US Doctors Back Circumcision

ananyo writes "On 27 August, a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics concludes for the first time that, overall, boys will be healthier if circumcised. The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure. The recommendation, coming from such an influential body, could boost U.S. circumcision rates, which, at 55%, are already higher than much of the developed world. The researchers estimate that each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313."

Comments

Circumcision

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has a health care system? This is news to me.

Re:Circumcision

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The US has a health care system? This is news to me.

The US has lots of health-care systems, including some that are funded by The federal government. In fact, we are going broke in part because of those programs. We also have quite a few great docs and medical centers. If you are sick and your insurance is good enough (or you are wealthy enough, or the doc is also nice), and you know how to find the right doc, it is some of the best care in the world.

We also have bad medical care, on a par with or below what most Canadians get, for example, in a lot of our Podunk hospitals. (Their fedgov has just dropped the ball on a huge portion of the bill for health, so the delay times are going to get even longer).

What we lack is complete coverage of the population, coverage that makes it possible to be a rational economic actor, or good preventative care. We also have a really phenomenally stupid way of coupling health care to employment.

Re:Circumcision

[geekoid]

", we are going broke in part because of those programs."
FALSE. we are going broke because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, and not taxing appropriately.
Also,l congress sticks there fingers into the pie to divert funds.

Re:Circumcision

[Coeurderoy]

Of course it has, and if you do not cut a piece of your privates they will not be able to bill you for it, and apparently this is 313$, or maybe it cost more
but 313$ is the margin they get.

Re:Circumcision

[kyrio]

I'm not sure where you're getting that "Canadian medical care" is "bad". I make appointments for later in the day and never wait more than 3 minutes to get into them. In the appointment, all of my issues are solved or further appointments with specialists or labs are made.

Re:Circumcision

[Azaril]

Obviously they aren't spending enough on education because you seem unable to read breakdowns.

2011:
DoD budget: 740 billion
DoHS budget: 48 billion

The remainder of defense spending is on veteran affairs (141 billion). I think we can treat that as justified, even if you would have chosen there not to be veterans.

Total tax receipts: 2300 billion
Of which is for social security: 820 billion
Total spendable tax reciepts: 1480 billion

Total spending: 3600 billion
Of which is for social security: 725 billion
Total spend: 2875 billion.

Total deficit :1395 billion

So we can clearly see that the defense budge comes nowhere near to filling the deficit. We could get rid of it all, sell all of the equipment to the saudis and next year, there would still be a budget deficit of 610 billion dollars. That's two thirds of all income tax raised.

To cover that we could of course put the federal income tax up on the average income from 23% to 40% (while ignoring the laffer curve). Yeah I'm sure everyone would love that. Use your head. Yes the defense budget is bloated and out of control, but damn it, so is everything else!

Re:Circumcision

[ultranova]

To cover that we could of course put the federal income tax up on the average income from 23% to 40% (while ignoring the laffer curve). Yeah I'm sure everyone would love that. Use your head. Yes the defense budget is bloated and out of control, but damn it, so is everything else!

Not really. According to Wikipedia, 30-50% sounds around right for a first-world country. Advanced civilization is expensive to maintain, and trying to cut corners - for example by cutting social security - tends to increase costs elsewhere more (you need more internal security to keep the people who have nothing to lose but their chains from revolting). The laternative is to descend to third world status, which is unlikely to result in people having more disposable income.

Perhaps you should think of the society in terms of a corporation: a company which pays most of its profits to its shareholders rather than investing them will be utterly crushed by its competitors and deliver far less value in the long run.

Re:Circumcision

[digitalsolo]

", we are going broke in part because of those programs." FALSE. we are going broke because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, and not taxing appropriately. Also,l congress sticks there fingers into the pie to divert funds.

FALSE. We ARE broke, because of run away military expenditures, useless wars, not taxing appropriately, AND the healthcare system, poorly run government social programs, bloat and a society with a huge entitlement complex.

We have problems on all sides of the table, and they ALL need addressed. Unfortunately I don't see that happening until things get dramatically worse than they currently are.

Re:Circumcision

[Azaril]

50% tax is acceptable? OK lets run with that on the average income. Social security is 4.2%. State income tax is somewhere greater than 5% for the average income, depending on state. So right now, we are at a 60% tax merely on income. The average income is 36 thousand. That means you are taking home roughly $14400, on average. As a comparison, the poverty line is currently at a net income of 16k. So you have just have put the average American in poverty! Definitely mention that in your campaign speeches, I'd vote for you.

Perhaps you should think of the society in terms of a corporation: a company which raises prices past the point that its customers can pay will see itself bankrupt and broken in the very short term

Re:Circumcision

[cdrguru]

I would like to believe the government has an obligation to take care of me and support me in a style compatible with my personality. I would like to believe that there are a few fat cats out there that are ruining it for the rest of us and if it wasn't for them, the government would be able to take care of all of us. All it would take is taxing the heck out of these fat cats.

Looking back, though, it seems the government has had more than a few problems with mismanagement on a huge scale. They can't seem to get anything done without spending 10 times more than it was planned to cost. Government at all levels tend to increase in scope and expenditures until some kind of a external limit is reached.

It should be pretty obvious that the more money that is given to the US government, such as a 50% tax rate, the more money will be wasted, misspent and mismanaged. While some folks might not mind working half a year, every year, to support my granny it starts to grate on people when they understand that like a badly-run charity only a small fraction ends up in the hands of grannies. The rest is going to studies that prove cockroaches are really nasty critters or that we would all be in trouble if the oxygen level in the atmosphere dropped to 0%.

The most important thing to understand is that people in the US have a somewhat different culture than the rest of the world. In most of the rest of the world when a 70-year-old man is told he is dying it is a sad message but one that everyone understands is the way things are. In the US the response is to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to put off the date of death as long as possible. The disparity between these two things is why the US health care system is incomprehensible to a lot of people. A good part of the US population will never accept the "you're dying, accept it" message, and the spending caused by this will insure that the US health care system cannot function like the rest of the world. It also means that old people from the rest of the world come here to squeeze out a couple of more years if they can afford it.

The second most important thing to understand is that people in government aren't doing it because they feel an obligation to serve the rest of humanity. They are doing it because it will lead to power and riches for themselves. We can try to curb this, but that is the motivation. Giving these people more power and access to more money doesn't solve any problems for the rest of us on the outside, but it does make it possible for more and more people to get in on the gravy train that is government service. One possible outcome is that we all are working for the government and everyone is happy. That has been tried and it didn't work out very well.

Re:Circumcision

[nobodie]

Having lived in Holland, where there is a top tax of 65%, I have to say that the world can be pretty damn great if people accept that kind of tax rate. It is because we don't want to pay for the first world stuff for anybody but ourselves (our single individual self, not the US body politic) we end up not getting it for anybody, ourselves included. We can't see past the end of our noses, and our political leaders are blinded because their noses are rectally inserted in the fundament of big business. So, the US is screwed by our choices both for leaders and for the political world in general.

Re:Circumcision

[AK Marc]

The deficit of 610 billion contains over 200 billion in debt service. If we had no debt, we'd have 200 billion more per year. As for the remainder of the 400 billion, you can get that *all* out of veteran affairs and medicare without cutting service. The US federal government pays for multiple separate and incompatible health care systems. VA, Medicare, obamacare, and Medicaid funding, if not running the state programs directly. The *real* health care revolution should be in the form of a Constitutional Amendment giving Congress the power to tax for health care and defining a system of single-payer universal care. The biggest hurdle to real health care is that the insurance companies would almost disappear. There would still be private doctors, as with the other countries that do universal care, but in most cases, people are happy with the state provided free options. Take out the 30% or so overhead of insurance companies, and raise taxes 2% to cover debt repayment, and you'll have more money in your pocket at the end of the month, and much better services for it.

Oh, and your death panels would change from private companies who profit from your death to government panels who don't benefit from your death. The modern definition of "conservative" is someone who believes death panels should be run by people paid more if you are denied treatment.

Re:Circumcision

[AK Marc]

50% tax is acceptable? OK lets run with that on the average income. Social security is 4.2%. State income tax is somewhere greater than 5% for the average income, depending on state. So right now, we are at a 60% tax merely on income.

Then that's 60%, not 50%.

As a comparison, the poverty line is currently at a net income of 16k.

One reason is that health care is a necessary expense and drives up poverty level. Get universal care in that increased tax, and you've reduced poverty, not increased it.

Re:Circumcision

[AK Marc]

I would like to believe the government has an obligation to take care of me and support me in a style compatible with my personality. I would like to believe that there are a few fat cats out there that are ruining it for the rest of us and if it wasn't for them, the government would be able to take care of all of us. All it would take is taxing the heck out of these fat cats.

What you don't understand is that the fat cats are kept in a style compatible with their personality at great expense to you and me. When apple has a phone "lost" how many millions are spent on recovering it? When your home is robbed and your phone taken, what is the response then? The rich get vastly more resources spent on them, to keep them in the style they are accustomed to, than is spend on us to keep us in the style you'd prefer.

Re:Circumcision

[LunaticTippy]

30-50% is typical for developed countries. That's total tax. For everywhere except the US it includes healthcare. If the US structured things similarly to other developed countries, we'd have a total tax burden of 30-50% and it would include basic healthcare. Nearly everybody would be better off.

I call BS

[csb]

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?

Probably "oh wait, they don't have penises."

Re:I call BS

[mwvdlee]

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

Paid for by the "Protect the Appendix" campaign.
Also; evolution doesn't make anything; it just ends up in some not-too-harmful-before-reproductive-age way after lots of mutations.
Not advocating circumcission, just saying that medical decission should be based on reality, not assumption or belief.

Re:I call BS

[DJRumpy]

Can't agree more. Never understood why parents feel the need to disfigure their children with no input from the child is beyond me. This should be something that an adult decides for his own reasons, not something to be decided for him.

Re:I call BS

[guises]

I am also skeptical, though I'm not sure about claiming natural = good. First of all, a savings of US$313 over the life of the patient is trivial given the current US health care system. Really really trivial - I hope they factored the cost of getting the circumcision into that, because that procedure alone is likely to cost double that amount.

Second, they're citing the African trials again as evidence for this, which... Why would they do that? Those trials took place in some of the poorest parts of Africa, they say nothing about efficacy of circumcision in places were soap is abundant. If there's so much debate around this issue, why don't they just do some trials here in the US?

Re:I call BS

[tibit]

The problem is that while their findings are true, they don't universally apply. One can control STDs simply by, you know, keeping one partner and having him/her tested before you starting making out. That one's easy, and deletes most of the benefit. The lower rate of urinary tract infections and penile cancer is the only leftover benefit then. It's such a small change in UTIs that it's not clear that lifestyle changes alone won't have a way bigger effect. I'd think fluid intake and timely urination would help, as would making sure you go pee right after having sex (and drink fluids beforehand). As for penile cancer, I'd want to see that dissected a bit more to make sure there are no lifestyle changes that would improve one's chances there as well.

All in all -- yes, if you average on a big population that has varied habits and takes what amounts to STD risks, then sure, circumcision helps. For those of us who are otherwise sane, I don't think it helps at all, or at least the benefit is so small as to be hard to measure. Basically the average hides the fact that individual subjects have a lot of control over their health, and circumcision basically helps when you do stupid shit. That's nice and all, but I think it's not enough to convince me that infant boys are to be circumcised. I'll tell my son as he grows up about this study, and any follow-up studies sure to come out by then, and it'll be his decision -- if he'll decide to be a ladies' man, it'll probably make sense.

Re:I call BS

[Exitar]

Right, and we should not have premarital sex, don't drink alcohol and don't eat pork, beef or shellfish.

Re:I call BS

[WilliamGeorge]

"We were made this way for very good reasons..."? Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!

Seriously, though, I love to see it when our limited scientific abilities back up what I believe. God instructed the use of circumcision, and it turns out not only to be a way to obey Him but also to be beneficial. Perhaps He designed humans in this way just so that we would have something like this, as a way we can show obedience to him without any negative side effects (and, in fact, beneficial ones!).

Re:I call BS

[vakuona]

Unless you were circumcised as an adult, how could you tell the difference?

Re:I call BS

[Em Adespoton]

Right, and we should not have premarital sex, don't drink alcohol and don't eat pork, beef or shellfish.

Or mushrooms... don't forget mushrooms.

