When South Africa gets called to the carpet on the front page of the New York Times for failing to adequately promote circumcision as a means to prevent the spread of HIV, why doesn’t anyone go after American doctors who almost universally tell parents that there’s no medical reason to make the cut?
The American Academy of Pediatrics says:
Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.
In the Northwest, where newborn circumcision rates have dropped to well under 50 percent, most organic-milk drinking, cloth-diapering, alternative-education espousing parents now consider it nearly cruel and unusual (neither Oregon nor Washington Medicaid insurance plans cover the procedure).
But in Africa, apparently, circumcision is the new breastfeeding.
From the Times:
Some other African nations are championing the procedure and bringing it to thousands. But in South Africa, the powerhouse country at the heart of the epidemic, the government has been notably silent, despite the withering international criticism the country has endured for its previous foot-dragging in fighting and treating AIDS.
“Countries around us with fewer resources, both human and financial, are able to achieve more,” said Dr. Quarraisha Abdool Karim, the first director of South Africa’s national AIDS program in the mid-1990s under President Nelson Mandela. “I wish I understood why South Africa, which has an enviable amount of resources, is not able to respond to the epidemic the way Botswana and Kenya have.”
At my 6-month-old son’s checkup this week, I asked his pediatrician to explain, and got the now standard answer: “There is no medical reason to perform a circumcision.” But if that’s true in the U.S, why isn’t it true in Africa?
My first thought was that maybe the studies showing a huge decrease in HIV infection rates are bogus. Many public health proclamations are based on reported data (sketchy), but it turns out that’s not the case here. The studies weren’t double blind (obviously study participants could tell whether or not they had been circumcised), but they did take thousands of uncut guys and randomly assign them to be cut at the beginning or at the end of the trial.
And basically the number in the uncut group who contracted HIV over the course of the study was generally more than double compared to the cut (about 1.3 percent versus .6 percent in one Ugandan study). Those are small percentages but it meant the difference of about 30 men in Uganda, surely significant to them and their families.
So assume the studies are accurate. Why is it happening? Is it a lack of modern plumbing that means Africans are not as able to keep their parts clean, giving the bugs more places to hide out? That was my doctor’s guess.
Could public health messages about cleanliness have the same effect as a delicate if simple operation? If that’s the case, shouldn’t the story be at least as much about a need for clean running water, which would prevent loads of other deadly and devastating diseases? Personally, I think circumcision is a somewhat bizarre, archaic practice, not unlike religion, that lots of people just go along with because it’s what they’re used to.
Granted, South Africa has had a poor reputation for addressing AIDS. During a visit there in the late 1990’s, local papers were full of articles claiming AIDS prevention was a way for white imperialists to discourage Africans from breeding. That seems silly. But parents (and adult men) in the United States would have a pretty hard time swallowing a governmental mandate to remove non-essential skin from an essential body part. Especially if it wasn’t even our government.
It is way too early in the morning for me to even begin to entertain the thought of people taking knives to other peoples’ dicks. Try again in a few hours.
Part of the issue is the dramatic difference in the incidence and prevalence of HIV in America and most of Africa. Circumcision is a surgical procedure that is not without risk. In America, the number needed to freat (that is, the number of males who must be circumcised to prevent one person from contracting HIV) is going to be much higher than it is in Africa, primarily because one is much more likely to contract HIV from a single sexual contact in Uganda than Washingon.
The only thing I have to offer is this: A dear friend of mine is a school nurse in Indiana, and she gets irritated at parents who don’t teach their uncut boys the importance of keeping things clean down there, because the boys come to her when things get messy. She gives them a brochure or something, and sometimes the parents call and bitch at her for doing that.
But it does seem like I read, back in my AIDS activism days, something about STD transmission and the uncut penis. But that was a long time ago, and a lot of that stuff ended up getting debunked.
Why isn’t it true in Africa? Knowing first hand how difficult it is to even TALK about HIV/AIDS in many regions of Africa means that discussing safe sex and condoms is often like preaching on deaf ears. Circumcision — while perhaps proving only marginally helpful in the fight against HIV transmission — is less of a challenge when compared to advocacy.
I don’t think any man with a functioning penis should be circumcised, but in parts of Africa we can’t wait for religious fervor and false optimism to slowly dissipate. The infection rate there is beyond imagination and I believe that whatever can be done in conjunction with education at this moment should be on the table. Down the road, when a less harmful/more effective prevention method comes about, then circumcision can be nixed.
Africa should invite the White Imperialist back in.
To build on Shelby’s comment, rates of condom misuse (and hence failure) are far higher in Africa. The people there have so many other worries (some imposed by religion and government, some simply the natural byproduct of extreme poverty) that they either cannot or will not pay attention to simple measures like condoms and their proper use.
One point of comparison: in areas where a nasty disease called Lassa Fever is endemic, it is very hard to get people to take action to keep the rodents that spread the disease out of their dwellings (e.g., by using the free mouse traps they are given). You basically have to make them think of the rodents as demons to get them to take protective measures. This cultural need for great drama probably also translates into a greater willingness to endure circumcision than to use condoms properly.
@3 That was my first thought and was kind of surprised it was not in the article.
Its kind of the same reason mosquito nets are considered a public health issue in many parts of the world, but not here. Malaria will kill us just as dead, we just don’t have much of it.
Uncut guys feed into greater cervical cancer in women as well – so I remember.
And, keeping it clean is a GIANT problem and keeping it loose so the cock can get hard and be used in comfort is another problem.
In the Navy, where I was a medic, guys as adults get cut all the time … to solve the too tight foreskin problem …
Medical fadism is dangerous. Why bother to get the kids vaccinations? Ever heard that one?
Is this not obvious? Isn’t it a general lack of proper condom use, which it’s assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Americans will both have access to and use to prevent STI’s. Certainly the organic-breastfeeding-etc. parents aren’t imagining that their baby’s going to grow up and have unprotected sex.
Why not leave it up to the boy to decide at a later age if they want to be circumcised or not?
This is a real hot button for me. I don’t care what the excuse is…STOP MUTILATING HELPLESS BABIES!!! I wasn’t given a choice. I was mutilated. I hate it. Young men can make the decision themselves. There is a clear reason we evolved a foreskin. If I could sue the doctor and my parents, I would do it in a flash.
Good Morning Audrey,
I read that piece in the NY Times a few days ago. I believe in the “whatever works” concept. HIV transmission/AIDS is such an endemic problem especially in southern Africa that even if there is merely a marginal decrease in the rate of infections well, by all means employ it. I agree with you and @5 Shelby that the procedure seems archaic (I’m circumcised but like most males in my peer group, 40 something I didn’t have a choice. The procedure was common medical practice for most males born in the 60s and earlier).
