equivalent should be)

Yeah, because I give more weight to “evidence” that comes in the form of actual clinical trials and scientific studies, as opposed to an op-ed piece published more than a decade ago in “Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living” and republished on “mothersagainstcirc.org”. :rolleyes:

Particularly one that contains these little gems of wisdom.

Parents should enjoy the arrival of a new child with as few worries as possible. The birth of a son in the US, however, is often fraught with anxiety and confusion. Most parents are pressured to hand their baby sons over to a stranger, who, behind closed doors, straps babies down and cuts their foreskins off. The billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry has bombarded Americans with confusing rhetoric and calculated scare tactics.

All that evidence about the health benefits? Poof, he hand-waves it away–all part of the conspiracy:

Now that such current excuses as the claim that this procedure prevents cancer and sexually transmitted diseases have been thoroughly discredited, circumcisers will undoubtedly invent new ones. But if circumcisers were really motivated by purely medical considerations, the procedure would have died out long ago, along with leeching, skull-drilling, and castration. The fact that it has not suggests that the compulsion to circumcise came first, the “reasons,” later.

Note that rather than being “thorougly discredited”, the evidence is now more persuasive today that it has some (minor) benefits than in 1997.

Oh, and if it is so bad for you, why is it done? Must be an evil conspiracy to STEAL FORESKINS FOR PROFIT:

Parents should be wary of anyone who tries to retract their child’s foreskin, and especially wary of anyone who wants to cut it off. Human foreskins are in great demand for any number of commercial enterprises, and the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multimillion-dollar- a-year industry.

And don’t forget the wonders of Smegma, nature’s panecea:

The white emollient under the child’s foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, “The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma.”

That’s some grade-A tinfoil hattery right there. I thank you for posting the link - hilarious stuff.

…

Female circumcision isn’t the same as male circumcision, and is in its more extreme forms similar to castration.

As for the notion that there is no difference in kind between male circumcision and castration - that may well be the dumbest thing I’ve heard on the Internet in, well, a long time (I was going to say “ever” but that’s a tough standard - I’m not sure that the writer of your article hasn’t beaten it with his “animals can’t live without smegma” and “evil conspiracy to steal foreskins for profit” routine).

[Cat_Fight]

@DSeid

enough to conclude that, no, circumcision does not make sex less enjoyable

For whom? I’ve heard compelling anecdotal evidence that suggests that extra bit of skin makes perfect sense (once you get far enough into a hetero relationship to ditch condoms).

[Happy_Poster]

Try What's Wrong with Circumcision? then

[DSeid]

@Angry Lurker

As for DSeid’s “cites” you are performing the classic human error of looking for evidence to support your position, rather than evidence against it.

No actually I did a PubMed search. And for completeness sake there was indeed also a study that said that among a group of males circ’ed as adults a few had less pleasure masturbating than had more, and one study that had more men more satisfied sexually after being circ’ed and one with more less satisfied. No, an article declaring as fact that circumcision desensitizes with no evidence to support such a claim is not evidence that such is the case, especially in light of studies that show such is not the case. No, there is no evidence that neonatal circumcision causes “disturbing levels of neurological damage” or “that circumcision disrupts a child’s behavioral development” or that it “disrupts the mother-infant bond during the crucial period after birth” as that site claims as well.

Yup, Cat Fight, “anecdotal evidence” always is more “compelling” than actual data.

Oh Angry, your next link is more entertaining. Here is their claim about the effect of circumcision on adult sexual function:

A new study by Kenneth Fink and his colleagues published in the May 2002 edition of The Journal of Urology examined sexual function outcomes in men circumcised at age 18 years or older.

The study reported that … 38% of men circumcised as adults reported harm to sexual function.

Now actually go to the article:

Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

So that’s their damning evidence. More men reporting benefit than harm and an overwhelming majority satisfied with having been circumcised. Wow. Yup that is solid proof of harm to sexual function there that is. They couldn’t even use the study that went the other way?

[Guinastasia]

Oh dear, it seems we have another Jack Dean Tyler in our mist!