Circumcision
 

Circumcision is the surgical removal of some or all the foreskin from the penis. Typically, the procedure is done on adolescents or on infants, such as in the jewish "bris" circumcision ceremony.

Circumcision is very common in many parts in the world such as in the United States and is controversial for different reasons. Those who are against may point at numerous studies documenting reduced sexual function such as reduced glans sensitivity or possible medical complications as a result of the procedure or point out that noone should be forced to have their genitalia cut. Those who are for may claim that circumcision helps prevent diseases such as HIV from spreading or even that circumcision is a commandment from God which should be obeyed.

So, how do you feel about it? Is it okay to circumcise babies? Is it a good practice for medical or religious reasons that should be adopted across the world or is it a barbaric practice perpetuated by myth and superstition that should be abolished?

I think it's ridiculous and barbaric. As far as I know, there's no real health reasons to do so. The only thing it can do is hurt a baby and make sex less pleasurable.

Damn, if god says do it y'all better chop that pecker down!

It's unnecessary entirely, imo. Even though I have Jew in my title, I'm not Jewish at all, but I deeply respect Jewish people, but am confused why such a tradition needs to continue.

I believe there are a lot of medical myths about benefits of circumcision. When it comes to actual pros and cons, I think the cons definetly outweigh the pros. Basically, I too think the practice pretty much boils down to genital mutilation and feel that the circumcision of young should be abolished. I've often wondered why it's as accepted as it is in this day and age.

Amusing coincidence, this Kids in the Hall Sketch was playing as I read this thread.

I'd probably let my kid decide for himself when he's old enough to understand it; as for anybody else, it's whatever they decide for themselves (this is a situation where my libertarian stance applies).

I know it's kinda unfair to make the analogy, but if you feel that parents have the right to abort the fetus, you should definitely feel they have the right to circumcise a child. What separates mutilation prior to birth and mutilation after birth?

That doesn't seem realistic. I don't think anybody who would be old enough to understand the process and remember it would go through with it.

Exactly

It's unnecessary mutilation of an unconsenting newborn.

And a good question to ask is; why do it? People claim it's cleaner-- yeah, maybe, if you live in the middle ages and don't have access to a shower once a week.

If foreskin was detrimental to mammals we simply would have evolved it off ages ago.

I agree with you on all these points, Tore.

Why non-therapeutic genital cutting of male children is accepted in the U.S.: I think because people often follow entrenched customs without thinking to question them. They assume there is justification. They assume that medical benefits outweigh the risks and harms caused when people cut off healthy, functional parts of a child's penis.

Also, most people don't seem to know anything about the foreskin and its functions, or think to ask why human males like other mammals have foreskins. I suspect it is probably easier for people to destroy a child's body part when they don't know how the foreskin functions or know of its benefits. They aren't used to the appearance of a boy or man's intact penis and think it is weird or gross.

I am very troubled that people so easily cut off a healthy part of children's genitalia. Circumcision is an obvious human rights violation, in my opinion. When people do this to a girl's foreskin (the clitoral hood), it is called genital mutilation, but when you call male circumcision what it is...genital mutilation...supporters can't handle the reality of what they are doing to children. They come up with all sorts of rationales to avoid the obvious and to dismiss the damage of what they are doing to kids.

As someone whose writing I like very much ;) once said:

*******

"You were my parents and you should have been protecting me.
Instead you had them slice and violate my body.
You shouldn’t torture little children’s sexuality.
You had no right to harm the most private part of me.

"You claim you had some sort of justification
for perpetrating genital mutilation.
You claim that circumcision improves hygiene,
but you don’t cut off children’s body parts to keep them clean!

"You claim you wanted to protect me from HIV,
but how to do that best is teach the rules of ABC:
abstinence, be faithful, and ensure consistent condom use.
You don’t stop STIs by perpetrating child abuse!

"You claim you did it for your culture or religion.
What kind of culture turns abuse into tradition?
You say your god tells you to cut your helpless offspring.
You shouldn’t make a child’s torture be an offering.