It’s been pointed out Africa isn’t America. There are different factors contributing to higher rates there than here. I believe one of them is hygiene. If you can get adult males queuing up to be circumcised as an alternative, so be it.
Hey 11, why don’t you register and ask a third time?
And please, people, don’t let this thread devolve into the kind of “CIRCUMCISION EVIL!!!!!” rant-fest Vince seems to want to have.
@ 16 I do think circumcision is evil. And if I thought a “rant- fest” would stop even one stupid asshole from mutilating one child I’d say rant on. Rant on!
This article http://www.mothering.com/health/truth-ab… shows that those studies are essentially bunk.
@ 17, unless your glans was actually damaged when you were cut, then this is a cover issue for whatever family dysfunction you’re sorting out. I’m assuming that your glans is just fine, and I advise you to get over it.
@ 18, plz use tinyurl for your links or post them as their own line. kthxbye
@16 He just wants to feel like a victim.
@19 Well guess what? I won’t “get over it”. Especially because people like you think you can decide what damage I have suffered as a result. You think it’s just a minor what? A minor loss? Well let’s say we remove one of your nipples. Without your permission. No real damage. You won’t ever nurse a baby. Get over it. Let’s remove a testicle. Without your permission. You have another one. You don’t need two. Get over it.
@18 mothering.com is a cesspool of pseudoscience bullshit.
@22 I am pretty sure Matt is a man. Just guessing here, but it seems likely. Probably won’t be nursing any babies anytime soon. (unless he is one of those few males that do lactate…)
@ 24 is right. And like Vince, I was cut when I was a helpless newborn. Snip! Just like that. Why is it that I don’t feel traumatized, or that I should sue my parents and (probably now-dead) doctor?
Vince’s response just supports the conclusion I reached about him.
@24 Duh.
Dan–
Does The Stranger provide Health Insurance for employees, interns and their families?
STD transmission rates go down for circumcised men because the epidermis on the foreskin is very thin, and viruses get in easily, not due to lack of cleaning up afterward (Or at least that is what the last paper I read claimed.)
@ 25 Ignorance is bliss. Your proof!
Speaking of circumcision;
Does The Stranger provide Health Insurance for employees, interns and their families?
Audrey, are you under the impression that cultural and living conditions are similar for African and American males?
This is a silly question. It opens up the possibility for a lot of racist and ethnocentric trolling, as well. Boo.
“And, keeping it clean is a GIANT problem and keeping it loose so the cock can get hard and be used in comfort is another problem.”
Really? My boyfriend has had no problems. Playing with it during foreplay and oral is actually really fun. It’s a tiny bit more fiddly when he puts on a condom, but that’s all.
Granted, this doesn’t mean I suppose there aren’t any men with problems at all. If your foreskin bothers you enough to hinder sexual activity, by all means, get it cut if you think it’s necessary … when you’re an adult. Earlier, if it’s a medical problem.
But rates of circumcision have severely declined in Canada and I haven’t yet heard of an epidemic of hard, painful cocks.
I want to hear more from Vince. This is hilarious.
i guess i’m traumatized and i didn’t know it. i was satisfied with my dick. until now.
Read here for the science behind why circumcision reduces HIV in men —though not their feamle partners. However, circumcision does reduce the risks of HPV- related cervical cancer.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factshe…
I’m very much against circumcision of infants. If men want to be circumcised to lessen their chances of HIV infection, they have the free choice to do so. But let’s give infants time to grow up and make that decision for themselves.
There seems to be some confusion about why it’s done. Here is a passage from Elizabeth Pisani’s excellent The Wisdom of Whores: Bureaucrats, Brothels and the Business of Aids:
“Another warm welcome [for HIV infection] is provied by the Langerhans’ cells which sit on the inside of the foreskin that covers the uncircumsized penis. Because circumcision lops off these cells, it closes one of the doors through which HIV might enter a man’s body. It also toughens up the tip of the penis, so that lesions are less common.” [p 130]
That said, I’m an uncircumsized Canadian and I think the practice is barbaric when done on children. If you want to make the informed decision to do it as an adult or young adult, be my guest.
And Gloria [#32] I do believe they were refering to phimosis, though many times this can be fixed non surgically.
I was circumsized at birth. My dick works fine. No harm no foul, I say. But then again, I’m not the type that chooses to be bitter about anything and everything.
I think the problem is that really circumcision is behind the point. It only is a factor if you fail to have protected sex in the first place.
@3, thank you for pointing out that differing prevalence of disease may lead us to assess risks and benefits differently.
@18: really? You’re going to trust an article in Mothering (by “Gussie Fauntleroy…a Santa Fe-based writer”) rather than legions of Ph.D.s publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals who genuinely want to stop the HIV epidemic? Good call on that.
@37, thank you for clearing up the biology here. There are other possibilities as well: circumcision may reduce risks of herpes, which itself increases risk of HIV infection.
I was circumsized at birth and all works fine and frankly I prefer a guy that’s cut.
You want to get pissed about something, get pissed about female being curcumsized; THAT is the really fucked up shit.
@39, two points. First of all, condoms fail, and “typical” condom use does a poor job at preventing pregnancy.
Moreover, this is how public health works: with harm reduction. Yes, OF COURSE it would be better if everyone only had protected sex. But they won’t. So we should consider how to keep them safer anyway: regardless of whether one thinks that circ is a good idea or not, this general principle applies. So it’s not a problem: it’s a feature.
As always 5 is full of bs and projecting hi own prejudices.
http://www.developments.org.uk/articles/…
http://natavillage.typepad.com/my_weblog…
Vince @22
here you go: http://www.norm.org/
go get your foreskin restored and STFU.
@43 — your links are interesting but @5 Shelby’s points are still true.
If talk education were enough, then the problem wouldn’t continue to worsen every day.
Like most complex problems, the solution lies in a varied approach of education, prevention, treatment and compassion. We have data of all kinds supporting a multi-pronged strategy works better than singular answers like “abstinence only” etc.
@42.
We’re talking about AIDS here.
There is no form of birth control that prevents AIDS better than a condom. Certainly if you use one a circumcised penis won’t matter.
First of all, this:
Ignorance is bliss. Your proof!
was awesome.
Moving on, I don’t think that framing circumcision as an issue of consent is as straightforward as it appears. Parents make decisions with irrevokable effects on behalf of their young children all the time; it’s kind of their job. Circumcision at the age of consent is an altogether different experience than circumcision during infancy, with a different cost:benefit ratio. If you believe that the potential benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks in general, then it’s better done during infancy than adulthood. Waiting until the age of consent introduces additional risks, discomfort, and reduces the likelihood of circumcision for reasons unrelated to its actual merits or risks with regard to health (e.g., fear, expense). In this sense, circumcision is comparable to vaccination (though I’m not arguing that the benefits are as clear).