Re:I call BS

[obarthelemy]

Yep Maim kids a bit when they are at their most sexually active, so that the old, already-healed older men have less competition.

Re:I call BS

[guises]

All right, I skimmed the article and replied in haste so let me correct myself: the cost of getting the circumcision is indeed factored into the $313 cost, and more than that, that cost is averaged over the entire population. So the real cost would be nothing for most people and extremely high for those people who got HIV or some other serious venereal disease or urinary tract infection.

The actual AAP report also doesn't focus as much on the African trails as the Nature article suggests, what they're really saying is that the cost of getting the circumcision and treating the nominal complications that arise from it is small enough that we should make sure that the option is available (i.e.: not prohibited) even if the benefits are dubious. They also mention some speculative reasons why removing the foreskin may help with infection - the inner surface is thin and susceptible to micro tears, etc. I still think they should do some real trails here before they make recommendations for here, but this is certainly a more reasonable position.

I personally don't think circumcision is something that should be done to a child who can't fight back, especially since most of the problems that it supposedly helps with don't come up until you're sexually active anyway, but I do recognize that using a condom is much easier for a circumcised person than it is for someone with a foreskin.

Re:I call BS

[Talennor]

There is likely a very good reason ancient cultures with a huge emphasis on cleanliness adopted the practice and codified it into their religions...probably much of the same reasons these doctors are touting.

I'm going to go with different reason. Ancient cultures lived in the ancient world, where there wasn't (good) medicine and people died young. They did lots of things, like avoid pork, to stay alive, that just don't matter today. I'd imagine most similarities of medical advice between then and now to be coincidental.

Re:I call BS

[DJRumpy]

Vaccines have been proven to prevent illness where no other easily available remedy or prevention exists.

With an intact foreskin, a condom, abstinence, or simple cleanliness will prevent illness depending on the type of contagion, all of which are easily available.

Re:I call BS

[Em Adespoton]

So I take it you're going to have a proactive surgery to remove your prostate? After all, prostate cancer is one of the biggest killers of men in North America, and nobody really needs it... it just gives your sperm an advantage (just like your foreskin).

While you're at it, why not permanently remove all hair from your body, as a way to reduce the formation of cysts? You could also remove all your teeth, as we don't need to masticate our food these days, we've got machines that can do that for us. Removal of teeth will reduce gum disease, thereby possibly reducing arterial and coronary illnesses.

Sure, there's reason to remove parts of the body, but the appendix has a useful purpose, as does the gall bladder, the prostate, the teeth and the foreskin. Pre-emptively removing something from someone else that can't be put back seems a bit extreme when lifestyle choices (yes, even the ones you make for your children) have a much larger effect on health.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to answer the question of whether I was going to do it to my son. I didn't see that there was a good enough reason to.

Re:I call BS

[fermion]

But that is not the case. It has been a traditional in cultures that value health. For instance, we also know that there are foods that may may not be good because it is contaminated. Imagine the deaths that would be prevented if we followed slaughter practices where crap was not regularly spatter all over our meat. In any case we remove tonsils, appendixes, breasts, all the time if they become a problem. We do not say that we are just built that way.

Then of course there is evidence that circumcision can reduce the risk of STDs. This probably is no concern for a person who is monogamous for a lifetime, or celibate, but if one is thinking about a kids future, perhaps between the ages of 13-18, it may be a concern. Of course the response to this is that uncut sex is better, but without controlled studies before and after who really knows. Like size, maybe it is in the eye of the beholder.

The current situation is probably ok. Give parents information, let them decide. I mean we pay for men to have when they get old, why not give them the option to maybe a bit healthier when they are young.

Re:I call BS

[MartinSchou]

Then why not back surgically removing the appendix from everyone?

It would soon become a routine operation, possibly one that could done with keyhole surgery in less than an hour and you'd be sent home the same day.

Once that's become a well established routine, make it a regular part of the check-ups babies are given.

Hey presto - no more incidents of appendicitis.

Re:I call BS

[Kozz]

Unless you were circumcised as an adult, how could you tell the difference?

I happen to know two people who were. They advocate for it.

Re:I call BS

[geekoid]

Well, when there 18 its really to late for most people.

Does this same thing for girls prevent as many disease without any negative effects? I didn't think so, but if it did then yes, we should do it.

Yet another argument against good science with emotion.

Re:I call BS

[makomk]

Not only that, from what I can tell the African trials were an exercise in how not to conduct a reliable scientific study and it's a mystery that everyone takes them so seriously. Some of the screw-ups were pretty spectacular - the circumcised group had additional counselling on condom use and safe sex compared to the control and weren't allowed or able to have sex for a relatively large proportion of the study period. Others were more subtle. For instance, they terminated the trial early and circumcised the control group, supposedly because the benefits were so great that they couldn't ethically leave, and this kind of early termination has been shown to cause researchers to find effects that did not in reality actually exist in trials like this one.

They also noticed that the rate of HIV infection amongst the members of the study decreased after the end of the trial and somehow concluded that this was the result of circumcision somehow becoming more effective over time, despite the fact that this could just as easily be caused by (for instance) their exposure decreasing as they got older for unrelated reasons and the lack of a plausible mechanism through which this would happen. They then extrapolated out this decrease into the future and quoted this extrapolated figure prominently as evidence of the effectiveness of circumcision. That prominent journals and institutions were willing to buy into this is truely bizarre.

Re:I call BS

[Existential Wombat]

Just like religion? Oh, wait.

Re:I call BS

[vux984]

Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin.

Meh. I know a girl missing her 4th toe on one foot that says the same thing. The fact that you don't miss it doesn't mean we should go around cutting them off.

Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.

And that constitutes a reason to remove it on all infants across the board? That some girls who sucked a bunch of dicks, who probably got used to circumcised dicks then later found an uncircumcised one's foreskin a bit "ooky". It boggles the mind. You know, some of them find the loose skin around your testicles a bit ooky too...

If you want a circumcision go for it. As far as I'm concerned its in the same arena as nipple piercing and what not. Your body, your choice.

But to make it a mandated medical procedure based on this is insanity.

The rationale they are using for this procedure is roughly on par with extracting your teeth because brushing them and flossing them and caring for them is a lot of work. They get infected a need all kinds of expensive attention if you don't keep them clean... and sometimes even if you do they still break sometimes or come out crooked. What an expensive mess... for something we don't need. All our nutrition requirements can be met by food in pill and shake form anyways.

And besides some guys who got used to having their dicks sucked and gummed on by toothless whores find chicks with teeth... ooky.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Except maybe there isn't a very good reason to have one. At least one that's better than the reason to remove it. There is likely a very good reason ancient cultures with a huge emphasis on cleanliness adopted the practice and codified it into their religions...probably much of the same reasons these doctors are touting.

You use the foreskin for masturbation; stopping that used to be the reason to remove it and also for cutting out the clitoris. If you have a foreskin you don't need hand lotions or hot pies to masturbate, it adds to the girth in sex, the skin area is actually quite sensitive and the tip off the penis remains a healthy looking mucous membrane.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course- they chose to be circumsized and thus would naturally favour it. However if the people who weren't for it were forcfully circumsized they would probably be against it. The real question is for those who have no feelings one way or the other get circumsized as adults for money or to further research what is there opinion? If they can say "didn't have any negative effects once the pain wore off" then maybe it's something that makes sense when there are proven (not sure this is the case at this time- there is evidence to suggest it is benefitial although it is far from a decided issue at this point- more research is needed).

Re:I call BS

[cheesybagel]

What a load of bull. Vaccination has proven health benefits and has even managed to completely eradicate smallpox from the planet. Religious reasons are a common reason elsewhere but there aren't that many Jews and Muslims in the US as a percentage.

Re:I call BS

[kat_skan]

Female circumcision is unfortunately a real thing.

Re:I call BS

[geekoid]

A) Please learn statistics. It's not like the 90% over rides the 50%
B) Then there is the risk when you want to get someone pregnant. Risk to you, and risk to the women.

Condoms don't stop the [penile cancer, and other diseases.

You might as well be against hand washing and vaccines.

Re:I call BS

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that the evidence suggests that the health benefits are greatest for those that have the circumcision done as young children (I do not recall if they quantified the age in the studies I saw).

Re:I call BS

[cheesybagel]

There are women getting radical mastectomies to prevent breast cancer that will never be able to breastfeed because of it. A lot of these women do not even have breast cancer at all but are doing it because they think it is possible they will get it eventually. In that case you are explicitly doing a surgery which is reducing body function to prevent something which may never happen at all. I call that cutting the nose to spite the face. Male circumcision for the general population is not necessary.

Re:I call BS

[Attila Dimedici]

You say that in a discussion of an article that says that there are proven health benefits to being circumcised (in particular as an infant).

Re:I call BS

[Attila Dimedici]

I do not know if it was in this article, but I read an article just a week or so ago in which an atheist* argued in favor of circumcision of infants on the basis of the fact that evidence shows that the impact of the health benefits is significantly greater when the circumcision is done when one is an infant. The timing suggests that that article was written in response to early reports on this study.


* relevant because it indicates that the person's support of circumcision was not based on their religious beliefs (I am unaware of any atheistic religions--there are several--that contain circumcision as part of their rites).

Re:I call BS

[cheesybagel]

Try reading the actual paper the article purports to be about: "not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision".

Re:I call BS

[Johann Lau]

There's always someone on Slashdot that wants to ignore the facts

Which is probably the reason why these posts all have zero replies:

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078759&cid=41159295
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078759&cid=41158715
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078759&cid=41158447
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078759&cid=41159125

This whole thing is transparent as fuck if you ask me. Doctors get money, religious peeps feel better about forcing this on babies instead of making it a voluntary thing. And of course, the people who have no way to get their foreskin back either way rationalize it.

So, yeah. Whatever makes you feel better *tips hat* haha.

Re:I call BS

[Algae_94]

...and it can't be right either. It has no final goal.

Millions of years of evolution has created the platypus. That surely must be the pinnacle of life on Earth since Evolution has created it!

Re:I call BS

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?"

I'm guessing it would be something along the lines of: Holy Shit! She's got a dick!

Re:I call BS

[Maxmin]

Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?

In certain countries they do that, and the West refers to it as "female genital mutilation"

FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.

FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure; it's a prophylaxis of sorts against adultery. In actuality, it causes them pain for the rest of their lives.

In these cultures, the men often demand that their bride be cut in this way, otherwise they're undesirable.

I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable. Circumcision came about during a time when hygiene was lax, awareness of causes of infection nonexistent.

Re:I call BS

[sasha328]

I fall into this category, but I wouldn't call myself an adult when I was circumcised. I was somewhere between 11 and 13 years old. I am neither American, nor Muslim or Jew.
My dad is not circumcised, but for some reason, which I no longer remember I was circumcised in a hospital. I didn't feel any pain as a result. I was sore for a week afterwards. That's all I can remember from that time.

I am now a happily married man, and we haven't had any problems with stimulation, sensation or anything.
I don't know what I'd do if I have a son, but as it's not a tradition in our family, we'll talk it through. I think I'm in favour of it, but we'll know closer to the time.

Re:I call BS

[Tablizer]

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.

From what I have read over the years, it seems it's a trade-off. The foreskin creates more risk for certain diseases/infections at the expense of others.

The risk profile may have changed between modern life and the "ancient" life that mostly shaped our genetics such that there may actually be a reason to "bypass" nature.

However, until the research is clear and the risk profiles well known, I'd say, error on the side of leaving it alone. Nature has a lot of useful undocumented features that we are not yet prepared to mess with.

Fat people may be the only ones who survive Armageddon, by the way. Survival may trump beauty in some circumstances.

Re:I call BS

[SomeKDEUser]

The shots have clear, well understood benefits which are maximised by having a large number of people vaccinated. Foreskin removal meant to prevent STDs is going to help people in the kindergarten how ?

Re:I call BS

[tibit]

One can control STDs simply by, you know, keeping one partner and having him/her tested before you starting making out

completely unrealistic for the vast majority of people. Almost as unrealistic as expecting some to always where condoms.

Then the vast majority can decide to get circumcised, once they get old enough. For the rest, who can keep their dick under control, no, thank you. BTW, what I mean about keeping it under control is having partners who are serious about life n' shit, you know. This does not imply celibacy nor monogamy.

basically helps when you do stupid shit.

