But that isn’t anywhere near to being the reason why most people have their children circumcised.
An Arky,
Virtually no one ever get teased for their circ status. It would mean that they had to admit they were looking. “Yeah, what you checking me out for? Perv.” Too much homophobia to go there. Plus, it isn’t that uncommon. Sure a majority still gets circed but that is one sizable minority membership. Short of a Jewish day school you are not going to see too many schools today where “there are virtually no uncircumcised males.”
The medical advantages to circumcision are minimal at best. Real but very minor. The disadvatages are minimal at most. A decision best made for sociocultural reasons and without a good one I’d advise against it.* The claim that is human rights or sexual abuse is just fringe looney-tooning.
*My three boys all had theirs in our house and they were very nice ceremonies.
I know. Most people probably just have it done because it’s de rigeur. But as far as I’m concerned, the fact that there are some apparent benefits and the negatives (if they exist) are minimal means it’s not human rights abuse, or anything even in remotely the same ballpark.
Maybe I’m way out of line here, but it seems to me that the health benefits argument in favour of circumcision is structurally similar to the argument that long-standing traditions that avoid the consumption of pork are linked to prevention of Trichinosis.
Most of the people arguing it aren’t avoiding pork for that reason and there are other ways to avoid Trichinosis.
Likewise, (I think) most of the people arguing in favour of circumcision are not doing so primarily on health grounds, and there are other ways to prevent the spread of AIDS (indeed it would be incredibly foolish to act as though being circumcised offers you some protection from the disease).
I’m sure you probably realise that this isn’t true in every part of the world (but I thought I’d mention it anyway).
Ack! ignore my last post - the pseudo-double negative threw me.
What’s wrong with waiting until the person whose body it is has reached an age where that person can make an informed and conseting decision about whether or not any such health benefits are worth cutting off a part of their body for?
I think my problem with it is that it’s done entirely without the consent of the person it was done to, and that’s the one person who has to live with it for the rest of his life.
For all those who claim there are medical benefits to circumcision…Has anyone ever said the words: “Oh, if only he’d been circumcised”??
The problem is that adult circumcision is much more difficult than doing it to a baby–more complications, more trauma, and less success. In short, no one’s ever demonstrated that a baby suffers from a circumcision more than from a bumped head, and both are quickly forgotten, while adult circumcisions are just nasty.
This still isn’t a good reason to do it at all though, is it?
I suppose I find it incredibly difficult to imagine what benefit could possibly outweigh the fact that this action is the cutting off of another person’s body part without that person ever having been given a choice in the matter.
It’s not a case of ‘It’s cancerous, and he’ll die.’ or ‘His appendix ruptured, and he’ll die.’
And honestly, the HIV prevention evidence? If anyone is using circumcision as their means to guard against getting HIV in a modern, industrialized society where much, much better methods exist, I have got to wonder why.
I’ve even heard the argument that it makes the little boys easier to wash for their mothers. Why don’t we cut off the labia of girls to make it easier for their mothers to wash them when they are babies?
Course, the very end of it comes down to the fact that there is no overwhelming reason to do this, and yet people are still cutting off a part of another person’s body.
Why?
What about all the sex partners who will look at it and say “ewww”. Yeah I know, that reduces it down to nothing more than an appeal for cosmetic reasons. But newborns often receive cosmetic surgery to adjust their appearance. Some get their ears pinned back if they stick out too much, some get very minor cleft lips mended.
If dad wants his son to be circumsized because he remembers how so many of his girlfriends said they preferred men who were cut, is he any worse than the mom who wants her infant’s ears pinned so the child doesn’t end up with Prince Charles ears?
By the way, I tripped over this as I was Googling and thought it mildly amusing as well as being on-topic.
http://members.fortunecity.com/unlikelycritics/id52.htm
I like the uncircumcised ones. Pity I live in a country where such maiming is considered normal.
Does ear-pinning have the potential to lessen sexual sensation?
No, but that’s what’s so frustrating about this whole debate: neither side has very good reasons for doing or not doing it. The pro side has medical evidence that, even if perfectly reputable and accurate, represents such a marginal benefit as to be irrelevent (“it eliminates a 0.02% chance of penile cancer”); the anti side has only the most speculative arguments about the possibility of a different sexual experience, depending on cut vs. uncut, that probably isn’t even relevent if true because people grow up as cut or uncut and adapt to it. In fact, I can’t think of another debate with less ammunition to go around than this one, which is what makes it boggling when people actually get worked up about it.
Actually, that makes me think of something that would settle the debate for me pretty quickly: a wide-ranging, reputable study that cut men report being less sexually satisfied, on average, than uncut men. Does such a study exist?
I’m sure The Mercotan can dish up the lingo for my following input, but there ain’t any confounding factors. HIV has a difficult (insurmountable?) time penetrating human hide. If you get it on your arm, or even the outside of your penis, you can brush it off like a tarantula. The penise-side of the foreskin has no hide, and presents a tissue that HIV can readily penetrate. So, lop off the foreskin & you’ve just removed a relatively huge surface area for possible transmission of HIV & presumably a garden of other STDs. The African HIV studies compared HIV rates of circumcised men with uncircumcised men who displayed similar sexual habits (what the judgemental among us might call “promiscuity”).
My wife & I didn’t even discuss circumcision. We both knew we wouldn’t put our boy through it despite the fact he would not remember it. I can’t, but I might just have blocked out the memory of one of the most horrible experiences of my life. And, candidly, which men among us here don’t enjoy a good “washing up” every now & then? Penes are easy (and fun!) to keep clean.
Because, to someone who thinks it should be done, it’s a tiny cost for a marginal benefit, so why not? It may horrify you that people would think that casually about it, but in every debate we’ve had on this matter here (God, why so many?), no one has yet presented any evidence that the cost isn’t tiny or the benefits aren’t marginal.
Regarding consent, new parents are facing at least a decade of making tough decisions with far greater life consequences (“ohmigod, what if he doesn’t get into the preschool we selected?”) so it just seems like one more decision to make.
Sorry for the double post, but:
With all respect, Hansel, malarkey.
Reasons against:
-The foreskin is tissue that consumes energy that could be used for survival & reproduction, its presence means that its development has been “selected for” in the evolutionary process. Just because we don’t know what it’s for doesn’t mean hacking it off is a good idea.
-Circumcision developed as a ritual practice. It is most commonly employed to assert difference (“we are not like they”). So to what purpose when all sneeches have stars? It becomes meaningless.
Reasons for (and yes, it’s supposed to recall a 1950s sales pitch):
-Convenient for Moms
-More attractive to girls
-Easy to clean
-One more fee for the medical profession (sorry, QTM)
-“Health reasons” are, IMHO, lame attempts to justify doing something to our children for which we have no other reason than, “The Jonses chopped up their infant.”
Respectfully taken, to be sure.
This is just the naturalistic fallacy dressed up in evolutionary determinism. Something can be “selected for” without offering any survival benefit, if it’s correlated with another trait that does offer an advantage; or, foreskins could have been selected for many species ago, when there was an advantage that no longer exists. Biological counterfactuals do not a knockdown argument make.
This is a reason against only if you think ritual is a bad thing; besides, your interpretation of the ritual is entirely speculative.
Again, proving my point that arguments for and against are trivial in the extreme.
Then that person is too shallow to boink. 
Either that, or it’s motivation for the uncircumcised guy to master his technique, to turn that “ewww” into “oh god oh god oh god oh god YES!”