(Male) Circumcision: Harmless cultural tradition or horrific genital mutilation?

I read another message board from time to time that is somewhat obsessed with crunchy-granola style naturalism, and the members are anti-circumcision in the extreme. I certainly understand the logic that if there's no good reason to surgically alter a body part, then it's probably best not to do so. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's a horrific practice that rises to the level of abuse, as the (mostly women) on that board claim.

So, what say you Mellophanters? Is the practice evil? Should it be outlawed? What about religious considerations? And are the (admittedly small) medical benefits enough to justify it?

Not evil, not horrific and of questionable value. But I am far from a crunchy-granola style naturalist.

Hmm, lets see. I am circumcised and have no memories from when it happened (as a baby) and no health or performance side effects. I also have never had to clean gunk out from under my foreskin, so it sounds like a win-win to me.

I don't care enough about it to say it should or shouldn't happen. Unless a significant amount of boys have their function destroyed by the process I don't think it's a huge issue. The slightly higher likelihood of me getting penis cancer gives me food for thought to keep me up at night though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Not evil, not horrific and of questionable value. But I am far from a crunchy-granola style naturalist.

---

Maybe the naturalist types are right in this circumstance, though. I mean, I can't agree with some of their other stances on, say, vaccines or science-based medicine in general. But circumcision isn't about benefits of modern technology, but rather an ancient and as you say perhaps unnecessary ritual. What's the point of it? If it doesn't benefit anyone, isn't it best to leave it as god/nature intended?

"Evil" seems like a strong word, but when you add up "medically unnecessary," "usually forced on people too young to opt out of it," and "based in ancient ritual of a religion that most who undergo it don't even practice," it's pretty damn close. I wish it had not been performed on me, and I elected not to do it to either of my sons until or unless it was demonstrated to be medically necessary.

I'm generally anti-circumcision. I'm not going to lecture somebody else about the choice once it's already been made, but if a pregnant friend asked me for input I'd certainly express my opinion that I don't really think it's necessary.

In 99.9999% cases there are no side-effects from the procedure, but the fact that the benefits are somewhat dubious (re: the lower risks of HIV and cancer, correlation does not equal causation) I see no reason to take the risk of that 0.0001% chance of causing a complication.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Maybe the naturalist types are right in this circumstance, though. I mean, I can't agree with some of their other stances on, say, vaccines or science-based medicine in general. But circumcision isn't about benefits of modern technology, but rather an ancient and as you say perhaps unnecessary ritual. What's the point of it? If it doesn't benefit anyone, isn't it best to leave it as god/nature intended?

---

I recall that for those deployed in combat, the foreskin could become an issue still. I would guess it has slightly more benefits than drawbacks. But I don't know enough about the subject. I have never seen a really convincing argument against it.

I guess the argument against it would be what OneCentStamp said...that it's pretty unnecessary, and it's performed on people without their consent.

I've never encountered a guy who wish it hadn't been done to them before, though. Most guys I've heard comment on this (both online and IRL) seem to be fine with whatever state theirs is in, and maybe even a bit prejudiced towards the state theirs is in (as in, they would do the same with their kid as was done/not done to them). Maybe that's psychological, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I guess the argument against it would be what OneCentStamp said...that it's pretty unnecessary, and it's performed on people without their consent.

I've never encountered a guy who wish it hadn't been done to them before, though. Most guys I've heard comment on this (both online and IRL) seem to be fine with whatever state theirs is in, and maybe even a bit prejudiced towards the state theirs is in (as in, they would do the same with their kid as was done/not done to them). Maybe that's psychological, though.

---

"without their consent" sounds like a really weak argument. That could be said for everything kids are made to do. Such as innoculations, going to bed, eating veggies, etc.

My son did have it done, but I think I have mentioned my wife is Jewish.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I've never encountered a guy who wish it hadn't been done to them before, though. Most guys I've heard comment on this (both online and IRL) seem to be fine with whatever state theirs is in, and maybe even a bit prejudiced towards the state theirs is in (as in, they would do the same with their kid as was done/not done to them). Maybe that's psychological, though.

---

I've noticed that a lot of guys will simply automatically support whatever was done to them, but there are plenty who don't. My cousin-in-law once horrified me by lamenting the loss of his foreskin and telling me about how badly he wanted it back and what methods there were for stretching skin, etc., etc.