@46, I brought up pregnancy to illustrate that people, in practice, typically – use condoms poorly. Over a year of typical use, pregnancy risk is ~15% with condoms; with perfect use, it’s ~2%. That difference, ~13%, is 1 in 8 couples. That’s a big deal for HIV acquisition.
So while I agree with your statement that there is no form of birth control that prevents HIV acquisition better than condoms – that I’m aware of, anyway – it is not at all true that if you use condoms you’re perfectly protected, and therefore that circumcision status is of zero importance. Less importance, sure; but not none.
Audrey, the reason for this voluntary procedure in some African countries is that several international studies have shown it reduces HIV acquisition in men anywhere from 50 to 70% (you can find these studies easily on the Internet). Overall, over 60% of African men are already circumcised, but that rate drops below 20% in southern Africa, where HIV prevalence is highest – up to 25% of the adult population in some countries. That is one-quarter of the adult population. Think of the implications for society when ONE-QUARTER of your nation’s adult population faces a severe chronic disease, and early death without proper treatment. Some African nations are now in triage mode. The need to do everything they can to stem the tide of this pandemic. Voluntary adult male circumcision is not going to stop HIV/AIDS alone, but it is one piece of a complex system of prevention and treatment. And no offense to your child’s pediatrician, but I’m guessing that s/he is not a specialist in heterosexual transmission of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps his/her response to your question was framed by living and practicing in Seattle, where for most men, given the relatively low prevalence of HIV in the heterosexual population, circumcision doesn’t make sense as a public health preventive measure.
@43 I very rarely comment on SLOG for there to be the declaration that I’m “full of BS and projecting hi [sic] own prejudices.”
How was I prejudiced in that post? Great job Googling two anecdotes too.
45 True hartiepie, but one will be better served to avoid seeing the people (through their different customs, cultures and religion) that constitute a whole continent as difficult or dumb ” preaching on deaf ears”. Just because he has made a couple of trips to the continent doesn’t mean he knows the mentality and comprehension skills of African people, I’m sorry but voices like him are condescending, arrogant and bring nothing to the table. He makes it sound like he’s dr livingston on his whatever the heck he has done missions, he’s not. Africans as the links show are taking charge of their own education and some nations are opting to or not to take varied approaches as you stated to combat HIV AIDS, mostly done at grass root level. I’m glad they do, precisely to avoid arrogant people like 5 looking down at them and their culture because in the end it is them who need to take control of their health according to what works best for them within their culture not that of Shelbys.
The only problem I have with circumcision is that it’s done without any kind of painkillers or anesthesia, mainly because the child won’t remember the experience, so it’s ok to torture him. In my opinion, it’s proof that we treat our children more like pets than human beings.
Also, that study had a difference of only 0.7 %, so I doubt there’s any kind of correlation here. I was under the impression that if you have unprotected sex with somebody who has AIDS, you’re infected. Period. Saying that circumcision protects you from AIDS is like saying a Kevlar vest protects you from a freight train.
The only problem I have with circumcision is that it’s done without any kind of painkillers or anesthesia
This was true in the past but is no longer the case. At least in the U.S., infant circumcision procedures done in a medical setting use anaesthesia more often than not, and in virtually all cases where the parents request it.
@51 — Your anger is nearly palpable. @50 and @5 Shelby said none of what you wrote, so I see you projecting your thoughts and experiences onto him.
BTW, all those people in all those different countries would likely balk at you lumping them toegther while excoriating someone for lumping them all toegether.
Everyone needs help sometimes. If they were so good at AIDS/HIV prevention and treatment, we would be going to them instead of the other way around….
@ 54, Loveschild misreading someone she doesn’t like? Loveschild projecting? Say it ain’t so!
The hilarious thing about this thread is that, traditionally, Africans are circumcised as adolescents, not babies.
54 I had you wrong on this thread but, thank you for proving my point about the arrogance prevalent in this subject anyways. Do yourself a favor and read some of those “very rare” comments from Shelby were he indulges himself in talks about “militant blacks”, but I’m the angry one to you of course so you might agree with him also on his other views like you do here. It’s my sincere wish that my courageous and intelligent sisters and brothers in the continent keep up the work they have embarked on be it through circumcisions (which I’m all for) which fall perfectly in line with the customs of those who observe the Muslim faith or through abstinence only programs of education which fall right in line with christians and native religions that value monogamy and marriage, find themselves very soon in a place where they need nothing from people like you and Shelby.
I’m so sorry for all you guys who had the end of your dick chopped off when you were little babies. Ouch!
#58, it’s ok. giffy says we just want to feel like victims.
@57 — Man, you do crack me up!
I would love to see the document that made you Empress of Africa, empowered to know all and decide all for everyone on that continent — especially men’s issues.
Enough. Sometimes I wonder what possses me tocontinue writing to a cartoon character…..
@52, every single statement in your post is wrong.
First paragraph, as already pointed out, anesthesia is often given in the developed world.
“Also, that study had a difference of only 0.7 %, so I doubt there’s any kind of correlation here.”
That statement is full of statistical fail. Let’s just leave it at this: you seem to be conflating the concept of the size of the point estimate (0.7%) and the precision and statistical significance of that estimate. Learn to tell the difference.
Based on that point estimate, you could argue reasonably that the impact is too small to make the intervention worth doing. But the point estimate alone tells you nothing about whether the association is due to chance or not.
“I was under the impression that if you have unprotected sex with somebody who has AIDS, you’re infected. Period.”
You are completely wrong. The probability of infection per act of unprotected sex with an infected partner is substantially smaller than 1, and depends on a number factors including: what stage of infection is the infected party in (risk is highest in early infection > late infection > middle infection, typically). Are you male or female, and is your partner male or female? Is the sex vaginal, anal, or oral? Does one or both of you have active herpes or other open sores through which blood exposure might take place? Is the infected party receiving antiretroviral drugs? And, if you’re a man, are you circumcised?
“Saying that circumcision protects you from AIDS is like saying a Kevlar vest protects you from a freight train.”
This is in direct contradiction to the three published peer reviewed randomized trials, as well as a boatload of observational studies. It is clear you have never read any of these studies: this is why, again, you are completely wrong.
Speaking of circumcision;
Does The Stranger provide Health Insurance for employees, interns and their families?
Loveschild, if you knew how to read critically (in all of the examples you provide), you would know I meant nothing offensive.