OR when yuo partner does stupid shit you don't know about.

Yup, circumcision as a stand-in for selection of a good partner. My partner may well do stupid shit, but she'll gladly tell me about it, and vice versa.

I'd think fluid intake and timely urination would help

wow, didn't tkae long for you to jump right into psuedoscience land, did it?

Some people get UTIs. Some other don't. For those who do, managing fluids often has to take part in dealing with the problem. What's pseudoscience about that?

Re:I call BS

[oldmac31310]

Ah, the future! Can I still have my flying car when I'm hairless, toothless, without appendix, tonsils, gall bladder, prostate, foreskin - huh, huh, can I, can I?

Re:I call BS

[tolkienfan]

Let him decide. You can't give one back after it's been amputated.

Re:I call BS

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Except circumcision reduces pleasure during sex. It's a stupid religious practice, that people justify as meaning to reduce infection, but it's actually targeted at reducing pleasure and masturbation (I've heard it fails drastically at that). I live in Argentina. Do you know what babies get circumcisions here? None. Well, just the jews, and not all of them, only the actually religious.

It's an awful and stupid religious practice, and should be BANNED. Parents that do it should be punished with actual jail time. Let the kid decide if he wants to mutilate himself when he turns 18. Same should go for religion (no sex before 18? Fine. No voting? Fine. No religious teaching until 18 years old. Also, punishable with mandatory jail time).

In case it wasn't clear enough, KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION AWAY FROM MY PENIS.

Re:I call BS

[EverlastingPhelps]

Keep your crazy political ideas away from my religion AND my penis.

Re:I call BS

[IndustrialComplex]

Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin.

I knew a guy in college, 100% blind from birth, a congenital defect caused his optic nerves not to form.

He had a VERY similar response to you when asked if he missed his eyesight. He basically said, "I've never felt deprived, because I never knew what it is to have sight."

Re:I call BS

[Belial6]

First, parents make all sorts of health decisions for their children that will effect those children for the rest of their lives. Immunizations are a very good example of this. It is silly to suggest that parents not do this.

If you want to get offended about cutting into children's flesh, maybe you should look at ear piercing first. While circumcision has medical benefits, childhood ear piercing is poking holes in children strictly for cosmetic reasons.

Re:I call BS

[IndustrialComplex]

Do you give your kids vaccinations or do you wait until they are 18 and can make the decision on their own?

There is a vaccine for Rabies. I sure as hell haven't had that vaccine since:

1. Risk of rabies is very low for me
2. I don't work with wild animals
3. I can take other precautions to more effectively lower my risk

With respect to the reduced STD rate, I think this whole 'benefit' is moot since my hypothetical boy is going to to be educated and have access to condoms. The last thing I think we need teenagers to think is that they have some magical resistance to STDs because of a circumcision.

If the benefits were anything close to what the studies claim, there is no way we would be having the STD infection rates in the US that we see today. Consider the rates between the US and Europe, and the circumcision rates. It's counter intuitive from the studies.

Re:I call BS

[Belial6]

Male circumcision and "female circumcision" have nothing to do with each other, so I don't see how you can say "I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable."

Re:I call BS

[IndustrialComplex]

I've had far too many close calls with a hastily pulled up zipper to consider abandoning the benefits of the foreskin. Sure, it smarts, but I shudder to consider the alternative.

Re:I call BS

[Maxmin]

Oh? They're both about the unconsented surgical alteration of a person's genitalia. And the GGP opened the subject, so I responded.

FGM is so completely horrific (the removal of the labia and clitoris, typically without anesthesia, often without sterile surgical equipment or environs), that it's worth mentioning in a thread about male circumcision... so to plant the image in more minds, towards ending its practice.

Re:I call BS

[malv]

You're like a man who can't see color saying how great everything looks in black and white.

Re:I call BS

[SuricouRaven]

There's no mystery. It's just confirmation bias. Even scientists are subject to it.

Re:I call BS

[SuricouRaven]

In a time before sanitation and antibiotics, they advocated cutting? It's nothing to do with medicine: It was a marker of tribal identity. A way to distinguish Us from Them.

Re:I call BS

[SuricouRaven]

The incidence for penile cancer is tiny. It is not one of the common cancers.

Re:I call BS

[Maxmin]

Removal of the clitoral hood... is the equivalent to a male circumcision

Imagine what it feels like to be missing a non-optional part of your anatomy - one that protects the most sensitive hunk of flesh on your exterior anatomy, containing a high concentration of nerve endings.

Re:I call BS

[dargaud]

Yup, and I call circumcision "male genital mutilation" and find it just as monstrous. And this 'health' argument reeks. Then why don't we cut tits off girls so that they won't have problems with breast cancer then ?!? And you say that FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure, but people forget that circumcision was started in the US over a century ago to reduce the practice of masturbation by making it less enjoyable.

Re:I call BS

[Grishnakh]

Meh. I know a girl missing her 4th toe on one foot that says the same thing.

That's rather odd. Most girls are pretty self-conscious about their feet and how they look; after all, it's pretty common for women to walk around in sandals in warmer weather, and missing or misshapen toes do not look good in sandals. Men generally don't care that much about their feet since they usually wear shoes, or think of minor disfigurements and scars as "battle wounds".

Re:I call BS

[Grishnakh]

What's the deal with hair and cysts? I hadn't heard of that before.

However, I'd be happy to get much of my hair removed; it really doesn't serve much of a purpose, and the stuff on my face is just a PITA and serves zero purpose (if it did, women would have beards too). Except, like many men, I'd like to have more hair on top of my head.... :-( What a raw deal: I get hair I don't need where I don't really want it, and I'm losing hair in the one place where I actually like having it.

Re:I call BS

[Zeio]

That useless skin actually contains about the same number of nerve endings than what remains. Genital mutilation to attract mates seems a bit on a steep side.

Re:I call BS

[JasonKiddy]

Arguing about the extent of mutilation is not a very convincing argument, when we're still talking about mutilating babies.

Re:I call BS

[SecurityGuy]

There are alleged health benefits to bear bile, too, if you believe crackpot chinese "medicine" types.

And yes, they're incredibly dissimilar to the well documented health benefits of vaccination.

Re:I call BS

[0100010001010011]

As an uncircumcised male:

Think about how great all those nerve endings in your fingers are. You can detect very very minute changes in pressure, feeling, everything. Now imagine trying feel sand after someone shaves all of your fingertips off. "Well as an adult that had their fingertips shaved when they were younger I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin".

All those "Ribbed for her pleasure" condoms. Where do you think the "Rib" should have come from? You're cutting out the bodies natural "Make the women feel good" device.

And most women I've talked to don't care.

Re:I call BS

[marka63]

I call BS. Of the 2,437,163 deaths in the US in 2009, 28,088 were due to prostate cancer. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

As they say you are more likely to die with prostate cancer than of prostate cancer.

Re:I call BS

[Wild_dog!]

Interesting.....
When I was in medical school, the articles I read showed no real difference in the health of circumcised and uncircumcised individuals.
The AAP even felt differently about this subject some 13 years ago. All of the sudden, they change their tune and do it with a bunch of cherry picked info that ignores the studies which have different conclusions from what they have proposed.

Then there is the tidbit of how going uncircumcised costs 313 per person... oddly a circumcision charge is 300-500 bucks so that is a curious entry.

The truth is 117 infants die every year because of the procedure in the US. How many die because of their foreskin?

Re:I call BS

[Wild_dog!]

The giant mass of kids do not have any problem with foreskin. And yet the recommendation is to remove it?
Health outcomes for those with or without are about the same, so basically they are recommending expanding a procedure that costs 300-500 bucks for every kid.
Seems like money might be a bigger consideration than the cherry picked science they are burping out to try to justify what they are recommending.

Removing it removes lots of genital tissue with its neural and hormonal tissue.
It isn't simply an extra flap of skin like a stubbed toe.

Re:I call BS

[Anonymous Coward]

FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.

Female Genital Circumcision isn't always removal of the clitoris AND inner/outer labie. It can be just the clitoral hood - the exact equivalent of the male foreskin. Unfortunately we go apeshit when it's a little girl but circumcising our baby boys is an acceptable cultural norm. Give me a break.

Mutilate:
  1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably

You can call both either circumcision is mutilation. Male or female. Acceptable cultural norm or foreign cultural norm.

Re:I call BS

[kyrio]

Do those vaccines make your kid's cock permanently lose an amount of stretchy, protective skin?

Re:I call BS

[mcvos]

There are very different levels of female circumcision. The worst cut out the entire clitoris and sow everything shut, the mildest are a small cut in the clitoris without removing anything. But it's still unnecessary mutilation, just like male circumcision.

Re:I call BS

[AmiMoJo]

For once I think I'd actually welcome a lawsuit from someone maimed in this way. As an atheist and the son of a Muslim I'd be quite upset if my parents had hacked part of my dick off without asking.

Re:I call BS

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Because removing the appendix is invasive surgery requiring anesthesia, with all the attendant risks of infection and anesthesia reactions? A lot more people would die of complications from the surgery than would be saved (and of course, there are some theories that support a role, however limited, for the appendix). The foreskin can be removed with far less cost and risk, and apparently produces more benefits.

Re:I call BS

[Jedi Alec]

Except when the study gets conducted Bible in hard by folks looking for very hard for proof of what they already believe in...

In any case, a God who feels a proper way to worship him is to cut off part of the genitals of infants can go fuck himself.

Re:I call BS

[DJRumpy]

Unhuh...

http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

Ironically, all the 1982 paper did was quite casually note that "95% of the [male] infants [with UTI] were uncircumcised." without mentioning that virtually no babies born at that hospital (Parkland in Dallas, Texas) were circumcised. The paper went on: "All infants responded promptly to antimicrobial therapy."

20 out of of 100,157 (0.02%) circumcised boys got UTIs, compared with 88 out of 35,929 (0.244%) intact boys. If circumcising the 35,929 boys would have reduced the incidence from 0.244% to 0.02% (7 boys), the Number Needed to Treat is 35,929/(88-7) = 444 circumcisions to prevent one UTI.

Do you know what also causes UTI's? Bubble Bath.

UTI's are just common for 1st year babies. UTI's are also extremely easy to treat. I don't think it's worth mutilating a baby to reduce the possibility of an easily treatable condition that many babies will end up with regardless (girls and boys as well as circumcised boys also end up with UTI's).

Even delaying the procedure until a boy is likely to become sexually active (something like 13% at age 15), so probably a year or two before) would be preferable to making the choice for him.

Re:I call BS

[Inda]

I'll add to your post, as the context wouldn't mean much on other posts. Maybe it'll calm some other people's thoughts too.

UK born and bred, no religion apart from the FSM.

Cut at 19, a few years after I started my sex life, solely for the reason of my foreskin being too tight [for my enormous...]. Simple operation. In and out in an hour. I walked to a friend's house in the evening. 32 stitches. Back to work a week later, and it could have been earlier but hey, I was being paid whether I went in or not. No wanking for three weeks. Can you imagine that at 19?!?

Before and after? Obviously better after because that's why I had the operation, but in truth, no real difference. No problems with soreness, dryness, or sensitivety; maybe a little bit more sensitive, and that's a good thing.

The wife, although I didn't meet her until a couple of years later, prefers the look. She says it looks like a mini erect penis.

Friends? It's amazing how many blokes in the UK have had it done when someone admits to it. 50% in my circle of friends, all done because of tightness. Half of those performed in adulthood.

The worst part? In hospital I had a group of students watching the examination. Standing there with my trollies round my ankles being told to pull the foreskin back infront of everyone was not pleasant. The surgeon pointing at my foreskin with his pen, telling all the crowd he'd cut just below the tight point was not something I'd want to repeat ever. I still imagine the students writting reports on the operation and that report still sitting on a hard drive somewhere.

NB: Post not checked for spelling or puns.

Re:I call BS

[michelcolman]

in these "cultures"

FTFY

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

Using that logic you must think John Paul Getty III having his ear removed by his captors is the same as parents giving their 3-year-old an ear piercing?

You must do, as they are both the unconsented surgical alteration of a person's ear.

I however don't. And I consider bringing one up when the topic under discussion is the other to imply either gross ignorance of at least one, and probably both topics, or simply a trollish desire to go off topic.

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

However, you didn't bring it up in a context where any actual confusion was implied, quite the opposite. I'm directing my post at the wrong person. Ignore me!