Like I said, I'm generally against it, but not in a terribly passionate way. It's just not something that I see a point to, akin to piercing a newborn's ears.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply every guy is happy with his personal condition...there wouldn't be websites about restoring foreskin if that were true. I'd love to know what percentage of guys care much one way or the other...whether intact or not. (Sometimes I get the feeling, regarding the other message board, that it's more about psychological comfort for them as mothers.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

"without their consent" sounds like a really weak argument. That could be said for everything kids are made to do. Such as innoculations, going to bed, eating veggies, etc.

---

Not really, unless going to bed on time causes an irreversible change to a person's body that we're unaware of. You might have a point with inoculations, but those absolutely have medical benefits.

I'm not going to go so far as calling male circumcision "evil", and it really ticks me off when certain groups equate the practice to female circumcision, but I'm pretty strongly against it. I wouldn't go as far as to advocate it be banned, but I just can't see how it's okay to make such a permanent physical change (that boils down to cosmetics and ritual) to a person's body when they have no ability to consent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I recall that for those deployed in combat, the foreskin could become an issue still. I would guess it has slightly more benefits than drawbacks. But I don't know enough about the subject. I have never seen a really convincing argument against it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Not really, unless going to bed on time causes an irreversible change to a person's body that we're unaware of. You might have a point with inoculations, but those absolutely have medical benefits.

---

Not to mention that inoculations generally have to be done very early in order to be effective; a lot of childhood diseases (measles, rubella, etc.) strike children who would be much too young to make informed decisions; therefore, we vaccinate babies and aside from a few crackpots, nobody takes issue with that. In contrast, even if circumcision does reduce the risk of certain diseases (HIV, HPV), those are not diseases that small boys stand to contract. I could have been asked at age 13, or 15, or 18, whether I wanted to be circumcised. And I would have declined.

When I found out I was carrying a boy, I was leaning towards not circumcising for all the above reasons. No clear benefit, no choice, why subject them to a painful procedure with chance of bad side effects for no good reason? My son's father thought I was silly and that of course we should cut him, but wasn't too passionate either way.

Then my Dad asked what we were going to do, and proceeded to tell me in excruciating detail about his circumcision at 28 and why it was medically necessary. Way more than I ever wanted to know about my Dad's junk. Even as Dad agreed the doctors said his case was unusual, he lobbied for circ and I caved.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

Not to mention that inoculations generally have to be done very early in order to be effective; a lot of childhood diseases (measles, rubella, etc.) strike children who would be much too young to make informed decisions; therefore, we vaccinate babies and aside from a few crackpots, nobody takes issue with that. In contrast, even if circumcision does reduce the risk of certain diseases (HIV, HPV), those are not diseases that small boys stand to contract. I could have been asked at age 13, or 15, or 18, whether I wanted to be circumcised. And I would have declined.

---

Well I have seen a moil in action. It is a quick and nearly painless action and the infant is extremely likely to never remember it, I don't think I would be willing to do it as an adult or a teen.

Why did it become such a standard procedure for gentiles if it had no medical reason?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Why did it become such a standard procedure for gentiles if it had no medical reason?

---

Probably because Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. In the New Testament (Acts 15:10), Paul was obviously having a hard time convincing new Christians that circumcision was no longer necessary. Also, it isn't a strictly Jewish thing; pre-colonial indigenous peoples in Polynesia, West Africa and Central America all practiced ritual circumcision before meeting Christians.

This bit from Wikipedia about why it became popular in the United States and a few other parts of the English-speaking world seems to jive with what I've read elsewhere:

Quote:

---

Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practiced universally.[20] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[20] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[21] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[22] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produce paralysis).[20] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.

---

Zuul, Kellogg's main argument in favor of circumcision, that it helps "cure" masturbation by making it next to impossible without the aid of outboard lubrication, is (a) my biggest peeve with it; and (b) why I think it's been so popular for so long.

OCS, yeah, that's a pretty gross reasoning for performing even a minor surgery on a child. I think a large part of why it remains popular is straight up inertia, though. You get a few generations where almost every last man is circumcised and people get it into their heads that it's now necessary and surely all of those doctors wouldn't have been pushing for it if it didn't help and a lot of men want their sons to look like them, and so it continues even after most of the arguments for it have been debunked.

One of the most outrageously scientifically-faulty studies I've seen recently in regards to it is one in which HIV negative men in Africa were circumcised, along with a control group that wasn't, and then they were given safe sex information and left on their own for a year. At the end of that year, amazingly, the men who had been circumcised were less likely to have contracted HIV!