"Mutilating genitals of little girls is wrong, you cry,
but when it is a little boy, you turn your blind eye.
You had no right to make your violent incision.
What happens to my body should be my decision!

"You pinned a little child down. You cut his penis by force.
Yet you acknowledge no wrongdoing. You feel no remorse.
You violated my genital integrity.
You had no right to harm the most private part of me.

"Fondle little children and you’ll spend your life in jail.
Why can you cut their foreskin off if they are male?!
There is no rationale, no justification.
You perpetrated genital mutilation."

*******

I'm really surprised at these results. There is a fairly significant advantage for hygeine with a circumcised penis. Sure, you can prevent bacteria build-up under the foreskin by keeping on top of personal hygeine, but many boys aren't taught to provide the necessary care to avoid it. This can lead to urinary tract infections.

And then there's the whole sexual health issue. There's an increased risk for STDs as removing the foreskin prevents any possibility of succumbing to one due to the build-up of the agents that cause STDs by burrowing under the foreskin. It's not like it's a cure-all, but it helps. And then there's cancer of the penis, which the odds of getting are drastically reduced for circumcised men.

I know there are many adult circumcisions due to health problems. Ultimately the decision is left up to the parents, but they should be made aware of the health risks.

I used to think that uncut penises were weird looking and would never sleep with a guy who was uncut...whoops. My boyfriend's uncut, hurr durr. It feels a lot better, honestly. I've always been against it in the case of my future offspring though.

About urinary tract infections:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that the absolute risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI) in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most ~ 1%) (1999 Circumcision Policy Statement), and UTIs are usually successfully treated with antibiotics.

Thom, why should people cut off part of children's genitalia simply because parents may fail to teach children proper hygiene, especially when urinary tract infections are treatable and the harm caused by urinary tract infections is much less than the permanent damage caused by circumcision? Perhaps if parents were threatened with the loss of part of their genitalia, they'd do a better job teaching their kids about proper hygiene! :p:

About sexually transmitted diseases:
Studies in the U.S. have found that intact males do not have an increased risk of STD infection, including HIV (Laument, E.O., et al. (1997) JAMA, 277:1052-1057 and Thomas, AG, et al. (2004) International AIDS Society).

I think you are referring to recent studies of African men who were circumcised in their late teens and adulthood. Although three studies in Africa found that men had approximately a 50% reduced risk of HIV infection in the year following circumcision, over 1% of the circumcised men still became infected with HIV (Bailey, R.C., et al. (2007) Lancet, 369: 943-656). One out of 100 circumcised men still got HIV in just one year!!!

Rather than circumcising babies, who are not sexually active, parents who fear that their child may contract a sexually transmitted disease can teach him about the most effective STD prevention techniques: abstinence, safer sex (which includes consistent use of condoms, fidelity to one's partner, and reduction in the number of partners), and genital hygiene (retracting the foreskin and washing and drying the penis shaft daily and after sexual activity).

About cancer of the penis:
The American Medical Association states that since penile cancer is so rare (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 men) and occurs late in life, circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified. One of the rarest cancers, penile cancer is even less common than male breast cancer! Known penile cancer risk factors are smoking cigarettes and having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners.

If adults (18 years old and older) want to be circumcised, that is their right, but in my opinion newborn and older children should have a legal right to their intact, healthy bodies. Newborn and older kids should be allowed to grow up intact so that as adults they can decide for themselves if they wish to undergo cutting of their most private of body parts.

That's a really good question.

The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision writes that "if we circumcise 100,000 boys we allegedly prevent 900 transient, curable UTIs (urinary tract infections) and one penile cancer case, in an 80-year-old (American Cancer Society Statistics). We have also caused between 1,000 complications (1 percent, AAP statistics) or 5,000 to 7,000 complications (5 to 7 percent, British Urology Statistics), including hundreds of permanent, sexually cripping, botched circumcisions and at least one death. The STD studies are murky and inconclusive and do not suggest prophylaxis worth even the immediate risk, let alone the lifetime losses."