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

That could be achieved trivially if your religion kept itself well away from his political system.

Does it?

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

Yeah, but that's only eyesight. We were talking about part of someones COCK here!

(<irony> tags to be assumed. I'm colourblind, my g/f's partly blind, so this isn't to be taken as belittling visual problems.)

Re:I call BS

[Ameryll]

People pierce the ears of their female infants. My understanding is that the ear piercing hurts more to an infant than circumcision (based on how long they cry afterwards).

Re:I call BS

[thuf1rhawat]

As far as I know it is illegal in every us stae, but it still happens, yes there are doctors who will do that procedure in at least one state i am aware of. Be warned I am a Brit (London / Essex Heinz 57) , I have lived in the States, and yes I'm married to a septic, so regularly discuss ( pour scorn on) the differences between the two countries.

Re:I call BS

[JSmooth]

Exactly. We were made to be susceptible to cancer and gosh darn it if you get cancer, or an infection or a cold then that's the way it is. No fair cheating with science and medicine.

Re:I call BS

[Whorhay]

Actualy I would agree in part that piercing a child's ear before they are at least old enough to ask for the procedure themselves is also morally wrong. The difference being though that an ear piercing can heal back to nearly the original condition.

Typical male circumsion is not reversible. And it should be noted that there is variety among female circumsion, in some procedures it is merely ceremonial and involves drawing a single drop of blood. But even that very liberal form is outlawed in the USA.

Male circumsion has also not always been as extreme as it is today. The modern method as another poster mentioned came about from the marketing of circumsion to prevent masturbation.

Also note that around 100 infants a year die as a result of male circumsion and around twice that from complications. Meanwhile we see fit to ban the manufature and sale of such horrific devices as drop side cribs that killed around a dozen kids in the last decade.

Re:I call BS

[The Pirou]

Whether the Trauma of FGM is a billion times worse than Male Circumcision is irrelevant, they're both forms of amputation. Cutting off a part of my body without my consent falls under my personal opinion of mutilation, and I will always feel a slight resentment towards my parents for making that choice with my body.

Re:I call BS

[X0563511]

My family is not Jewish or Muslim, and yet I got cut. Hmm.

Re:I call BS

[Scragglykat]

Both sexual organs have a hood that is the same thing as others are pointing out by the fact that there is such a thing as female circumcision. They have shown that both hoods are actually the same just developed slightly differently to accommodate the specific anatomy.

Re:I call BS

[EverlastingPhelps]

Yes. I'm a libertarian. I'm the one on the side of letting people choose. He's the one on the side of "I think it is icky and it reminds me of how uncomfortable I am with my own penis so BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT!!!"

Re:I call BS

[Derek Pomery]

Huh. Looked it up on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#Langerhans_cells_and_HIV_transmission ?

Re:I call BS

[Whorhay]

How is it not mutilation? It is the removal of tissue which is not reversible given our current medical technology. Female circumsion is no doubt often more painful and has more uncomfortable side affects for a longer time but there are also various forms of female circumsion, just as there used to be for males, some of which are not nearly so abhorrent.

Re:I call BS

[zybthranger]

Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?

In certain countries they do that, and the West refers to it as "female genital mutilation"

FGM involves removal of the clitoris, and the inner and outer labia to varying extents.

That describes some forms of Female Genital Mutilation, not all of them.

FGM is absolutely intended to deny females sexual pleasure; it's a prophylaxis of sorts against adultery. In actuality, it causes them pain for the rest of their lives.

In these cultures, the men often demand that their bride be cut in this way, otherwise they're undesirable.

I'm not sure that FGM and male circumcision are comparable. Circumcision came about during a time when hygiene was lax, awareness of causes of infection nonexistent.

Male circumcision is certainly comparable to removing the clitoral hood, which is a type of FGM.

Re:I call BS

[tehcyder]

Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin. Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.

But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.

Well it would be a bit cruel (and pointless) of them to say how much they missed your having a foreskin wouldn't it?

Re:I call BS

[khallow]

When it is also combined with medically valid reasons, then yes, it does matter.

Re:I call BS

[vux984]

Cosmetics has nothing to do with the finding, actually. You don't even need to read TFA to figure that out..

The post isn't addressing the argument in the TFA. It is addressing the argument in the post it replied to.

why the fuck is this +5???

I figure it was the "toothless whores" that put it over the top, but no one will ever know for sure.

Re:I call BS

[Cederic]

Unfortunately the surgery required for an elastic organ, namely an adult penis, is more delicate than what is required for a fixed size organ. So doctors like to perform circumcision before puberty

erm. Baby boys get erections too.

Re:I call BS

[Cederic]

Most of the women I've talked to about it

Would those be American women, or ones from countries where the majority of men haven't been mutilated as children?

But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.

Which is my point. People get used to whatever's familiar. Women in America fear a natural penis, and that in itself is one reason they insist on mutilating their children.

Luckily that trend has been changing and circumcision is far less prevalent in the US than it used to be. Personally I attribute that to improved educational standards, but I have no evidence either way.

Re:I call BS

[Cederic]

Divorce the child abusing bitch.

No, I'm not kidding. Yes, this would be a relationship breaker for me. Yes, I would demand that the courts give me custody of the child. Yes, I would fucking knife her before letting her mutilate my child.

Why do some people think it's acceptable to mutilate children?

Re:I call BS

[Cederic]

Personally, I think a 50% lower risk of HIV is a bad reason for circumcision

I agree, primarily because there's no fucking evidence of such a drop in risk. Even amongst "men that don't wear condoms".

Re:I call BS

[Cederic]

So I take it you're going to have a proactive surgery to remove your prostate? (...) nobody really needs it...

Erm. Actually, it's quite a sensitive organ that can play a role in sexual excitement.

There's even a wikipedia page on prostrate massage..

Re:I call BS

[vux984]

Good point; I guess its not the best example. I'm sure she would have preferred it be "normal" for purely cosmetic reasons.

Her comment about not missing it was more in the context of things like balance, walking, running - she hasn't noticed its absence having affected her ability to function.

Re:I call BS

[tibit]

So, I assume your parents did not pull your foreskin back every day to stretch it when you were a little kid, and did not educate you on doing that yourself later on? That's the only reason I can see for tightness of foreskin. It's stretchy, it's not supposed to bother you if you take care of it when young.

Re:I call BS

[Maxmin]

I'm not for circumcision of any kind. Merely pointing out another kind of genital mutilation, to show that there's all kind of fucked-up belief systems that people use as excuse to control others.

Re:I call BS

[JasonKiddy]

Except this is not a valid medical reason. *IF* these studies were reliable, repeated and valid science, then you would possibly have an argument for circumcision *in the countries where running water/cleanliness was a problem*. Does that really sound like the US to you? So, sorry, but this is still mutilation of a huge number of boys, who are not going to be helped by this.

Re:I call BS

[Em Adespoton]

At least someone got the point of part of my troll here :)
The argument for the foreskin is that it can play a role in sexual gratification. I'm hoping the people who moderated me +5 Insightful also got that, as pretty much all replies other than this one completely missed the point of my tongue in cheek post -- the point being that it's not so simple as "let's remove that we don't really need it" vs "don't touch my bodily fluids!"

Re:I call BS

[Em Adespoton]

As far as I know, there's no deal with hair and cysts... that was supposed to raise your BS-meter and make you think.

Re:I call BS

[Em Adespoton]

I suggest you read this. I take it you didn't read as far as my argument about depiliation to reduce cysts ;)
Of course, that's tangental to both the supposed point AND the real point I was trying to make with my post.

Re:I call BS

[Em Adespoton]

Nah; flying cars are unnecessary too. Nobody needs more than their BrainVat after all.... unless they've gone virtual.

Re:I call BS

[stephanruby]

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.

And notice, their conclusion comes from studying the effects of circumcision within the context of AIDS and other STDs.

It doesn't say for instance, how this will effect the incidence of prostate cancer. So assuming circumcision really does reduce the frequency of masturbation among the male population, it would stand to reason that the incidence of prostate cancer may possibly increase because of circumcision.

And of course, a truly randomized controlled trial in the US would probably give us an definitive objective answer to this question, but American parents would never stand for that kind of study, so it could never be truly random. Apparently, this pediatric association keeps on mentioning "randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda", so they probably did find some African parents who were willing to exchange their rights to choose for the good of science (or perhaps in exchange for $$$), but one could argue that this kind of selection wouldn't be random at all. For one thing, only the poor would probably be willing to forego their rights like that. And a second thing, those African countries are different than the US. The average life expectancy in Uganda for instance, is 53 years old. In the US, it's 78 years. And one would assume that there are lower incidents of prostate cancer in Uganda simply because they're dying much earlier than we are.

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

If, if you're waiting until they are old enough to decide for themselves, then it is the 18-year-olds themselves who are chosing to maim themselves when they are most sexually active, not anyone else.

Voluntary rates might be a lot lower, and nothing apart from outdated ill-founded traditions would be lost.

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

> Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!

Bollocks. We were made this way because it was evolutionarily beneficial to have the generation of sensitive and protective foreskins codified in our DNA. It helped us go forth and multiply, you might say. At no point do you need anyone guiding that process.

However, you've confessed to seeing things that aren't there, so this additional bit of self-delusion should come as no surprise.

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

That was clever. I approve.

Re:I call BS

[oamasood]

Ok, then don't cut your hair, don't trim your beard (whether you are a male or female), don't cut your nails, and never shave your armpit/pubic hair.

We were "made like that", after all.

Re:I call BS

[Dave114]

FYI, some forms of female circumcision are less drastic than male circumcisions. From the World Health Organization's page on female circumcision:

Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

Some of of the other types outlined by the WHO are also less drastic than you describe.

See a longer comparison of male and female circumcision here. Another interesting note from a peer-reviewed article:

There is in fact evidence that female circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in women (Stallings and Karugendo 2005), but given Western cultural preferences it is unlikely that there will ever be clinical trials to test and confirm the possibility.

It's the same sort of factors that are being used as reasons to increase rates of male circumcision in Africa.

Re:I call BS

[khallow]

*IF* these studies were reliable, repeated and valid science, then you would possibly have an argument for circumcision *in the countries where running water/cleanliness was a problem*. Does that really sound like the US to you?

Uh, yes. Don't forget STDs as well. I recall a chlamydia study which indicated the disease was inhibited considerably by male circumcision.

Re:I call BS

[kat_skan]

I'm sure the comment I replied to was meant as a joke, but it's important to keep in mind that female circumcision does in fact exist. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I consider it to be the same operation when there's really nothing in that article that even suggests it has valid medical applications. In fact the tiny excerpt you quoted is probably the least ghastly description of the practice—the article frankly just gets more and more horrifying the further you read.

The argument here is that male circumcision, while obviously not as invasive and not done for the same despicable reasons, also has no medical value. You might disagree with that (which would be a reasonable position to take, since the American Academy of Pediatrics obviously holds the same opinion), but that doesn't make the comparison invalid.

Re:I call BS

[JasonKiddy]

Yet again even if this is true, which I haven't seen proven, why would you justify mutilating millions of babies to reduce the incidence of STDs when they are adults?

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

"Libertarian" is your religion?!? Even were that to be true, you've damned yourself with your own mouth, as the Libertarians certainly don't keep themselves out of his political system.

And regarding how you continued - I'm fairly sure you're putting words into his mouth. You're not projecting, are you?

Re:I call BS

[EverlastingPhelps]

It's not projection -- I'm simply re-arranging the words he wrote, and in no way altering the meaning:

It's an awful and stupid religious practice, and should be BANNED.

That's pretty clear. Libertarianism isn't a religion, it's a political philosophy. It belongs in politics. Part of the philosophy is that people have the right to practice their religions, as kooky as they may be, as long as they aren't forcing them on anyone else.

When someone starts talking about banning religious practices, they are talking about banning religion. I won't abide that.

Re:I call BS

[fatphil]

> I'm simply re-arranging the words he wrote
>>It's an awful and stupid religious practice, and should be BANNED.

False.

His words, the ones you were mimicking, were:
>>>>> KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION AWAY FROM MY PENIS.

> When someone starts talking about banning religious practices, they are talking about banning religion. I won't abide that.