In fact, in this post I NEVER lumped all of Africa together. I wrote the following:
“Knowing first hand how difficult it is to even TALK about HIV/AIDS in many regions of Africa…” and “don’t think any man with a functioning penis should be circumcised, but in parts of Africa we can’t wait for religious fervor and false optimism to slowly dissipate.”
I try to choose my words carefully, but if literacy is an issue for you, I’m confused how to be more clear. Please badger someone you have intellectual superiority over.
@27/30/62: Employees, yes. Interns, no. Families, at additional cost. You are off-topic; please stop.
60 Oh, the cartoon character charge, it alternates with the troll one, when the you have to be stupid or illiterate one fails. I guess when you know you’re wrong there’s just no other place to go….. Unlike you and your friend, I do not pretend to know the mindset and mental aptitudes of the varied people in Africa, especially those in the subsaharan regions. Neither do I see my knowledge as superior to theirs. An you can bet everything you’ve got that I do feel and have real connections with the continent so I do take umbrage in snub comments and generalizations (or in a language you can understand (caricatures)) being made about a whole continent. Have yourself a great day sweetie.
No one, of any gender, or any age, should have their genitals mutilated without their permission.
No doubt this simple statement makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and opponents usually respond with mockery and derision. That’s fine. Just stop mutilating babies.
@44, you’re right. Vince should restore. I’ve been considering it myself. But it’s a long process with results that are not guaranteed, and has phsyical limitations (you can’t restore nerves that were cut away, like the ridged band or the frenulum).
For the rest of us cut guys, we may think our penises work fine, but the important part here is that *we don’t know what we’re missing*. Our penises could work so much better had our parents not cut us. As well, what you think “works fine” may not actually work well at all, for example if the cut was too tight, skin bridges grew, etc. And then there’s the whole keratinization of the glans that reduces sensitivity over our lifetimes. How many impotent older guys do you think would have fewer problems if their glans was protected all their lives, thus retaining sensitivity?
No child of mine will ever be cut except by his own choice when he’s old enough to make that decision. And perhaps this is the incentive I need to get started finally on my own restoration.
@ 67, it’s far too late to worry about “what we are [or are not] missing.” But FWIW I doubt I’d do it to my son, if I had or was going to have one.
Here’s my two cents (and from a future pediatrician, so I’ve been forced to read up on this shit):
Having been sick on my ass for a year, I had the opportunity to spend some of my time volunteering for a web site that provides health information to teenagers. Development stuff, naturally, came up. And I was frankly surprised by the number of guys who regretted having not been given the choice over circumcision themselves. Not weird Internet crazies either. Perfectly rational, intelligent guys who simply did not appreciate what they saw as an unnecessary denial of personal choice.
This is my general belief: Security in your own body is extremely important, probably one of the most important things in life. And, unless we can prove that the benefits are urgent and the procedure has objective net benefit, there’s no reasonable justification for it not being a choice. Vaccination, yes (there is an urgency a purely objective cost-benefit analysis); circumcision, no.
Not going to circumcise my children without their consent. Glad our state rate has fallen so precipitously. Hopefully that Medicaid money will be spent on sexual education (which is currently pathetic) and save far more lives per tax dollar than expensive circumcisions. And, no one (minority as they may be) feels the least bit violated. Win-win.
@65 (psssst…..re my cartoon character reference: Take a look over at your icon, m’kay?)
Loveschild is as dumb as a bag of shit. Your “brothers and sisters” in Africa. Ha! I hope you realize that black Africans totally loathe the American negro.
@68 But that’s exactly the point. We don’t know what we’re missing, so we intentionally choose to make sure our sons don’t know either?
On a similar note, I’ve never understood the whole, “A son should look like his father” argument pro-circumcision. If that’s really a concern, then perhaps the father should consider restoring his foreskin rather than hacking off his son’s.
Actually it not that Africans only need circumcision; Africans, only, need Castration, until they learn how to treat their women with respect.
@ 68,
We couldn’t do it to our son. So we taught him to take proper care of himself.
You seem to want to argue statistics @61, so lets get it on.
First of all, you and @53 both claim that most circumcisions in the “developed” world are given with anesthesia; I claim they are given without anesthesia. While it’s probably true that some circumcisions are performed with anesthesia at the request of parents, I still believe the vast majority are done without. It doesn’t matter however, because neither of us provide any evidence for our claims (which means I’m right, so suck on it.)
Now let’s get to that Ugandan study that Audrey mentioned in her post. I am indeed “conflating the concept of the size of the point estimate (0.7%) and the precision and statistical significance of that estimate.” What I’m saying is that a difference that small isn’t significant enough to base a claim like “Circumcision helps prevent the transmission of AIDS.” Such a small difference could easily be due to chance, a difference of say, 10-20% would be harder to ignore. Furthermore, Audrey never says if the researchers who performed the study bothered to control for variables such as number of partners per person, or use of protection.
Telling a population of largely uneducated people that they can fight the spread of AIDS by getting circumcised is dangerous. What if people decide they don’t need to use condoms anymore because they’ve been cut? Even if we’re to believe the Ugandan study, all it means is that you’re 0.7% less likely to get AIDS if you get circumcised. hence the Kevlar vest-freight train analogy.
My uncle had it done when he was 12. Let’s just say it’s better if you have it done when you’re not going to remember it.
I’m trying to figure out why I’ve never even heard of circumcision being a hot-button issue before. I’m 22, circumcised, and I was on the wrestling team in high school and there was only ONE guy in all four years who was uncircumcised.
I’m confused as to why men feel that they were betrayed by their parents, but only because I fail to see the benefit of having foreskin. I don’t find it appealing aesthetically or, as has been argued exhaustively above, medically. I see the benefit of foreskin if I ran around naked, as it keeps the penis covered, as that is surely how we evolved with it, but now that we wear clothes it seems like an appendix.
Please no one respond talking about mutilated babies. Taking such an extreme position is isolating and I feel less inclined to find your answer rational.
Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants’ risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.
In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. 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.
@77 seriously go check out the norm.org site and read the LOST list. Most people just think of the foreskin as a little flap of skin that covers the glans. It’s that, but it’s so much more (also, it’s not very little, if you were to spread out the amount of skin that’s being removed). The foreskin is definitely not analogous to an appendix (alternatively, medical sciences are now finding that the appendix is still useful, as a part of our immune system for example, and not just a vestigal organ that evolution forgot to remove).
Your particular argument, that clothes have the same function as a foreskin, is only valid if your clothes actually lubricate your glans. The rough, unsensitive, keratinized penis head that we cut guys have is *not* what a glans is supposed to be like, and it’s the foreskin that protects it from the elements and allows it to stay smooth, shiny, and sensitive.
Africans rape babies thinking it cures AIDS. They shouldn’t stop at circumcision – they should cut the rest of it off while they are at it.