Considering that they were circumcised during that year, one can imagine that they may not have engaged in as much sex as their non-cut counterparts. :dubious:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

Probably because Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. In the New Testament (Acts 15:10), Paul was obviously having a hard time convincing new Christians that circumcision was no longer necessary. Also, it isn't a strictly Jewish thing; pre-colonial indigenous peoples in Polynesia, West Africa and Central America all practiced ritual circumcision before meeting Christians.

---

That wouldn't explain why generally speaking (nominally) Christian Europeans don't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Feirefiz

That wouldn't explain why generally speaking (nominally) Christian Europeans don't do it.

---

You're correct. It's primarily performed in Muslim countries and the United States and Australia today. I think the fact that the people who advocated for it in the early 20th century spoke English has a lot to do with why those two countries continue it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

OCS, yeah, that's a pretty gross reasoning for performing even a minor surgery on a child. I think a large part of why it remains popular is straight up inertia, though. You get a few generations where almost every last man is circumcised and people get it into their heads that it's now necessary and surely all of those doctors wouldn't have been pushing for it if it didn't help and a lot of men want their sons to look like them, and so it continues even after most of the arguments for it have been debunked.

One of the most outrageously scientifically-faulty studies I've seen recently in regards to it is one in which HIV negative men in Africa were circumcised, along with a control group that wasn't, and then they were given safe sex information and left on their own for a year. At the end of that year, amazingly, the men who had been circumcised were less likely to have contracted HIV!

Considering that they were circumcised during that year, one can imagine that they may not have engaged in as much sex as their non-cut counterparts. :dubious:

---

I think recovery time is only around 4 weeks, though, so depending on how much difference there was in the rate of HIV contraction, it might not make that much of a difference, statistically speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

I think recovery time is only around 4 weeks, though, so depending on how much difference there was in the rate of HIV contraction, it might not make that much of a difference, statistically speaking.

---

It might not, depending, but then there's also the fact that having a piece of your body sliced off for the sake of a medical study would make one a bit more likely to listen to the advice you were given than if you were simply one of the control group. There's no way to do that double-blind!

In addition to this, America has one of the worst rates for HIV infections in the western world and yet also has one of the highest rates for circumcision.

I have many of those crunchy-granola friends, and frankly, I'm pretty damn crunchy-granola in my own parenting beliefs. So yes, I'm against circumcision when it isn't a religious compulsion. The AAP does not recommend routine circumcision. The studies done connecting lack of circumcision and HIV transmission are arguable. It's hard to make a case for it being a medical necessity, and I don't think anyone has the right to make non-medically-necessary permanent alterations to another person's body without that person's permission. (I don't like ear piercings on baby girls, for the same reason.) I believe that sort of thing is a decision that the person who owns the body should get to make. Obviously we parents make decisions on behalf of our minor children all the time, but generally, there's a strong rationale behind giving children medications, vaccinations, imposing dietary restrictions and routines, etc.

I've seen this argument blow up into massive drama online before, and I'm not really interested in getting into that. I'm not trying to convince or sway anyone here. But the question was asked, and I thought I would explain the way I see it.

My ex husband is not circumcised so when we had our sons, we decided to skip the procedures.

I've never seen any "gunk" on my ex's penis since he's a normal clean guy and I like the streamlined look better than the mushroom look.

Our son is circumcised although we thought long and hard about the decision. Probably what swayed us most is that (a) all four of his older cousins are circumcised; and (b) a study came out linking circumcision with lower rates of HIV transmission right about the time we had to decide. In addition, given my age and nationality I'm used to the circumcised look (the first time I saw an uncircumcised penis I thought it was a birth defect :emb:). And I dated a European while I was in college whom I desperately wanted to have sex with but couldn't, because of some foreskin-related health problem.

Finally, as a foreigner living in Indonesia I know of a few cases of uncircumcised Western men who got cut in order to marry Indonesian Moslem women. None have complained about the before-and-after sensation, although the operation itself was another matter - I've heard it hurts like crazy. Given our lives, I wouldn't be at all surprised if my kid ends up wanting to marry a Moslem some day. In that case, he's all set - no operation needed. Maybe he'll thank me someday :lol:

I completely understand it if people choose not to circumcise - hey, whatever works for you. Just don't shriek that I'm a butcher for choosing otherwise for my kid. Live and let live, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

I completely understand it if people choose not to circumcise - hey, whatever works for you. Just don't shriek that I'm a butcher for choosing otherwise for my kid. Live and let live, folks.