Then you have no rationality at all. "Religious practices" can contain everything up to and including ritual mass murder, terroristic jihad, etc. If you do not think those should have laws forbidding them, then quite frankly you're not a libertarian, you're a liberty.

Re:I call BS

[Belial6]

Comparing the two is not better than going full Godwin.

Re:I call BS

[Velex]

Some forms do, and some forms don't. The form of female genital mutilation that's the most like male ritual circumcision is removal of the clitoral hood. Then there is removal of the clitoris, of which the male equivalent would be chopping off the glans. In some cases of ritual male circumcision gone wrong, this is what happens. Traditions that remove the labia would be akin to removing the scrotum. Sometimes when a male genital mutilation goes horrendously wrong, that, along with what remains of the male genitalia is removed.

In one remarkable case, a nurse attempted to perform a circumcision with a laser cauterizer. It didn't go as expected. It melted most of the penis. So, this kid's future already ruined, the parents and doctor made a massive derp. After all, we know that gender is only socially constructed, right? Well, so, since they just melted the kid's dick off, they removed the rest of the tissue and raised him as a girl.

Unfortunately, it turns out that gender is not socially constructed. There were problems from day one. Long story short, after going through female puberty, growing breasts thanks to forced estrogen HRT, and finally having the accident revealed to him, years afterwards, unable to live as a man, either, he killed himself.

If this were a female "circumcision," even the clitoral pin-poke that the AAP attempted to create a protocol for in 2010, that story would have been all over the news. Instead, I only know about the case after doing extensive reading to educate myself about gender and genital mutilation.

Of course, there is no male equivalent of traditions that sew the vagina shut and leave most of the rest of the anatomy intact.

The common thread that both share is control and abuse. Male genital mutilation was proposed originally to prevent masturbation. Ironically, because of the pain I was left with due to insufficient skin to allow for an erection, I had to teach myself how to masturbate, because otherwise when I awoke in pain in the middle of the night, I would not be able to get back to sleep for up to 45 minutes sometimes. It was not pleasurable masturbation. I hated masturbation, but it was necessary to be able to get back to sleep and maybe delay the next episode of pain. It would be disingenuous for me to attempt to say that going through that experience while women's periods only put them in pain for a week with a 3 week break did not "do" things to me.

If I were a woman who had psychosexual problems due to a clitoral pin-prick, I would be a feminist poster girl warning about the horrors of Female Genital Mutilation and why we should revile the AAP for even trying to prevent infant girls from being trafficked to unsanity 3rd world countries to get their clitorises sliced. Instead, I am a mutilated man/mutilated trans woman. And when the AAP says that what happened to me was unpossible, NPR and others yawn and say that we'd better just lop off foreskins willy-nilly because men like me don't exist and years and years of pain due to an unnecessary surgery can be assigned a monetary value.

Please, let me pay $313. I have thousands in the bank. Anything to undo an adolescence spent in pain. Yet, that's the truly impossible thing.

-=-

Female genital mutilation in some traditions is a method of control. The sewed up vagina being the most extreme example of control-based female genital mutilation.

Yes, I know we've all been brainwashed to lose our shit at the mention of female genital mutilation. The sad fact, though, is that genital mutilation in both males and females is a form of child abuse in most cases, not a form of control. Child abuse is a problem that is passed from father to son and mother to daughter. In less severe traditions of female genital mutilation, it is often the role of the grandmother to either slice the clitoris or amputate the clitoral hood. And, as evinced by both the 2012 and 1986 AAP reports on male genital mutilation (contradicted by every other report

Re:I call BS

[Velex]

Please note that I am not attempt to evaluate the ethics of FGM (or any genital mutilation) or to make a moral assessment of the situation. Please note that in my other comments I have attempted to present the ethical idea that men have the same right to intact bodies that women do.

Not all FGM is the same. With men, it's fairly simple and usually the only difference is age. For Jewish and USA-ian traditions, the foreskin is amputated at brith. For the African tradition depicted in Roots, the foreskin is amputated as part of a rite of passage into manhood.

Some female genital mutilation involves amputation of the clitoral hood. Other forms involve slicing the clitoris. Yet other forms involve amputation of the clitoris.

So far, we are still in the same territory as infant male genital mutilation. I believe that in most cases of infant genital mutilation (big exception for some forms of FGM I haven't touched yet) it's an issue of child abuse. It's well known that child abuse is an inter-generational issue. This is especially true for sexual abuse, which I believe infant genital mutilations are a form of.

It turns out that in traditions that practice clitoral hood amputation or clitoral slicing, the act is often performed by a matriarch figure who was herself mutilated as a child. She is merely keeping the tradition and passing the child abuse on to a new generation. In the case of the AAP, apparently we have mutilated men who have become doctors and are advocating passing on the tradition of male genital mutilation to a new generation.

Keep in mind that often male infants are circumcised without anesthesia as you had mentioned is often true of female genital mutilation procedures from clitoral slicing right up to sewing the vagina shut or amputating the labia.

In 2010, the AAP had attempted to put forth a protocol to satisfy certain religious requirements for clitoral slicing. There would be a form, and if correctly filled out, a female infant would be placed under local anesthesia and her clitoris would be "poked" with a pin to produce a drop of blood, thus satisfying the religious requirement. This is somewhere I need to be absolutely serious despite places others and I have suggested removing breast buds in infants to prevent breast cancer. Young girls every year are trafficked to 3rd world countries to have their clitorises sliced. This often results in infection necessitating complete amputation of the clitoris. The AAP was attempting to prevent those tragedies, but everybody lost their shit because somebody said FGM. So, infant females still face this problem.

The cases of labia amputation, sewing the vagina shut, and male circumcision as rite-of-passage are more unique in their ways. Labia amputation is something I've heard of but have not researched, so I can't say whether it's abuse or control motivated. The traditions that sew an infant's vagina shut until marriage are clearly motivated by control. These few traditions are the only ones in which the feminist narritive of male control ring true. Adult male circumcision presents its own interesting facets. Infant male genital mutilation involves forecefully separating the glans and foreskin, two organs that are not meant to be separated until about 12 to 18 months. It's similar to tearing a fingernail off.

In the case of the rite-of-passage circumcision depicted in Roots, it is a much less violent act than infant circumcision. The foreskin has already detached, and can be amputated with one swift motion. Additionally, the subject is consenting, something an infant never can do. Removing the foreskin from an infant is much more violent.

I think the best weapon against infant genital mutilation (female or male) is knowledge and the ethical argument of my body, my choice. It is not about a statistic here or there or about kinky sexual pleasure. I believe that if we approach the problem rationally and ethically, instead of exaggerating cases of female genital mutilation and downplaying cases of male genital mutilation, we will conclude that there is no ethically or medically valid reason to mutilate a helpless infant.

Thanks,
Vel

Re:I call BS

[Belial6]

Please note that I am not attempt to evaluate the ethics of FGM (or any genital mutilation) or to make a moral assessment of the situation.

You say that, and then proceed to spend 9 paragraphs attempting to evaluate the ethics of "genital mutilation". Calling it "mutilation" is in itself an attempt to evaluate the ethics. Presumably, you call oral surgery and orthodontics "mutilation" also, right? Every single one of your arguments is just as valid when applied to the "oral mutilation" performed by dentists and orthodontists.

Re:I call BS

[Velex]

You say that, and then proceed to spend 9 paragraphs attempting to evaluate the ethics of "genital mutilation". Calling it "mutilation" is in itself an attempt to evaluate the ethics. Presumably, you call oral surgery and orthodontics "mutilation" also, right? Every single one of your arguments is just as valid when applied to the "oral mutilation" performed by dentists and orthodontists.

Well, I'm biased there. My mouth is intact. I have both my tonsils and all my wisdom teeth.

Re:I call BS

[MiG82au]

Some guys get their foreskins restored and reckon it's better.

Re:I call BS

[Keen Anthony]

Honestly, I never found sound reasoning in any of the practices of ancient cultures that remain today only out of tradition. It amazes me that we would look to ancient people for any wisdom regarding health and disease when we know vastly more today. I'm not saying that an ancient primitive tribe that knows how to utilize a rare plant we don't have access to should be ignored, I'm just saying we ought to take these things into context. In the ancient mediterranean world of Abraham, women were chattel, sexual morality was closely tied to the way women were treated. They were a superstitious people that whilst having an understanding of the stars and math, still believed that you should wash your hands palms down to that the evil spirits that try to possess you during the night are washed away. I've asked about the rules against eating pork and such. The response I got was that health had nothing to do with it. It was simply an order from God, thus you follow. I bet the reality is these rules and traditions originated with personal and community biases that became codified by those in power. "Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread" for all we know was a response against a particularly talented fashion designer of the era that made clothes that showed off too much skin.

Re:I call BS

[gay358]

Actually, not all forms of FGM involve removal of clitoris. And some forms of FGM, like making just a needleprick, are actually less harmfull than circumcision of boys.

Btw, there are also some studies that seem to show that sorme forms of FGM lower the risk of getting HIV...

$313?

[Milharis]

Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.

Re:$313?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Perhaps it includes the cost of the surgery and the $313 is net savings?

Re:$313?

[Talennor]

Report linked stated cost to be "$216-601 across the nation." But they weren't using dollar amounts as the results to maximize, rather quality of life.

However, it appears to be a very small average (average is important in this discussion) quality of life improvement. And this is something, if I were becoming a parent soon, I wouldn't worry much. There's important decisions like saying "yes" to vaccinations that matter much more.

Re:$313?

[Marc_Hawke]

The report say that it cost between $216 and $601 for a newborn circumcision. I couldn't find the number $313 cost 'savings' anywhere in the report itself. It seems it comes from article that talked about it.

I scanned the report, and it talked about a lot of different health problems, but it didn't seem to quantify them monetarily.

Re:$313?

[Anubis IV]

From what I can tell, it's around $150 to have it done on an infant in the hospital. Whether or not the $313 number had that factored in (i.e. $463 - $150 = $313) or not (i.e. $313 - $150 = $163) is something I don't know, but either way, the monetary savings appears to be rather minimal, since I believe that the number is supposed to be over the course of their lifetime, not per year. If we assume that males in the US will live for an average of 80 years, that works out to a cost of around $4/year to go uncircumcised.

Re:$313?

[Em Adespoton]

Making a choice to improve our bodies' abilities to defend themselves definitely makes much more sense than an elective surgery that can be accomplished (albeit more painfully) at any point in the future.

The only problem with vaccination is that it really only works well if everyone does it. Otherwise, the unvaccinated behave like mutators, and you end up with a mix that nobody's immune to.

Re:$313?

[ShakaUVM]

If it wasn't covered by insurance, then you were paying the inflated, hand-waving, magical price that hospitals set to fuck people that don't have insurance.

Re:$313?

[stephanruby]

Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.

If you're paying 2 to 3 K, you're probably doing it wrong.

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

What's the going price of carbolic acid (phenol) these days? ~ $10. And mind you, this added cost is only for females. For males, if you forego anesthesia and all the hassles that come with it, you could probably get a normal Barber to do it for only twice his going rate.

Re:$313?

[camionbleu]

Yes, indeed. I wish I still had some mod points for your post. Having recently seen what my ER invoice would have been if I had not had insurance, I entirely understand what you are saying. Although my health insurance did not cover most of the visit, it reduced the bill by a factor of five, merely by contractually obliging the hospital not to charge their hand-waving rates. Anyone without insurance would have been well and truly drained by the healthcare vampires.

However, the visit was NOT for an emergency circumcision, and I heartily encourage parents of male babies to leave their sons uncut.

Re:$313?

[Zomalaja]

There is nothing that is done at a hospital that costs $150.

Re:$313?

[Anubis IV]

And yet, this is. Fancy that.

Re:$313?

[ShakaUVM]

>>However, the visit was NOT for an emergency circumcision, and I heartily encourage parents of male babies to leave their sons uncut.

Why? In my opinion it should be a personal choice.

Re:$313?

[SecurityGuy]

I find that incredibly hard to believe. At $LOCALHOSPITAL, a bag of 73 cent saline is $50+. A routine visit with a pediatrician is something like $120-$180. No way are you getting an actual surgical procedure for $150.

Re:$313?

[Anubis IV]

Look around online for yourself if you don't believe me. While you can definitely find higher numbers quoted (particularly if you're not careful to limit your search to infant circumcision), the number I eventually came across that was listed as the U.S. average for the procedure was, I believe, $161, which I somewhat sloppily rounded off at $150.