#77 – If you were to have your penis surgically altered, without your consent, at age 22, do you still think “mutilation” would be too strong a word?
@75:
For my part, I didn’t say anything about the developed world, I said America. Here, have a reference:
Circumcision Practice Patterns in the United States
Howard J. Stang and Leonard W. Snellman
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 6 June 1998, p. e5
These authors found in their 1997 survey that 45% of physicians were using anaesthesia for infant circumcisions and that the practice varied greatly by professional specialization (71% of pediatricians vs. 25% obstetricians). In the intervening 12 years, the use of anaesthesia during circumcision has become more common due to advocacy and changes in medical training (anaesthesia is now taught as standard practice). Thus, my assertion that it was “more common than not.” Still a shame that it isn’t a uniform practice, but my point was only that failure to use anaesthesia isn’t an argument against circumcision, it’s an argument for anaesthesia.
As for the statistical question, the 0.7% in question is not the size of the effect, but the difference in infection rate per year between the two groups during a two-year study; that’s an effect size of greater than 50% that would only be expected to go up over time. The researchers did perform the controls you mention, and the article is available online for free at Audrey’s link if you’re interested in their methods.
piminnowcheez,
The “size of the effect” is not a meaningful scientific term. The absolute size of the effect is extremely important; obviously the difference between 25%/50% is a lot more notable than between 0.0001%/0.0002%. A 50% reduction sounds great, and in highly HIV-susceptible populations, it very well may be worth it. But, in the U.S., that’s going to require a huge number of circumcisions to prevent just one case of HIV. Even taking a generous estimate for the number of sexually transmitted cases (versus HIV), and assuming that all persons are equally susceptible to HIV (completely untrue), it would require a massive monetary investment to prevent just one case. And yet you see justification in directing these resources to circumcision instead of sexual education? I don’t. And this doesn’t even begin to broach ethical issues. That’s assuming that every patient would have wanted circumcision in the first place. They don’t.
Moreover, the most recent study I’ve read suggested that circumcision may increase the risk of female partners. The study was halted before the sample size was big enough to reach 95% statistical significance, but I believe it met at something like 80-85%, which can’t be dismissed offhand. I’m the last person to take one study as absolute, but this adds to my belief that circumcision doesn’t even make basic standards of cost-benefit urgency.
And as for the poster who said that it’s better to get it done in infancy: Tell that to virtually anyone who wishes the procedure reversed, whether for medical reasons (which do happen) or personal preference. They’re just up a creek. Medically necessitated circumcision is also extremely uncommon with the conservative treatments that are now available.
This is awesome. How often do we get to have bioethical debates on Slog?! Of course, it had to involve penises, naturally.
Just to intellectual-honest check myself a little: “…before it was big enough to reach statistical significance” is a pretty meaningless term. That assumes it would have eventually. Chances are nearly 4:1 it would have, but I can’t just assume away that 20%.
I should have said, the difference was big (circumcised men infected their partners at nearly double the rate) but the sample size was so small, the difference would have to be MASSIVE in order to reach 95% confidence. But, again, 80-85% confidence is nothing to dismiss out of hand, when other studies are limited. (This is a pretty small side-point, though.) Carry on!
I’m seriously appalled at the general “get over it” attitude directed towards victims of circumcision on this thread, and from people that I previously thought were perfectly reasonable. Suing your parents and doctor is a bit extreme, yes, but circumcized males have a perfectly legitimate complaint. Part of their body was removed, and it’s a part that’s responsible for much of a man’s sexual sensitivity and pleasure. Claiming that any circumcised man just wants to play the victim simply because has has formed a strong negative opinion on the practice… that’s absurd.
But oh god, female circumcision. Now THEY have a legitimate complaint, right? I take it all the haters would be ok if they only cut off the tip of the clit?
Those of you justifying circumcision by citing reduced risk of STD: yes, it reduces STD risk… IF YOU’RE ALREADY HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX. I’ll protect my own penis, thanks. As for you, perhaps some self-reflection as to why you’re content to use an obviously LAME argument for the continuation of such an archaic and unusual procedure is in order.
The fact of the matter is this: Your sexual organ isn’t between your legs. It’s between your ears.
I’m circumcised and I’ve had a damn good sex life, and am very pleased with my equipment. If I’m missing something, I don’t know what it is, so what’s the point worrying about it?
@ 85, since I recall you being an ass to me in the past, I know that I’m not one of the people you used to respect. So, I’ll step up and take any more abuse you’d like to dish out in response.
“Female circumcision” is a poor term that was coined only because it was an acceptable alternative to “genital mutilation,” a much more accurate term but one that probably makes people eating dinner change the channel when it comes on the news. Male circumcision is not genital mutilation.
Now, it may be that circumcision isn’t all it was cracked up to be. However, none of us who had it at birth remember it or are suffering lifelong trauma as a result, unless the job was botched. Guys who obsess about what they’re missing, or problems they may get in the future but have not had now, are being a bit weird. Doctors and parents did the best they could based on the information they had; it may be proven unnecessary now but that’s no reason to get up in arms.
And the guy who introduced this way up at top IS playing victim; something you’re feeding by calling cut guys “victims of circumcision.” I speculated that he has family issues based on his stated wish to sue his parents and his doctor.
BTW, as I’ve already stated, I was cut as an infant. Am I a victim too? Or do I have to feel like one first?
@86 But would you do it to your hypothetical children? If you could have it back, wouldn’t you want it?
Saying that “you don’t miss what you never knew you had” is beside the point. Just because you don’t miss it doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t miss it either, or that you should take it away from others.
Matt & Co.,
Look, I’m the last person to enter this discussion with the intent of making people feel shitty. That is the complete antithesis of why reasonable people enter medicine. There are undoubtedly zealots and defensive schmucks out there who want to, but screw ’em.
You’re arguing that it’s completely reasonable to not care about having been circumcised, even to prefer having been. Is it? Hell yes. But that’s not the issue, because no one is taking away anyone’s right to get themselves circumcised. The issue is whether it is unreasonable to prefer to be uncircumcised, or prefer to have provided consent. There are perfectly rational reasons I’ve seen, many times, to have a preference either way. (I’d like to avoid detail unless it’s really necessary, now that my middle-aged relatives have found the magic of Google.)
I’m not up in arms. I won’t compare it to female genital cutting, which is typically more invasive, violent and removes more sexual response. But “it’s not a big deal to most people” is an explanation for not knowing better in the past, not a defense for actions in the future. That’s what’s important, not use and misuse of verbage.
@ 89, agreed on all counts. It’s why I most likely wouldn’t do it if I had a son.