---

In the end, I think this is what it comes down to and it made into a bigger issue than it really is on some select websites. I never, ever hear this debate IRL and my wife and I went semi-crunchy granola with Bradley Method training and used an Alternate Birthing Center. If the "Breast Feed or you are a Nazi"* crowd did not express an opinion on this, I have to believe the really shrill holier-than-thou anti-circumcision crowd is smallish at best.


* I complete support the idea that breast feeding is superior but I would never condemn those that chose otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

I completely understand it if people choose not to circumcise - hey, whatever works for you. Just don't shriek that I'm a butcher for choosing otherwise for my kid. Live and let live, folks.

---

Word. Of all the parenting issues people could fight about, circumcision is way, way down on the list. I wouldn't do it unless my partner felt very strongly about it or there were pressing cultural reasons, but unless somebody's asking for my opinion it's not my place to say anything about anybody who isn't my child.

I'm a helmet, not an anteater. Having said that, I don't really see any medical need for it. It's just another barbaric religious custom that has lasted way too long.

I came out looking fabulous.

Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

I came out looking fabulous.

Just saying.

---

Way to kill my thread, ya weirdo. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Way to kill my thread, ya weirdo. :smash:

---

So, don't post the link?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliveloaf

So, don't post the link?

---

O dear god. :priest:

I certainly don't feel traumatized by it. But I have no interest in having any of my hypothetical sons circumsized any more than I would be interested in having other random body modifications done to them. People who do it for nonreligious reasons can continue to do it, I guess, but I hope that we can move away from this idea that the human body needs medical intervention as a rule rather than the exception. If foreskinless penes are more advantageous, wouldn't we have evolved them?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

I certainly don't feel traumatized by it. But I have no interest in having any of my hypothetical sons circumsized any more than I would be interested in having other random body modifications done to them. People who do it for nonreligious reasons can continue to do it, I guess, but I hope that we can move away from this idea that the human body needs medical intervention as a rule rather than the exception. If foreskinless penes are more advantageous, wouldn't we have evolved them?

---

Not sure about that last part, actually. We evolved an appendix, too, and those have no value and often cause a lot of trouble. Evolution is a tricky beast.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

I certainly don't feel traumatized by it. But I have no interest in having any of my hypothetical sons circumsized any more than I would be interested in having other random body modifications done to them. People who do it for nonreligious reasons can continue to do it, I guess, but I hope that we can move away from this idea that the human body needs medical intervention as a rule rather than the exception. If foreskinless penes are more advantageous, wouldn't we have evolved them?

---

Not really on that last part. Evolution has a long way to go before humans are perfect and in many cases things that were advantageous during our development before civilization are not always helpful in our modern technological lives. The genetic difference between man of 20000 years ago and today are minimal. Evolution is a fairly slow process most of the times. The difference between foreskinless and not is no matter how much debate of minimal survival importance.

But no one goes around advocating appendix removal at birth in case of appendicitis! Leave well enough alone and let nature do its thing! I realize it's a bit facile to say why we haven't evolved a lot of things. But honestly, humanity survived for a heck of a long time without ever circumsizing anything.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Not really on that last part. Evolution has a long way to go before humans are perfect and in many cases things that were advantageous during our development before civilization are not always helpful in our modern technological lives. The genetic difference between man of 20000 years ago and today are minimal. Evolution is a fairly slow process most of the times. The difference between foreskinless and not is no matter how much debate of minimal survival importance.

---

It certainly does since evolution will never result in the perfect anything! As far as it's concerned, good enough is close enough! A foreskin is at worst a neutral adaptation and I see no reason for its removal as a matter of course.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

But no one goes around advocating appendix removal at birth in case of appendicitis! Leave well enough alone and let nature do its thing! I realize it's a bit facile to say why we haven't evolved a lot of things. But honestly, humanity survived for a heck of a long time without ever circumsizing anything.

---

Well honestly for a while they also removed tonsils at the drop of the hat and sometimes just to get it over with. This is a practice that has been discontinued though.

Yeah, I'm not saying that circumcision is necessarily an example of this, but I can see justifying a minor surgical procedure as a prophylactic if otherwise there is a risk of cancer or other disease. We don't have our appendixes taken out because that's pretty major surgery...but if it was as easy to do as a circumcision, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done routinely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Well honestly for a while they also removed tonsils at the drop of the hat and sometimes just to get it over with. This is a practice that has been discontinued though.

---

Bolded the key bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

Bolded the key bit.

---

I think, thought couldn't swear to it, that this is because they've found that it's not all that effective, especially in the light of modern antibiotics. If it was worth doing, they'd probably still be doing it.