Re:$313?

[Milharis]

You do realize that you are quoting a "study" that advise to hurt children so they don't masturbate?
Unless I've missed something, masturbation is not dangerous, and I find it rather sick to hurt children to protect your own sense of morality.
If you don't want your children to masturbate, that's your problem, and you can talk with them about that. But you don't hurt them, that's child abuse.

And if I were to forget about that, you don't even touch the issue of the price.
You do realize that you have to pay for the surgeon and the operation, and not just the products they are using? And that any operation is by no mean cheap?

Re:$313?

[camionbleu]

Yes, a personal choice of the child, when he reaches an age where he is in a position to choose.

$313 is worth it

[tylernt]

$313 is a small price to pay to not have one's privates butchered.

Re:$313 is worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, your view is pretty ignorant and offensive to people who are circumcised. We're not butchered. The only people I've met who are against circumcision are people who are uncircumcised. That I'm circumcised was something I never, ever thought about until the past few years of running into idiots who tell me being circumcised means I'm deformed and this sort of terrible thing should be made illegal. It amazes me how stupid people are when it comes to things they have no experience with.

Re:$313 is worth it

[The Dancing Panda]

313 dollars and girls will want to blow my son more? Sign me up.

Re:$313 is worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd easily pay ten times that to get my foreskin back.

Mind you, I'm thankfully in the majority where there haven't been any catastrophic effects from the butchery visited upon me as a baby. My member works acceptably, as it were.

But for all those people whining about how it doesn't matter - go talk to any sex therapist. Or sex columnist, for that matter. Ask them the most common reason why men can't actually perform when sticking their tab A into their woman's slot B. And then realize removal of foreskin unquestionably damages sensitivity.

As for the "benefits", there are none. lern2soap, and stop being a manwhore and having unsafe sex, which you shouldn't be doing regardless of the condition of your penis.

Re:$313 is worth it

[Algae_94]

I'll sell you back your foreskin for $3130. I don't think it'll fit you anymore though.

Re:$313 is worth it

[characterZer0]

I feel butchered. My parents have apologized for it.

Re:$313 is worth it

[yndrd1984]

The only people I've met who are against circumcision are people who are uncircumcised.
Hi, nice to meet you! Now you can't say that any more.

We're not butchered.
Technically it's 'surgically altered', but 'butchered' evokes my feelings pretty well.

That I'm circumcised was something I never, ever thought about until...
That's great! It doesn't seem to have bothered you.

But that doesn't change my feelings, nor does it change the ethics of the issue: My body, my choice. Right?

Re:$313 is worth it

[yndrd1984]

Is anyone going to have the guts to tell me why they think my viewpoint is wrong, rather than simply mod my views into oblivion?

You're trivializing someone's feelings, making wild assumptions about their personal life, making duplicate posts, and taunting people.

Don't like the 'Troll' mod? Then don't act like one.

Re:$313 is worth it

[oldmac31310]

It's just a hula hoop now. Crunchy.

Re:$313 is worth it

[oldmac31310]

Mod this up. Big time.

Re:$313 is worth it

[Grishnakh]

There's millions of men in Europe that are uncircumcised, and they seem to do just fine that way. It's telling that the people doing this "study" had to go to some backwards part of Africa, a place not exactly known for good public sanitation and hygiene, to get results to their liking.

Re:$313 is worth it

[kyrio]

313 dollars and girls will want to blow my son more? Sign me up.

The girls won't, though. The huge majority of the world does not practice genital mutilation - that means that the huge majority of the world's women will find a mutilated penis to be "icky." I mean, unless you really want your son to only get blowjobs from prostitutes. If that's what you want, spend that $200-$2000.

Re:$313 is worth it

[allo]

don't you think, this should be HIS decision then?

Re:$313 is worth it

[yndrd1984]

So do you also believe children should not be vaccinated???

What kind of absurdity is this? Vaccinations have massive, universally agreed upon health benefits, and (barring rare side effects) only 'costs' the child a brief pain and has no long-term effects (other than immunity).

Circumcision may have beneficial effects, that given a one-sided review, just barely manage to be cost effective, but permanently alter a person's appearance and remove significant portion of the sensitive parts of the penis.

How you think that these things are comparable is beyond me.

Re:$313 is worth it

[Stormwatch]

We're not butchered.

Yes, we are.

Re:$313 is worth it

[OverlordQ]

> $313 is a small price to pay to not have one's privates butchered.

That's averaged over the entire population. Becoming HIV positive is adding about $20k a year in medical bills for the rest of your life.

Re:$313 is worth it

[tylernt]

Becoming HIV positive is adding about $20k a year in medical bills for the rest of your life.

Becoming HIV positive is also a choice a man makes for himself (unprotected sex). Infant circumcision, isn't.

Re:$313 is worth it

[RogerWilco]

I have a lot of experience with being uncircumcised. And I can tell you that it's one of the most sensitive parts of my body and a great source of "pleasure". I would never voluntarily have it removed unless it was to save my life or something similar.

You're right that I don't know how it is to be circumcised but I definitely don't want to find out.

My opinion is that unless there is compelling evidence, which seems to be lacking here, you should not do procedures like this.

There are cases that seem to demonstrate a much clearer health benefit, like removing breasts and prostates in women and men to prevent a large number of cancers. We don't do that, at least until a cancer is actually detected, when it might be too late, so I don't see why we should do this.

Re:$313 is worth it

[yndrd1984]

Those are your beliefs. In cultures all around the world this viewpoint is not supported. Ethics vary with culture as well.

All completely true, all completely vacuous. You haven't even bothered to make an argument, not even any real content other than the faux wisdom of 'we can't be bothered to take sides'.

Stop acting like you're above it all and join the rest of us mortals trying to build a better world. We need all the help we can get.

Re:$313 is worth it

[Velex]

You are correct. Amputation of the foreskin is amputation of about a 3 x 5 card worth of adult tissue (skin AND a tendon).

Re:$313 is worth it

[Velex]

So, there are no men who are HIV positive AND circumcised, right? Oh, wait, no, there are. Also depending on how you interpret a study they did in Africa on the subject, circumcision may actually increase trasmission rate. You should read it. It's um, interesting, to say the least.

I homosexual, and I don't have AIDS or HIV. Somehow, I think the fact that I don't sleep around and don't cheat when I'm in a relationship has more to do with that than whether or not I have a foreskin.

Jesus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just practice good hygiene. How about we don't mutilate anyone's private parts against their will?

Re:Jesus.

[gnoshi]

Yea! And if your kid is born with a hair-lip, don't you dare mutilate that poor child by making him look like everyone else!

Childhood cancer? Too fuckin' bad, chief, we ain't torturing your kid by cutting out that perfectly natural tumor!

Ordinarily, males are born with a foreskin, so it is entirely unlike a hair-lip (indeed it would be more like a hair lip to be born without a foreskin). The increased risk of illness as a result of having one is clearly marginal, which is unlike the childhood cancer. However, you have produced two great examples of why analogy often fails as a reasoning tool.

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick, the ignorant shit some people expound...

Some people being you in this instance.

Re:Jesus.

[Seumas]

Absurd analogy. Last I checked, you couldn't scrub cancer away with good hygiene.

Re:Jesus.

[0xdeadbeef]

You liken the foreskin to a hairlip and cancer?

You people are insane.

Re:Jesus.

[Stickerboy]

Absurd analogy. Last I checked, you couldn't scrub cancer away with good hygiene.

False. Penile cancer almost entirely happens in the case of poor hygiene of the penis.

Re:Jesus.

[jbssm]

Guess what. I bet that if you cut your son's penis completely, the risk that they contract HIV or any other disease will drop by a great percentage. More, I absolutely guarantee you, that if you cut your son's penis today, we will not have penile cancer, ever! Guaranteed or your money back!

Re:Jesus.

[Seumas]

And yet it's most common in the United States, where circumcision is most prevalent.

It just absolutely baffles me that "hygiene durp durp" is our justification, here. You can cause a number of significant and even life threatening problems with poor oral hygiene, too, but I don't see anyone suggesting we take a jigsaw to the jaws of infants rather than teaching them proper oral hygiene as they grow up.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see how there's really any detriment to a grown man who was circumcised when he was like a month old or whatever, but I also would kind of demand a significant amount of legitimate reason behind taking a scalpel to a baby. Especially when so many reasonable solutions are out there. Like telling little Johnny when you teach him how to take a shower "now use some soap and a rag on your balls".

Re:Jesus.

[yndrd1984]

You liken the foreskin to a hairlip and cancer?

You people are insane.

What did you expect from Americans? Rational discourse?
(He he, I like to mock my fellow Americans. :) )

But seriously, many Americans think that the foreskin is a birth defect. Not like one, but really is one. So no, they aren't insane, they just think that perfectly normal human males are circus freaks that needs to be 'fixed' by modern medicine. Nothing crazy about that.

Re:Jesus.

[Velex]

It's too complicated for Geekoid to understand. He can't figure out how to take a shower or bath, apparently.

Re:Jesus.

[oldmac31310]

Good hygiene? This is /. They haven't learned that bit yet and may never. On /. Island they know many things. But hygiene is not one of them. Let's leave Jesus out of it though. mmmkay?

Re:Jesus.

[oldmac31310]

Very astute of you to sum this up so succinctly. How may I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Jesus.

[Grishnakh]

(He he, I like to mock my fellow Americans. :) )

Join the club.

Re:Jesus.

[kyrio]

Ignoring that penile cancer is nearly non-existent, it is generally caused by bad hygiene. So yeah, you can scrub it away. According to you, though, we should cut off every girl's tits and we should probably remove their dirty cunt lips. You can't scrub cancer away from girls, you know!

Re:Jesus.

[Erikderzweite]

Apropos Jesus, he has been circumcised.

Re:Jesus.

[CanHasDIY]

You liken the foreskin to a hairlip and cancer?

You people are insane.

In this instance, responding to OP's idiotic assertion, yes. After all, foreskin, hair-lips, and cancer are all perfectly natural occurrences, and to get rid of any of them, one would have to "mutilate" the child "against their will," would they not?

Point being, people that use emotional screeds like "OMG, TEH DOXXORS R HAXXIN MAH YUNGUNS!" to exhort their chagrin with certain perfectly normal, safe, health-related medical procedures, are morons. To be honest, I find it a bit amazing that such ignorant nonsense would be modded 'Insightful,' considering the attitude normally exhibited on /. in regards to people who base their medical reasoning on nonfactual, emotional bullshit.

i.e., say anything about vaccines that so much as hints at doubt, and you're thoroughly beaten into submission; talk about circumcision as though it's akin to amputation, and you're lauded as a fuckin' genius.

Yea, there're some insane folks here, and they ain't me.

Re:Jesus.

[hazah]

It's delusional.

Re:Jesus.

[omnichad]

Close. I grew up thinking I was the one that wasn't circumcised. First time in a locker room shower at school, and one or two people appeared to be missing their glans. I decided that must be what circumcision means. So that shows you how little the concept is even talked about, despite being practiced so widely where I live.

Re:Jesus.

[yndrd1984]

My story is somewhat similar. When I was little "circumcision" was some kind of surgery, and a "bris" was a Jewish baptism.

Then I came across an article in a fairly conservative magazine that was describing the horrors of FGM and how it should be banned, and of course one of the first things they had to do was make sure nobody thought that "female 'circumcision'" was anything like the male variety. After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out what they meant by the 'flap' over the 'bell' (apparently anatomical names aren't family friendly) I looked through my grandmother's books (she's a nurse).

In a lot of ways that was the moment I grew up. In one horrifying instant the illusions of childhood fell away, and things got very complicated.

The problem i see here...

[Red_Chaos1]

...is that they harp on the issues of UTIs and STDs/STIs. Those are things that are easily avoidable, and not at all the fault of having a foreskin. If baby gets a UTI, mommy and daddy need to do a better job cleaning baby up and cleaning baby sooner. If, as a man, the person has issues with STDs/STIs, well gee stop being a moron having unprotected/risky sex Einstein.

Trying to lump the added medical costs is the same. The costs brought on are not due to the foreskin, they are due to the creators of the baby, and/or the owner of the penis.

Re:The problem i see here...