@88 dear, the thought of ME having CHILDREN, hypothetical or not, just makes me giggle. I would be a TERRIBLE parent.
As for whether I would have them circumcised, I’m not sure. IF it is true that it might *significantly* lessen their chances of STD’s down the road, I would. The family tree is rife with promiscuity, and they would need all the help they can get in that department.
As for “having it back”, I’m not sure either. I might like to try it out, just to see. But it’s been my personal experience – years ago, mind you – of encountering a few really ripe fellows, if you know what I mean (Maybe someone should market and FDS for men…). That, combined with the experiences of my nurse friend (see post #4) really make me think twice. It seems like an awful lot of bother for something that is mainly aesthetic.
@91 “It seems like an awful lot of bother for something that is mainly aesthetic.”
And that’s where you’re getting it wrong. It’s not about looking cut or uncut. It’s about the fact that there are literally thousands (if not tens of thousands) of nerve endings that simply no longer exist when you cut off that “little bit” of foreskin. As well, by removing that skin, it changes the way the penis works during sex (rather than sliding back and forth within the skin tube created by having that excess skin, there’s now a lot more friction that is good for neither party).
You’re choosing to significantly alter the way a male experiences sexuality simply for convenience, a perceived lack of hygiene (cut guys can get gross, too), or an miniscule percentage decrease in transmission of STDs that is completely dwarfed by proper safe sex practices. Good thing you’re not having kids 🙂
74
We couldn’t bear to put our children thru the pain of vaccinations for Hepatitis, Diphtheria, Meningitis, Polio and Papillomavirus.
We taught them to wash their hands often.
And pray.
“Good thing you’re not having kids :)”
FINALLY, we find some common ground. Isn’t slog wonderful?
Although tell me: At what age did you have your circumcision, so that you can speak so expertly of what it is like to be both “cut” and “uncut”? And when did you make the gender transition so that you know how all parties feel about it? 😉
But all fun aside: I have known some wonderful guys – both circumcised and uncircumcised – who have been so obsessed with this issue that they have have really missed out on a lot of good things in their life, and I think that’s a real shame.
Life is short. If you’re uncut, congratulations. If you’re cut, good for you. As I see it, sexual pleasure is much more about imagination than it is about anatomy. Enjoy your body. After all, you only have one.
@92: “Good thing you’re not having kids.”
I don’t think this is called for. Even with the smiley face.
Kumbaya circle, everyone?
@93: “We couldn’t bear to put our children thru the pain of vaccinations for Hepatitis, Diphtheria, Meningitis, Polio and Papillomavirus. We taught them to wash their hands often. And pray.”
Well, I mean, what to say. Preemptively removing breast tissue would probably do wonders in reducing breast cancer. Expensive, yes, but unlike circumcision, redistributing the money involved to education instead wouldn’t be a viable preventive option. There’s no breast cancer equivalent of safe sex education, after all. I’m not equivocating the two, just pointing out the ridiculousness of half-assed equivocation in this situation.
It would probably take well over 1,000 circumcisions in the U.S. (likely a conservative estimate) to stop one case of HIV. With anesthesia, that’s something like $200,000+. You think you can’t find a better use in HIV prevention for $200,000+, one that doesn’t risk violating anyone’s feelings of bodily integrity?
The point is that for public health policy, circumcision as a means of reducing HIV transmission is overshadowed by more effective strategies like teaching people how to use condoms properly, encouraging lower-risk behaviors, and increased testing. (None of which, incidentally, require genital surgery.)
It’s important also to make a distinction between voluntary circumcision of an adult or sexually active teen, and involuntary circumcision of an infant. The former, while potentially counterproductive as an HIV-transmission reduction strategy (“Get circumcised and it will protect you from AIDS! You can do it without a condom!”), is ethically uncomplicated. The latter is medically unnecessary, irreversible, can cause penile disfigurement (Google “circumcision complications” if you have a strong stomach), and is so lacking in benefits compared to the risks that it cannot be advocated as an ethical practice.
@83
he “size of the effect” is not a meaningful scientific term.
I don’t know what kind of science you do, but in my kind we refer to effect size all the time as a simple descriptive term. Brandon J, if I understood him correctly, was misconstruing 0.7% as the size of the difference between the two experimental groups, and (incorrectly) inferring that the effect couldn’t be statistically significant; he said he would find a 10-20% difference more convincing. My comment was meant to clarify that for the study in question there was a >50% difference between the groups. That’s the size of the effect as a matter of discription; whether the effect is statistically significant is left to a statistical test of significance, and whether the size of the effect is of practical consequence is a matter of interpretation and context.
A 50% reduction sounds great, and in highly HIV-susceptible populations, it very well may be worth it.
And the context in this case is a highly HIV-susceptible population. I have not argued that the results of the Uganda study tells us anything about whether Americans should be circumcised. In fact, I’m not here to advocate for circumcision in general – I think the details matter. In parts of Africa with these very high infection rates, these studies suggest it would be a good idea. In the developed world, I think that the arguments for AND against do not merit the kind of urgency these arguments usually have. If I had a son, I’d lean against. But I also wouldn’t flip out if someone I knew wanted to circumcise his son.
I am the poster who said it’s better to get it done in infancy compared to getting it done as an adult. Of course it’s true that it’s permanent, but my point before was that parents make choices for their children that have permanent effects all the time. I’m not aware of what medical condition would call for a restored foreskin, but I’m willing to believe you and it is regrettable for those people. For those who want it reversed as a matter of personal preference, I haven’t yet heard a case that helps me empathize with this desire.
@94 Like most cut men, mine was done as an infant. Unfortunately I don’t have first-hand information on the benefits of having a foreskin. What I do have is web sites like http://norm.org/lost.html that explain the functionality of the foreskin. Read that, get an understanding of what a foreskin does, and then try to tell me that circumcision is “aesthetic”. My penis functions well enough, but wouldn’t it be great if it be great if it functioned as god or nature (whichever you believe) intended?
piminnowcheez @ #97,
I don’t know what kind of science you do, but in my kind we refer to effect size all the time as a simple descriptive term.
I think I’m accidentally being a pedant when I didn’t even intend to make a correction. Effect Size is constantly presented as the raw differential, either in percentage points or as an average numerical. Wikipedia’s example, in fact, is a 30-pound loss in a weight loss program — not even a percentage point, let alone a percentage decline. So, both statistics presented could be the “Effect Size,” including the one originally offered. That’s all I meant.
And the context in this case is a highly HIV-susceptible population…
Funny how, whenever I get into a debate, I almost always find up that I end up disagreeing a lot less than I expected to. As much as infant circumcision makes me morally queasy all ’round, I think circumcision in Africa is worth investigating. I am not heartened by the latest study about transmission to women, but the weight of evidence still falls on the other side. More than anything, I’m just glad that I will probably never have a role in crafting such policy.