Possibly. Tonsillitis was probably not a huge concern for your average caveman. But my point remains that in this area, when its effectiveness was called into question, the practice was investigated and dropped when found wanting. Circumcision has been shown to not affect men's health in a real way and yet the practice is not only continued but encouraged in some quarters.

I am uncircumsised, and I am grateful for that. There's just something about a strange man removing parts of my penis for no reason beyond tradition, even before I was using it, that just seems so... pointless. Or creepy.

Cleaning underneath there is no big deal, the supposed benefits are dubious and preventable and, hey, you are making the head of the penis smaller. This last point alone would make me want to kill my parents if they chose that path.

So if you don't do it at birth, it might become medically necessary at some point in the future and you can decide what to do. If it's done at birth and you lose the use of your little guy due to complications...well then it's off to the priesthood with you and you can resent your parents for mutilating you.

And people do it because someone else was squeamish a long time ago?

No, I didn't get my son trimmed up. I don't know that the practice is actually evil, but as a standard practice for newborns it's stupid. Just because there's minimal reason to forego the procedure doesn't mean it's worth doing in the first place.

I'm not really religious anymore and, you know, I was born without a penis, so it's never been an issue in my life. I don't think it's quite as horrific as a lot of people make it out to be (and, sorry, probably a knee-jerk reaction, but I always worry a little about antisemitism when I see really vehement folks against it), but I don't really know if I'd have it done if I had a kid. I feel like I should, even if rationally I recognize there isn't much need.

Holy shit how did I not even see a circ thread?! I once had an epic battle with catsix at the other place about this, just because I felt the anti-circ arguments she and others were posing made no sense. (catsix I <3 you please come back.) I guess I've gotten a little more radical with age and increased exposure to alcohol, because I don't think I'd argue the pro-circ stance no matter what nowadays.

Anyway, yeah. I'm uncut and look as far as crazy-ass hippie parents go this is probably the biggest benefit. Firstly, well, look: a lot of sex is solo, and I don't even quite understand how cut guys do that. I'm pretty sure that we uncut types have an advantage there. An advantage I would consider decisive on its own.

Now, beyond that, there are the benefits derived from (seemingly) reduced likelihood of contracting STDs. I'm not 100% convinced that the findings from HIV studies are valid, but even if they are, way more significant is safe sex. The same is almost certainly true of HPV infection. The bottom line, though, is that while I'm willing to overlook it in the case of religious feelings, it's frickin' bizarre to decide to surgically alter your child's genitalia in any other circumstance.

The marginal health benefits that result are immaterial next to the fact that you're deciding to fucking amputate a part of your child's penis (and usually for some ridiculous fucking reason like "well we want him to match his daddy" -- any couple that says that should have their children taken away from them.) It's a piece of your child's body that you want to remove? Stop and try to step back from your own experience and preconceptions for a minute and think about how fucking insane it is to decide to do that to a child, and think about how feeble your rationale for it is, and then realize that you are only doing it as the ultimate result of a 19th century public education campaign against masturbation, and then realize that you are obviously not good enough at making decisions to raise a child anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Why did it become such a standard procedure for gentiles if it had no medical reason?

---

:smack Seriously? Didn't you have kids? Didn't this question ever came up? It was popularized in the 19th century in America by people advocating it as a preventative for masturbation. Does that really seem like a legitimate rationale for amputating part of a child's body? Didn't you bother to look this stuff up? It's not exactly a secret.

I'm inclined to agree - not to the extent of resurrecting a thread that's been mouldering for the last three months (see, I've been doing my homework!) in order to have my say about it, but as long as it's up and about I should say you had the right of it, Exy. Admittedly I'd have probably have expressed myself in slightly more reserved language, but when in Rome et tout cela.

It's not so much of an issue in England where most of us have not had the procedure and, if anyone's to look the odd man out in the shower (and let me tell you, precious little is private in the changing room of an English public school - but that's a story for another day perhaps) it'll be the chap with no foreskin. Gave me a bit of a jump the first time I saw one, I don't mind telling you; wondered what the blazes was wrong with the poor devil. And as far as masturbation goes, I have it on pretty good authority that it's possible to work around a little matter like the lack of a foreskin. Heh.

How do you do those little pictures, by the way? Is that little fellow supposed to be saying "Goodness me, what an idiot" and if so, to whom? Got to try and learn how to fit in, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Well I have seen a moil in action. It is a quick and nearly painless action and the infant is extremely likely to never remember it, I don't think I would be willing to do it as an adult or a teen.