Also consider the functions of the foreskin that are lost to the child forever due to circumcision. The foreskin has protective, sensory, and sexual functions. A baby boy's intact foreskin, which is almost always fused to the glans at birth much like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed, protects it from urine and fecal matter during the diaper stage, contains numerous erogenous, fine-touch sensory receptors similar to those in the lips, and matures into a natural sliding and gliding mechanism that enables non-abrasive sexual activity.

Three of the most sensitive areas of the natural, intact penis are (1) the specialized foreskin structure called the "ridged band," (2) the tip of the foreskin, and (3) the frenulum, which attaches the foreskin to the glans, all of which are removed by circumcision. A recent study found that "five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis," which is the circumcision scar on the ventral side (Sorrells, M.L., et al. (2007) Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, BJU International, 99: 864 - 869).

Is there anyone here who actually has suffered as the result of it?

I never said it was a drastic improvement but I think it's significant enough to warrant doing it. And it's not so much the parents not doing a good enough job teaching their children about personal hygeine as it is flat out ignorance about it.

Personally, I'm the opposite of what alot are talking about in this thread. I am uncircumcised, but wish I had been circumcised. I've never suffered any problems from it because I've always been on top of personal hygeine and practicing safe sex, but I can easily see how it would be a problem for guys that aren't knowledgeable about it. My doctor has even recommended it just as a precaution and he said many people do it for that reason. I haven't gone through with it because there's no way I'm dealing with that at this time in my life. I know that sounds hypocritical to want to put someone else through that, but if I had been circumcised as an infant with no memory of it whatsoever, I wouldn't care at all about it later in life.

Hmm... that felt very personal. Oh well.

Thom said what I would feel if I had a dick. It seems the men I've known who've had it left all live regretting not receiving it as a child, but I suppose that's a small sample.

I am cut and this is how I feel about it. Don't remember it so honestly don't really care.

And thankfully it seems most girls in the States prefer it cut, so I'm ok with it

1% for urinary tract infections? 0% for STDs? Significant?

I'm talking about hygiene more than anything, but removing the foreskin completely eliminates a way in which STDs can manifest themselves. And again, every little bit helps. You can look at it as one measly percent, or you could look at it as the one percent being someone (or some people) who could have avoided an STD if they were circumcised, which sacrifices what in the end, really? Also, you can pull statistics from many different places, and you're going to get different results every time.

What? Could you explain more fully here? Which STDs? What do you mean by "manifest themselves"?

Or they could have avoided the STD by practicing safer sex and better hygiene. And look at it this way: you face a 1% chance of dying from a motor vehicle accident during your lifetime (source); does that mean you should completely avoid driving, just to be safe? According to your logic, it does.

And further, Vegangelica didn't "pull statistics" from random internet sites; she used a number of very reputable organizations to support her data, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the International AIDS Society

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases.

Not everyone is privy to proper personal hygeine, let alone sexual health. It's not just a matter of "we have access to showers".

It's not realistic to go through your whole life avoiding driving for most people, and many people are willing to take that risk. For most people, leading an even somewhat fulfilling life without access to transportation would be impossible. A circumcision is an extremely low-risk, routine procedure that causes no negative side effects from a medical standpoint. If you are morally opposed to having your child circumcised that's fine; I'm arguing this purely relating to health risks. Even the most modest research shows there is an increased risk of medical problems in uncircumcised children.

I never accused her of that. These are hardly facts though. No matter how well research is conducted there are always biases involved, whether it be sample size, what type of people were researched, or something else. Different studies will show different results. Even if we knew the true number, and it was almost negligible, it's still something. I look at it from the point of, "Why not?"

Again, which agents? Which diseases? It's interesting, because of everything I've learned about STDs, I've never heard of this.

...really? How difficult is it to wash your junk?

Can you produce some of this research? I'd love to see it.

...really?

My mom was going on about circumcisions being covered by state funded healthcare and the fact that millions of dollars would be saved if they weren't covered by the plan. Hell, they aren't cheap and most of the people that order the procedure for their children don't do it for religious reasons. It's just stupid, why even bother covering something that's superfluous and purely cosmetic?