For those who want it reversed as a matter of personal preference, I haven’t yet heard a case that helps me empathize with this desire.
I guess the difference is that I have — more than a few times, many of them from people I respect, including a good friend. I may not agree with how much emphasis they put on it, but nothing they say is unreasonable.
Over the years I was doing the health support thing, I ran into more than a few cases of medical complications of circumcision, not counting objections to consent. The aesthetic ones were largely repairable, other than scarring. The functional ones — which usually related to overzealous removal of skin — were not. Some were annoying, but others impacted sex or caused discomfort or pain. They are uncommon, like any urological problem, but they do happen. I have no idea how often, because even if they were reported to a doctor (probably unlikely), they would not be recorded as surgical complications.
Anyway, I think our attitudinal disagreement lies in the level of sympathetic cases of objection we’ve ran into. I think we agree on all of the empiricals here. I’m not going to “flip out” either, but in medical practice, the ethical argument is enough that I’d advise any parent who asked against it.
Circumsized as an adult, like being color-blind at an art gallery.
Every study I’ve seen measured HIV infection for a time period immediately following the circumcision.
I would think, if you had a part of your dick lobbed off, you’d be sore for a bit afterwards, and likely to have less sex, skewing the results. Also, in an area with fewer cut guys, you might have a harder time getting laid. People do prefer what they’re accustomed to.
So, basically, I’m not convinced.
really… use condoms! and get circumcised… uncut dicks are quite nasty. always dirty and smelly .. YUKKKKKK
#88, “Male circumcision” is a poor term that was coined only because it was an acceptable alternative to “genital mutilation.”
mutilation: to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts
I’m not comparing male circumcision to female circumcision. That’s why I said “I take it all the haters would be ok if they only cut off the tip of the clit?” It’s only MOST of the nerve endings, and it has no real benefit. Same thing as male circumcision.
Here’s another definition:
victim: one that is acted on and usu. adversely affected by a force or agent
Finally, your opinion of the OP’s family life really has shit to do with whether he has a valid argument on circumcision.
@ 103, I disagree. We have nurtured a culture where anyone, anytime, who had something bad (whether real or perceived) happen to them can claim victimhood status. It’s getting to the point where kids are going to grow up claiming victimization because they end up having different political views than their parents. Guys like Vince are just one more manifestation of this. I’m free to speculate about his family life and how much that plays in his delusions since he brought it up.
By the way, circumcision doesn’t qualify to even your definition of mutilation. They did believe it had valid medical benefit before, just like removing tonsils earlier in the 20th century. Sure, we know better now, but that hardly makes it retroactively barbaric.
#104 having Republican parents doesn’t compare to having your human rights violated. Don’t be a jackass.
Whether they thought it had a valid medical benefit doesn’t have anything to do with the definition of mutilation, either.
Your human rights weren’t violated. You weren’t mutilated. Get over it.
I need to add: by your reckoning, anyone who get amputated for having a life-threatening infection is also “mutilated.” You better rethink that last paragraph you wrote.
Yes, amputation could be considered mutilation. Whether it has a medical benefit or not. Read the definition. I’ll remove the unrelated bits so you can comprehend:
to make imperfect by removing parts
Many reputable scholars agree that circumcision is a human rights violation. What is your agenda here, besides justifying your own circumcision to yourself?
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Mutilation, by connotation, means that it was done with harmful intent. That’s why circumcision and amputation fail to meet the definition.
Many reputable scholars also don’t believe that climate change is happening as a result of worldwide greenhouse emissions. (None are peer-reviewed, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are, indeed, reputable scholars in the skeptics’ ranks.) Doesn’t make them right.
I am interested in their writings, however. Do you have any links? Or at least names?
As for me… interesting that you want to make it about me. My only agenda is that I do not wish to see a bunch of false victims validated as real victims. It’s an insult to real victims of childhood trauma. Unless their actual penises (i.e., shaft or glans) were damaged in a botched circumcision, they are not.
w7ngman,
“Mutilation” has a really damn strong meaning. The connotation is not necessarily that it was done intentionally (you can get mutilated by a woodchipper), but definitely that it disables an important bodily ability. The foreskin has function, but your penis still works without it. It may meet the literal dictionary definition of “mutilation” in your eye, but I agree with Matt. It’s like arguing for ethical vegetarianism by constantly talking about “mass murder.”
As for “human rights violation,” what does that even mean? I agree that it is a violation of a right I think humans should have. And I guess you could call that victimhood, if you were being a literalist. But it comes across as “you should feel like shit for this, what’s wrong with you?!” That’s probably ineffective (who wants to listen after you’ve just insulted their penis?), it’s self-defeating (makes it sound like individual preference is unreasonable), and it makes it sound like your argument is supported only by hyperbolic word selection and emotional manipulation.
And it gives me mental images of penises in woodchippers. Which isn’t all that different from Steve Buscemi in a woodchipper, but still, please stop.
Connotation is subjective. Are you trying to say that if female genital mutilation isn’t done with harmful intent, that it isn’t mutilation? Try again.
“Unless their actual penises (i.e., shaft or glans) were damaged in a botched circumcision, they are not.”
I think having nerve endings forcibly removed counts as damage.
No, connotation is not subjective, as you well know or you wouldn’t choose such a strong word.
You remind me of anti-abortion protesters, twisting facts and using loaded words and distorting the words of your opponents. (You’re logically challenged if you think that female genital mutilation can be compared in the manner you choose.) I bet you even want to outlaw it, even though, as quoted in the very post that started all this, there are some medical benefits to the procedure. I guess you want to make the choice for everyone else, though.
I wouldn’t choose to have my son go through it, now that we know more than we did 40 years ago. But you, like me, are not a victim of anything. Get on with your life, and stop wasting your energy lamenting what you can’t remember you ever had. It’s a selfish indulgence.
#122, what facts have I twisted? What words of yours have I distorted?
Nowhere did I suggest I want to ban circumcision or make choices for anyone else. In fact, you’re the one that seems to think it’s ok for parents to make a choice for their infant about a body modification that has questionable benefits.
Why can’t FGM be compared? You said male circumcision isn’t done with harmful intent, and that’s why it isn’t mutilation. FGM isn’t necessarily done with harmful intent, either, but it’s still mutilation? #110 says my penis still works circumcised. Victims of FGM’s parts still “work”, too, but male circumcision is ok and FGM isn’t? Maybe you need to find a real argument instead of vaguely claiming that I’m not allowed to compare the two.