Why did it become such a standard procedure for gentiles if it had no medical reason?

---

It's mohel, not moil.

I held the baby once when his father couldn't do it without swooning. I also found myself in a room in a hospital shooting B-roll of the babies in the nursery next door when I started hearing screams there in the room, right behind me. I turned to find 3 babies strapped into stainless steel troughs, arms and legs lashed down, having just been circ'd. -shudder-

I'm cut and was at birth. My adopted Korean son arrived uncut. For utterly irrational reasons ( " he'll look like me and the men in my family even though his face doesn't look like mine and that of the men in my family " ), I pushed for him to get cut. My ex-wife was resistant and so we went to see a pediatric urologist to do a consult. Turns out that my son had a problem with both kidneys that would have gone undiscovered for a while had we not gone in and had the MD not done a sonogram just to look around. One issue required surgery.

Fortunate that I pushed as it turns out. And yeah, we had him cut while we were having his kidney fixed. Glad we did. No idea if he has strong thoughts about it. Cannot imagine a time when he and I will talk penis.

Cartooniverse

Thanks for reviving this thread, Exy, as I've revised my opinion on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Word. Of all the parenting issues people could fight about, circumcision is way, way down on the list. I wouldn't do it unless my partner felt very strongly about it or there were pressing cultural reasons, but unless somebody's asking for my opinion it's not my place to say anything about anybody who isn't my child.

---

Having read more and seriously thought about having children, it isn't at the bottom of the list. Just because we've been socialized to see it as normal in this country doesn't make it normal. It's still an unnecessary surgery on your child's genitals. It's still being done for dubious reasons. Any health benefits (except perhaps from a minuscule effect on a rare type of cancer) that it provides are less than is provided by hygiene and condoms. And some of the reasoning offered is ridiculous:

Quote:

---

Some observers also point out that variation in circumcision practices may help explain why HIV rates in countries or regions differ. In areas where circumcision is common, HIV infection rates tend to be low. In North America, where about 80 percent of men are circumcised, only a fraction of 1 percent of the population is HIV-positive. In western Africa, another area where circumcision is widely practiced, rates of HIV infection among those ages 15 to 49 are just 1 percent to 5 percent. But in eastern and southern Africa, where typically fewer than 20 percent of men are circumcised, rates of HIV infection range from 15 percent to 25 percent.

---

From http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Networ...curcumsion.htm

That sounds pretty good for North America until you consider that in western Europe, the country with the highest percentage of the population that is HIV positive as of 2007--Switzerland--had a rate of 0.6%. Finland, Germany, Malta, Norway, and Sweden all have a rate of 0.1%, the same as Israel. I don't have circumcision stats on Malta, but for the rest they all have a circumcision rate of under 20% (similar to eastern and southern Africa). Israel's circumcision rate is obviously high, at nearly 100%, but their HIV rates are the same as in all those countries where they aren't circumcising routinely.

And what's the specific number for the USA's HIV rate? 0.47% So in western Europe we're looking at Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK as all having lower HIV rates than the US. Yep, circumcision is clearly doing us some good there.

As far as non-religious circumcision goes, it's a practice that was begun and when its reasoning was found to be faulty a new set of rationalizations was looked for. That's not medicine or science. That's superstition.

Reasoning based on what's going on in Africa is inherently problematic because circumcision rates themselves depend on religion, and come tied to different religious standards of sexual behavior.

The difference in rates of penile cancer is now known to probably result from differences in HPV infection rate, since that's now understood to be the cause of penile cancer.

So much as I suspected, all the alleged benefits of circumcision are based on faulty science?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

So much as I suspected, all the alleged benefits of circumcision are based on faulty science?

---

I don't think that's true. My impression is that uncut men are more vulnerable to HPV and HIV infection; it's just probably not anywhere near strong enough to explain the disparities in HIV infection rates between different countries. The pro-circ nutjobs who are advocating mass circumcision in Africa like quoting those numbers because it sounds dramatic but it's hard to believe that we'd suddenly see a difference if everyone in Tanzania were circumcised.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartooniverse

It's mohel, not moil.

---

Speaking on behalf of my people, it's a little silly to get too persnickety over the spelling of transliterations. For example, there are a few spellings of "Chanukah," and they're all acceptable. The only really correct spelling is in Hebrew. :hoj:

Weeeeeell...c'mon. You might take issue with someone spelling Kinicky,