People can castrate themselves for all I care, but why circumcise your child just because "It looks better". It's all subjective, but mutilating your children's genitals based on your views of what looks good and bad?

Fuck off .

Bacterial agents.

Gonorrhea, chancroid, syphillis to name a few.

Not sure we should be using your knowledge of STDs as the measuring stick.

Cleaning under the foreskin has to be done thoroughly. It's more difficult for some than others. Some can't even withdraw their foreskin all the way back.

Circumcision Decreases Risk of Contracting STDs, Study Says - WSJ.com

One of the first ones that came up on google. Don't take this as fact though. Like I said, you're going to get different results.

I like turtles.

I would like to see someone in here come forward and say "I was circumcised and it has negatively affected my quality of life".

Near as I can see, the objection is coming from knowing how much it would hurt now, as an adult.

I think the biggest objection is that it involves performing unnecessary surgery on a baby. Considering that all surgery comes with some amount of risk, this means that circumcision is exposing babies to a potential harm. The question is: is there a valid reason to do so? As far as I can tell, the answer is no.

I'm curious why people are discussing this as an issue of health, or not. The reason why children are circumcised has nothing to do with medical science. It's in the Bible, and the vast majority is carried on due to tradition.

Now, find me an analysis on cutting off toes, or nipples, or the health effects of anything else. There are none. The only reason that it's being analyzed on that level is to distract the fact that the tradition has been carried over so many years obviously due to religious tradition, any other 'health fact' involving is just a distraction of that.

I think the real issue is where the line blurs between legally accepting a bizarre, potentially dangerous, and unnecessary ritual for a religious right, or not.

I'm not cut, and I don't have AIDS.

/anecdotal evidence.






But seriously... don't cut parts of your child's penis off. I hope that someday this is just as legitimate a law as not being able to cut your child's fingers off for whatever retarded reason...

The only reason I personally haven't mentioned religion or culture is because I put no weight behind it. Sure, that's a main reason why people have their children circumcised but it's definitely not the only one. The only factor that will come into play when I make the decision to circumcise my kid will be for medical purposes.

Just because some religious zealots may try to overstate health complications for the uncircumcised and use it as a distraction doesn't mean you should throw out the idea completely. There are increased health risks if you don't perform the procedure.

I'm guessing that the risks associated with not lopping off your foreskin are so minor as to be totally arguable, as the risks with using mouthwash or drinking apple juice or being left-handed are. If they were notable risks, then by now I think we'd have naturally selected the foreskin out of our genepool.

Yes, the foreskin has important biological functions as Erica pointed out, for example being highly sensitive and allowing for non-abrasive sex. What the last part means is that the extra skin on the penis acts as a sort of buffer rolling over the shaft which for example allows for non-abrasive masturbation without lubricants. Basically, cutting the penis would impair sexual function for example when masturbating which I'm sure is deeply rooted in why the culture developed in the first place. Religions typically have problems with sexual drive.

As an intact male, I feel I should point out that I don't have any problems cleaning myself. My foreskin retracts just fine and if for some reason it doesn't for some, that's a medical problem that can and is taken care of without circumcision. ;)

it's there no option for "indifferent"?

my dad is circumcised, i'm not

he certainly had no problems conceiving me

I'm not really that interested in indifferent opinions. I think people who are indifferent about it should read a bit - for example the stuff Erica mentions - and then form an opinion against circumcision. ;)

It's no better than cutting out the tongue on a newborn infant. It's a barbaric practice that ought to be criminalized. If it wasn't for the religious context, everyone would be revolted by it. Just another proof of the undeserved respect that religion receives in modern society.

Well, I can see what you're saying with babies, but I don't think it should be banned for anyone capable of making a decision. Like people here have said, everyone sees things differently, and some people might want it, even need it.

I'm confused by what you said here. Are you saying circumcised people can't masturbate without lubricants?

I've decided that on a purely personal note, I'm voting against. I've heard... cases with... a little more than usual being taken off in the operations. I'd rather not take that risk, no matter how small it is.

If I were a lady or gay, I'd definitely prefer a nice, clean rod as opposed to something that looks like it washed ashore on a beach in New Zealand.