[pwizard2]

Penile cancer is so rare that the risk is practically insignifigant. Urinary tract infections are not as common in men (unless there is a disease/disability that interferes with normal urination) because our urethras are so long. Circumcision should be outright banned except in cases where it is 100% medically necessary.

Re:The problem i see here...

[Em Adespoton]

Ditto -- one of our kids had a UTI. The prescription? Drink more water and pee more often. Cleared it up in less than a week. Compare that to trying to stick a foreskin back on.

Re:The problem i see here...

[Velex]

You're forgetting to point out the insignificance of the numbers in question. For UTI, if it's a 90% reduction, well, take the existing incidence rate, 1.5%, add 90%, and it's still less than 3%. And how many babies die from UTI? We're talking /infection/ here of a routine infant condition, not mortality.

It makes me want to throw up.

Then I watch how people react to allowing US hospitals to perform the "clitoral pin-prick" style female circumcision which fulfills certain religious beliefs. Nothing is removed. Read my other comments, and I would gladly trade 10 years of physical pain (possibly) due to a circumcision a bit too tight for a pin-prick. People lose their shit. Really, I had a comment removed from NPR.org just for mentioning that hospitals (and the AAP) had considered creating a protocol for this pin-prick.

If I can be 100% serious for a moment, think about it. Girls every year are trafficked to 3rd world countries to be mutilated. US hospitals are offering to do something that will be done anyway in a less severe, much more sterile manner. And people still lose their shit. So, the girls continue to get trafficked to 3rd world countries to have their clitorises pricked with a bacteria-infested knife, resulting in irritation that requires amputation of the entire clitoris. BUT OMG FGM BRAIN LEAKS OUT EAR. But male circumcision, ok, that's cool.

Re:The problem i see here...

[oldmac31310]

Agree totally. Like, I live in daily fear of all kinds of cancer and am so worried that I'll die before I have achieved the american dream - huh? - actually no I live my life a completely as I can in my circumstances and I don't give a fucking fig about penile cancer or any other kind. I'll be keeping my foreskin, my arms, legs etc. unless there is a damn good reason to get rid of them. Intervention when necessary. Amputation of any sort should not be a preventative form of 'medicine' for anything in the human condition. Doctors are best avoided. They will find something wrong with you. When you start believing them, you succumb to the preventative medicine mania. Become a better judge of your own health and do the right things to keep you healthy.

Re:The problem i see here...

[TeknoHog]

Urinary tract infections are not as common in men (unless there is a disease/disability that interferes with normal urination) because our urethras are so long.

Lucky you.

Re:The problem i see here...

[martin-boundary]

That makes no sense. You want to solve a problem (female mutilation) by making it a non-problem (they get mutilated everywhere).

THINK about what you're arguing for. Either you believe in a country that protects the rights of its citizens, or you don't.

In the first case, the correct answer is to penalize the parents who send/allow the girls to be sent abroad for the procedure. It's easy to do, make it a legal obligation on doctors to report mutilation when they checkup on children. Parents who are caught pay a large fine, go to jail, etc: no different from "honour killings" and other dubious ethnic practices that are incompatible with individual human rights.

Re:The problem i see here...

[__aailob1448]

I agree with most of what you said but are you actually saying that uncircumcised people who have unprotected sex are morons?

  Unprotected sex feels better than protected sex, and horny people are not known for their impulse control. We must accept and adapt to this reality.

Re:The problem i see here...

[Velex]

Let's do a switcheroo here. The first mistake you're making is letting your knee jerk and equating a sterile clitoral pin-prick (which, yes, should not happen in an idea world) with clitoral or clitoral hood amputation. So here we go.

Then I watch how people react to allowing US hospitals to administer "methadone" to methamphetamine addicts which fulfills their addiction. There is no danger to life and property from amateur meth labs. Read my other comments, and I would gladly trade 10 years of PMITA federal prison where I learned all the tricks of the drug trafficking trade for some methadone. People lose their shit. Really, I had a comment removed from NPR.org just for mentioning that hospitals (and the AAP) had considered creating a protocol for this methadone.

If I can be 100% serious for a moment, think about it. Bros every year are put in PMITA federal prison where they become hardened criminals and recividists when they're really victims of a substance addiction. US hospitals are offering to do something that will be done anyway in a less severe, much more sterile and theraputic manner. And people still lose their shit. So, the bros continue to get sent to PMITA prisons and continue to become hardened criminals, resulting in increasing drug trade that only profits Mexican cartel lords. Have you seen Juarez lately? BUT OMG METH BRAIN LEAKS OUT EAR. But adderoll, ok, that's cool.

I probably should have used marijuana or cocaine for a more sympathtic case, but you're probably ignorant of the nuances of female genital mutilation.

Often times, the mother herself has been mutilated. She has the same problem that circumcised American men face: why did this happen to me?

Nobody wants to really wants to believe that their body has been violated for no good reason. It could drive one insane. One of my best friends (who is also intact) has told me to my face that I'm being an idiot for paying this much attention to the issue of male genital mutilation. He might have something. It's because my mind is allergic to cognative dissonance. I've observed (and I've sure other slashdotters have as well) that the typical mind is quite welcoming to cognative dissonance.

I'm reading Pale Blue Dot right now (yeah, I know, what took me so long). Most people are reading some potboiler crap or some work of religious masturbation reassuring them that their god really does exist and really will burn heathans like me with fire... soon...

My point is, that for victims of both male and female infant genital mutilation, there is a strong urge to rationalize it, somewhat similar to how a drug addict rationalizes his behavior. Then, once rationalized with fabulous evidence extolling its virtues, it would be unethical and immoral to not give one's son or daughter these virtues.

So, the mutilated becomes the mutilator. To reiterate, child abuse is often a generational issue. There are very few cases where the feminists are right about it being a matter male dominance. In most cases, it's simply a matter of passing down an ages old tradition of child abuse.

I believe that the solution in any case (including meth) is education and treatment with mitigational measures along the way as necessary.

Female genital mutilation, I'm confident will be eradicated from the world, and good riddance. My concern is that fighting male genital mutilation is an uphill battle. I would be so bold as to say that male genital mutilation, the involuntary nature of erections, the necessity of the now missing foreskin for allowing an erection to take place properly, and the array of possible complications is so traumatic that it compares only to the most extreme forms of female genital mutilation. I'm afriad we really are fighting the patriarchy, and feminism is lending us no aid or comfort.

Re:The problem i see here...

[Velex]

You are correct, Mr. Coward! I wonder what on earth their 90% reduction was, then. All UTI rates, mutilated or not are under 3%. Guess that's what happens when I let my emotions run amok. I miss the really interesting questions.

Why do they do this in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[CanHasDIY]

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Yea, that's how we distinguish ourselves from you unwashed heathens*.


* in before the negative mods - That's called a JOKE, you humorless assholes!

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[Znork]

More or less. Several prominent advocates of circumcision, such as John Harvey Kellog, liked the idea that it would reduce masturbation (especially if the pain was remembered!).

The medical benefits are dubious, particularly as there are indications that any reduction in male infection rates are outweighed by increased rates of female infection rates. Either way condoms and HPV vaccinations are far, far, far, far more effective and appropriate.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Several prominent advocates of circumcision, such as John Harvey Kellog, liked the idea that it would reduce masturbation

So, I would masturbate even more if I hadn't been circumcised? Is this even possible?!

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[swillden]

my mother did it to me

I think that's common... in my experience it's actually women who feel most strongly in favor of circumcision. When my boys were born I didn't really care either way that much (sorry, I don't think it's as horrific as some here do, and neither do I think it's hugely beneficial or important), but my wife was quite insistent that they be circumcised. She didn't really have any argument other than "uncircumcised penises look funny". Oh, she also cited hygiene, but the "look funny" argument seemed to be the more important one.

I've come across the same attitude from nearly every other American woman with whom I've discussed the topic -- which isn't a huge number, penis alteration not being a common lunch conversation topic and all -- but probably a couple dozen or so.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[oji-sama]

So, I would masturbate even more if I hadn't been circumcised? Is this even possible?!

Probably not, but you might enjoy it more.

From the article

There is fair evidence from a cross-sectional study of Korean men of decreased masturbatory pleasure after adult circumcision

Or as they say in the referenced article

There were no differences in sexual drive, erection and ejaculation, but circumcised men reported decreased masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment. We conclude that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in a signicant number of men, possibly because of loss of nerve endings.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[Nimey]

It's the done thing, I guess. Most men here are circumcised.

IIRC it's the Old Testament that required a male be circumcised, so it's only binding on Jews. No such requirement in the New.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[stephanruby]

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?

As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Apparently, we can thank our puritan roots

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided.

"By about 1880 the individual... might wish[to]... tie, chain, or infibulate sexually active children... to adorn them with grotesque appliances, encase them in plaster, leather, or rubber, to frighten or even castrate them... masturbation insanity was now real enough--it was affecting the medical profession."
(B. Berkeley, quoted from _Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma_, by Rosemary Romberg, Bergin & Garvey Publisher, Inc, S. Hadley MA, USA, 1985, ISBN 089789-073-6)

Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)

Here is an example of what another sexaphobic American doctor had to say about masturbation in 1903:

"It (self abuse) lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision..."
(Mary R. Melendy, MD, The Ideal Woman - For Maidens, Wives and Mothers, 1903.)
(The above material is quoted from J. Bigelow, The Joy of Uncircumcising, Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, CA, USA. Thanks to Robin Verner.)

In America, foreskins were not rare at the time circumcision was introduced into widespread practice. Paradoxically, then, the understanding of the intact male organ at that time was somewhat greater than it is today. (In particular, it never would have been possible to promote circumcision on the basis that it was "necessary for hygienic reasons"---this came later, when doctors themselves were mostly circumcised men.)

[...]

Oh, and you've got to love this quote, which can be found on the same page:

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[Velex]

Roughly. You're forgetting that child abuse is something that is often an inter-generational issue.

In countries where females are circumcised, tune out the feminists and jerking knes for a second, tune in reality, and it's females that are passing on the abuse.

In countries where men are circumcised, well, it's men who were abused by routine infant male genital mutilation propogating routine infant male genital mutilation.

Consider a circumcised man presented with evidence that he was mutilate unnecessarily. Of course he'll argue against that. He's been mutilated, and it was necessary by god (else he admit to being a victim) and he'll do it to his son, too.

As for how this all got started, well.... I recently read Born to Run, which has evidence that 40 years of the modern, cushioned sports shoe was based on one very bad but very persuasive podiatrical paper that linked running firmly with sports injuries and some very clever marketing by Nike.

I believe circumcision is similar, but more sinister. Think of all the money hospitals rake in per year as yet another added on charge nobody cares about that men won't argue isn't necessary. Talk about conflict of interest.

Yet, there have been studies showing benefit to amputation of the clitoris in females. Why didn't that catch on? No mutilated Muslim women to crazily back it (lest they admit they were mutilated unnecessarily), and the women over here were wise enough to create the hypnotic knee-jerk reaction to the words "female circumcision" if only because I didn't say "female genital mutilation."

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[nitehawk214]

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?

As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

It is pretty simple. The institution of medicine here gets quite a bit of money thrown at them for an unnecessary procedure. Of course the doctor's associations would back it as it is effectively free money for the people they represent.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[yndrd1984]

--Several prominent advocates of circumcision, such as John Harvey Kellog, liked the idea that it would reduce masturbation
So, I would masturbate even more if I hadn't been circumcised? Is this even possible?!

No, but if you had been circumcised as a punishment for masturbation, it might have slowed you down for a bit.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[yndrd1984]

[The medical benefits] are sound.

Not sound enough to convince most medical groups.

contrary to a lot of really good studies

Only if you define 'good study' as what gets headlines in the US...

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[oldmac31310]

Lot of Jewish Doctors in the AMA. Complete culture whitewash. It's all a load of bollocks. Nobody wants to offend the eminent (often brilliant) Jewish doctors, so they acquiesce to this sort of cultural invasion. If you have kids here, you must insist on whether or not you want them circumcised. In some places it is the default procedure which is BARBARIC. Are Jews and Moslems barbaric in my opinion? Not wholly, but for being theist and advocating compulsory circumcision - yes. For that they are, as are these doctors who advocate it. Time to move on from this hokey bullshit people, time to move on...who would cut a perfectly healthy new born baby (apart from the umbilical which is part of the mother)? Not me. Not unless it was a genuine health problem, or matter of life and death.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[oldmac31310]

Or maybe, just maybe, because when you're whanging away at that thing, you just know that something is missing - and that gets in the way of feeling that complete feeling...just a thought. What would it be like if? When you've got it, it's the thing you were born with, it's yours. Nobody cut anything off. It's the business.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[swillden]

I think that's common... in my experience it's actually women who feel most strongly in favor of circumcision.