No one ever answered my question: would it be ok to just cut off the tip of the clit if it was believed that it prevented disease? At that point it shouldn’t be mutilation, since it wasn’t harmful intent and it still works.
“Get on with your life, and stop wasting your energy lamenting what you can’t remember you ever had.”
You seem to be confusing me with Vince. I don’t lament about my own circumcision. I lament about those that have not yet been performed needlessly and can still be prevented.
#110, what does human rights violation mean? It means having an unnecessary body modification done without my consent. That’s it. I never played the victim card or tried to make anyone here feel bad. I don’t feel bad for being circumcised and I don’t expect anyone else to. The people that should feel bad are the apologists and the doctors that perpetuate myths about the benefits of circumcision.
The fact is that cut penis seems perfectly normal because it’s all over the place. If all we ever saw our whole lives was uncut penis, I think “mutilation” would be a reasonable description of a cut penis.
Maybe you need to find a real argument instead of vaguely claiming that I’m not allowed to compare the two.
I never said that you’re not allowed to compare the two. You’re free to. I think it’s ineffective rhetoric, and unnecessary, and Matt and I actually *agree* with you in effect. Lord.
No one ever answered my question: would it be ok to just cut off the tip of the clit if it was believed that it prevented disease?
That’s because the tip of the clit is not anatomically analogous to the foreskin; the clitoral hood is. To answer your question, I don’t see any practical or moral distinction from male circumcision there. The “tip of the clit” is a different story.
#110, what does human rights violation mean? It means having an unnecessary body modification done without my consent. That’s it. I never played the victim card or tried to make anyone here feel bad. I don’t feel bad for being circumcised and I don’t expect anyone else to.
Fair enough.
If all we ever saw our whole lives was uncut penis, I think “mutilation” would be a reasonable description of a cut penis.
I don’t really get the impression that it’s that way in Europe. Good, too, because associating a “mutilation” taboo with something like that is a genuinely fucked up thing to do for those who have no choice in the matter — especially if they’re a small minority.
#114, “I never said that you’re not allowed to compare the two.”
Sorry, that was directed at #112’s “logically challenged” comment.
“I think it’s ineffective rhetoric, and unnecessary”
I actually didn’t bring up FMG. That line of rhetoric is partly in response to #41.
Nevertheless, Matt is making meaningless distinctions between male circumcision and FGM, and he’s doing it in order to avoid considering circumcision a form of mutilation. He has yet to present a good reason why FMG should be considered mutilation any more than a male circumcision performed under the same circumstances.
“That’s because the tip of the clit is not anatomically analogous to the foreskin; the clitoral hood is.”
True, thought I don’t think it changes my point.
@#115: There are multiple types of female genital cutting, which I’ll use instead of “FGM” for clarity. One, Type IA, is analogous to male circumcision and involves the removal of the clitoral hood. I don’t know much about the procedure since it’s not taught in the U.S., although it does happen rarely, for medical reasons.
Anyway, no other forms of female circumcision can be compared other than Type 1A (and maybe Type IV, which is really more genital damage than real “modification”). And other than having issues with scarring and nerve damage (which may be greater than male circumcision, I don’t know) I think it’s a fair comparison. Any other types — not at all a fair comparison, and that’s generally what people think of when using “FGM.”
If you’re trying to point out that Type 1A female circumcision is illegal in the U.S. and that it’s a blatant double standard, I agree. But I don’t agree that most Americans actually *educated* on the procedure would consider it mutilation, unless the nerve damage risks are meaningfully greater. I think you’re seeing a double standard when there’s really just low familiarity and generalization. If there were any sort of cultural or religious pressure to allow the practice, I seriously doubt it would be illegal or widely frowned-upon.
My understanding on Circumcision is that it’s not specifically a medical procedure.
Historically, circumcision where practiced was part of a puberty rite that signified a male’s (and yes, a female’s) passing from Childhood to Adulthood. The pain would mark the moment of separation, the drop off in sensation would shift the focus from the self to the world, and its ritualization would create a space where the boy would sense himself becoming a man within the society he lived in. Even the female version was historically viewed as a passage to adulthood by those who underwent the ordeal – ask the African girls who suffered through the ordeal thanks to their GRANDMOTHERS, who went over the heads of their daughters to have their grand-daughters circumcised.
The Jews, of course, shifted the time of circumcision to just after the birth; probably in an effort to separate themselves from others. And in the English Speaking world, its acceptance started more as an anti-masturbation movement than a cleanliness movement (although I’m sure cleanliness made its mark in the propaganda).
So many of us have been cut without our consent. It wouldn’t surprise me that if we were left uncut at birth, there’d be very few circumcisions done by choice (why mess with what is?) unless it were done as a ritual or puberty rite. And since we Americans tend to see puberty rites or rituals as inherently evil, we WOULD probably see the cut penis as a mutilation, simply because it would appear UNNATURAL to us.
And we’d probably have a lot more sex, with a lot fewer hangups (although some hangups would probably be strengthened, I’m guessing).
It’s laughable that so many grown men waste a lot of energy whining about how they were “mutilated” as newborns.I mean,come on!There are no more pressing issues in your lives?As a physician I see many seriously ill patients,who deal with their serious medical issues with more fortitude than most of the whiners on this site.So you were circumcised as a child;big freaking deal!They are worse fates;than the dubious “loss of sensation.”Get a life.
Since I saw it stated once early in the thread and just in case it was stated again… they don’t chop off the end of your dick, geniuses. Some of you have watched too many movies.
In circumcision, they cut off your foreskin, the skin-wrap around your dick. That’s it. The rest of your dick is left intact.
Still wondering how many pro-circumcision guys here would elect to have the surgery done as an adult. And why do they insist that everyone else has to be okay with it?
My uncut lovers never wanted to use a condom. “It doesn’t fit right,” they’d complain. Would circumcised men have greater rates of condom use?
I sure wish my husband still had his foreskin. We didn’t have our kid cut.
Circumcision is just so much cleaner and healthier, and it’s the right choice to make for your daughter. Removal of the redundant clitoral hood and labia prevents infections and makes vulvar cancer impossible. There’s no medical study to support the belief that uncircumcised women have more sexual sensation. Come on! The labia are just useless flaps of skin that stink and harbour bacteria. I’m tired of these anti-circ nuts complaining about their “loss of sensation”, “genital mutilation” and other such blather. It’s a parental right to amputate sexual tissue from your children. Female circumcision is done by women, and it has been done for thousands of years, so if it were really harmful it would have died out.
I’m so glad that American moms are cutting their boys in accordance with Muslim law. It’s just a matter of time before they accept the same benefits for their daughters. Female circumcision is here in the U.S., and once its benefits are understood, it will be just as accepted as male circumcision, because really they are done for exactly the same reasons.