Wait, so because they don't like the look of it, people should be mutilated?

I made no comment on the validity of the argument. If you don't like it, take it up with someone who has that opinion, not me.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[oldmac31310]

I applaud you for bringing this vicious documentation to light - into the light of day indeed - thank you sir. It just goes to show how more and more, all the time, the things that people accept as normal because that's what they and their predecessors grew up to believe as true and right, need not and in so many cases, must not be considered the 'norm' or indeed normal as we understand the word today. I think circumcision is barbaric, uncivilized and should be outlawed, yet so many on /. defend it on completely spurious and irrational grounds - probably because of the insecurity of having had a part of themselves cut off - they must defend against all costs, even credibility on these boards. So be it. It's good to have a foreskin.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[Markizs]

Makes one to think on how would nation where almost every male has been deprived of full pleasure in life, would substitue that and if it would affect its foreign policy, military action, etc. I guess, that examining correlation between violence and jews, muslims and americans sharing this 'tradition' would be taking a step too far. Or maybe not?

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[mcvos]

With all the conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists and other nutcases worried about a Jewish conspiracy, I've always wondered why they never considered the high number of circumcisions in the US as prime evidence.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[mapkinase]

It was not done in atheist Soviet Russia. Commies used the same arguments that /. uses against circumcision 70 years ago.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[swillden]

Dude, I'm glad I'm not you.

Re:Why do they do this in the US?

[RogerWilco]

So, you're basically saying it's for the same kind of reason that in the USA a lot of teenage girls get breast implants?

Re:Lies

[pdabbadabba]

Yes, because we all know that the American Academy of Pediatrics is in the pocket of Big Circumcision.

Reminder

[Burning1]

Removing the penis completely will provide significant savings in:

- UTI/STD related treatments
- Contraceptive costs
- Pregnancy related expenses

Re:Reminder

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Lorena Bobbitt, is that you?

Re:Reminder

[Velex]

Hey there! You forgot all the women who won't get cervical cancer now because HPV won't be transmitted to them!

Re:Reminder

[epyT-R]

this is funny?
lets try my joke and see if it's ranked just as funny

sterilising women will provide sigificant savings in:

1. state funded single moms
2. contraceptive costs
3. pregnancy related expenses
4. cervical cancer costs

HAHAHA are we still laughing?

Re:Reminder

[Burning1]

It's what you make of it. I was going for the irony angle, but I'm just as happy people found it funny.

The problem isn't circumcision

[sackofdonuts]

The problem is sex education in this country. How about leaving the foreskin and teaching boys how to take care of themselves and what to avoid?

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[xaxa]

I remember my mum teaching me to wash my "winkle*" in the bath, when I was old enough to wash myself. It went along with washing behind my ears, and it no more to do with "sex education" than that.

Only one boy in my class was circumcised. I didn't know, until the first lot of sex education (age 11) when he volunteered the fact (he was the only Jewish boy).

(*Is "winkle" British slang?)

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[Sebastopol]

Beat me to it!

All the data comes from Africa. I'm suspicious from the outset. How do they normalize a dataset for Americans? Maybe the correct article title should be "Circumcision provides health benefits to men who live in Africa".

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[Velex]

Go read the actual study. It's quite amazing.

Basically, they took a control group of intact men, and turned them loose on some whorehouses, all expenses paid. And they went wild. Started reporting AIDS and what-have-you from day one.

So, ok, they had their experiment group. Now, since they had just had a surgery performed, they were ordered to a week of bedrest.

Now it gets real interesting what happens when they turn the experiment group loose on the whorehouse. They start reporting AIDS from day one. That's not all. After two weeks, their rate of infection begins approaching the control group's rate of infection.

WHOOOPS! END STUDY! ABORT! ABORT!

So, now we have a published study that PROVES that fewer men in the experiment (fewer, by head count) had AIDS than in the control group. MALE GENITAL MUTILATION CURES AIDS.

I hope I adequately answered your suspicitions. Clearly, circumcision is a cure for AIDS. *sigh* and Gah!

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[Velex]

Somebody please mod all of Geekoid's comments down. I have evaluated the evidence as a MAN and I have come to the conclusion that having a foreskin is the best choice for myself. Where do I apply to get my foreskin re-installed? Is there an application fee?

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[oldmac31310]

no it's jewish

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[SuricouRaven]

And then they had the control group circumcised 'because it would be unethical to withhold.' Thus ensuring no other researcher could conduct a follow-up study on them. The whole thing was a farce.

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[Grishnakh]

What you're proposing is absurd. Teach boys how to take care of themselves? That would be like teaching aspiring American drivers how to drive properly, and testing that they are competent, before unleashing them on the public roadways, rather than simply making sure they can take a few right turns and park without wrecking. This is America: education is never the answer.

Re:The problem isn't circumcision

[RivenAleem]

Exactly. Masturbating in the shower is the best way. Keeps you clean, and constant running water is a great lubricant.

Soap.

[csumpi]

Teach how to wash it, or have some doctor chop it.

Yeah, I see how genital mutilation is a much easier solution.

Re:Soap.

[csumpi]

I thought my post sounded sarcastic. Next time I'll use the [sarc] [/sarc] tags.

I'm obviously for cleanliness (male and female) and against circumcision (male and female).

Location, location, location

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

"Perhaps the most powerful evidence in favour of circumcision comes from randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda."

Nope...I don't see "USA" in there. I'll pass.

Limerick break!

[UglyTool]

Let's calm down and get a grip.
I'll give all of you a good tip:
It's a boy? Then rejoice
but leave it his choice.
Avoid giving your son the snip.

Re:Limerick break!

[geekoid]

If the best argument you have is a limerick and a disingenuous view of the situation then, Fuck You, you Ignorant piece of trash.
.

I call bullshit...

[wbr1]

As a man that suffers from sever penile insensitivity, presumably from my circumcision (which became infected due to poor practices at the hospital), I believe it is a useless, barbaric practice, almost akin to clitordectomies. Clitordectomies, by the way, are also known as female circumcisions. Coincidence?
If you want some of the truth about what a circumcision actually does I suggest reading the following:
http://www.norm.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

Re:I call bullshit...

[Anonymous Coward]

But, you admit that it was because of malpractice rather than the inherent nature of the procedure that is responsible for your condition.

Re:I call bullshit...

[AbRASiON]

Mod this gentleman UP please people.
I too have damaged genetalia due to a circumcision that I didn't want, had no say in and didn't need, fortunately the damage isn't too severe in my case. (turkey neck)

Please take a look at this, it's not for the squeemish, nor is it work safe.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
That is a rare occurance just like myself and wbr1, however NONE of them needed to fucking well occur in the first place.

Oh and can I just say, politically correct or not - women do not have any say in this topic of discussion, NONE, NADA, their opinion is utterly worthless on this topic - be it for or against. I've seen too many articles on this topic with facebook or twitter posts by women who think they have a right to comment on it.
The one I saw yesterday which got me fired up by a woman "your son, your decision" ugh.

This practice should be banned.

Re:I call bullshit...

[blackraven14250]

He's also presuming that this is the cause.

Re:I call bullshit...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I just knew someone was going to say this.

The male equivalent of clitoridectomy or female "circumcision" (more accurately referred to as female genital mutilation, or FGM) would be not removal of the foreskin, but the removal of the head of the penis. There is simply no rational comparison between FGM and circumcision, and anti-circumcision activists make themselves look like fools by claiming that there is. I'm sorry for what you went through, but you have to recognize that your experience is not in any way typical, and was--as another poster has pointed out--the result of malpractice on the part of your pediatrician, not a standard medical procedure which is regularly performed thousands of times per day.

Re:I call bullshit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but even if that is the case, it's malpractice of a procedure that seems to be completely unnecessary. In other words, the risk of the procedure (which this case affected the GP) is not worth the benefits.

Re:I call bullshit...

[geekoid]

Oh what a nice piece of no evidence emotional based trash. A worthless anecdote that in no way supports any position.

Female circumcision have no benefits and a lot of down side, unlike make circumcision, you fuck twad.

No, I suggest you actual read science.

If the hospital screwed up, it isn't a circumcision issue. It's a procedural issue.

I'll stick with science and not scary emotional anecdote.

Re:I call bullshit...

[0xdeadbeef]

So then you admit that the rationale being trotted out for circumcision is that it reduces risks deriving from irresponsible sex and sloven hygiene. These studies do not throw away mistakes as outliers, they measure actual human reality.

There is a real risk of permanent disfigurement (and even infection and death, a one-per-million occurrence) on every circumcision. These doctors would have never written this paper unless they had to demonstrate a medical benefit to what is widely considered a medically unnecessary and potentially dangerous procedure.

The thing you need to ask yourself is, why are they searching for scientific rationalizations for a practice that was originally founded on complete and utter lunacy? If those Victorian crackpots hadn't popularized it way back when, would we now, in light of these studies, be rushing to adopt the practice of cutting of baby boys' dicks because it very slightly reduces the transmission of venereal disease?

Re:I call bullshit...

[AbRASiON]

I am completely confident with medicine as it is, amputating an arm is completely safe, I'm sure the odd accident might occur but for the most part this procedure should be pretty straightforward.

I look forward to having this done to all boys children, my religion states all boys born need to have their right arm removed!

Also, my wife hates the sight of a man with his right arm attached, so un-attractive! and since mine was done, may as well do the same thing to my kids!

Re:I call bullshit...

[AbRASiON]

The issue isn't about the doctor, the issue is about the practice not being required, at all.

Women can't have an opinion generally due to the lack of a penis actually
Although to be fair, I was a bit off target, women AND men shouldn't have any input on circumcision, the only person who should is the owner of the penis, period.

and double dumbass on you good sir.

Re:I call bullshit...

[misexistentialist]

OK, then just slice off clitoral hoods, thousands of times per day, you cruel bastard. Be careful not to let the scalpel slip! In 50 years we'll come back to see if anything has been gained.

Re:I call bullshit...

[loshwomp]

and double dumbass on you good sir.

I'm crying from laughter...

Re:I call bullshit...

[loshwomp]

Since you like science so much, here's what the actual paper has to say about penile cancer:

One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year.122 This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications

Re:I call bullshit...

[Velex]

You are correct. The analogue is removal of the clitoral hood. The clitoris and glas are analogues, and the proto-clitoral hood is what becomes the foreskin, once all that messy stuff with the urinary tract rerouting itself into the proto-clitoris takes place.

The interesting thing is the female genital mutilation covers such a wide range of things. Some traditions remove the clitoris. Some traditions keep the clitoris intact and remove the clitoral hood. Others just sew the whole thing shut.

Please note, Mr. Dvorkin, that I was not attempting to make a moral assesment of those traditions.

Re:I call bullshit...

[Velex]

I'm sorry, geekoid, you're missing it. This is entirely a political stunt.

NPR and Comedy Central and all the other cool kids on the left have been going on with this "war on women" thing. One of their points was a recent house (or was it senate?) committee that was looking into contraception being covered by the affordible care act (somebody feel free to correct me).

The point is that this committee was all men. Men only deciding an issue of women's health. An issue of women's health that costs money to address. WE CANT HAVE THIS OMG!

So now, we have Susan Blank of American Academy of Pediatrics talking about men's health.

Oh wait, this is hilarious and not related to what I was going to say. I went back to NPR's article to make sure I got her name right, and, magically, it's changed. It's now talking about Finland and all kinds of crap. Here, have a beer, I've got plenty.

Anyway, so this is a woman talking about men's health, even a men's health issue that would result in a reduction of cost for healthcare costs for a man.

Now that NPR's changed their story I'm sure of it. God-damned political stunt.

Re:I call bullshit...

[TheBilgeRat]

I think what he is saying is that in his case, it pretty much was a penile head removal. Read up on botched electro-cautery foreskin removal, where there are cases of doctors burning off way too much skin.

Re:I call bullshit...

[epyT-R]

Don't be so disingenuous.. He says that because feminists are always up in arms when men dare to state their opinions in what feminists view as gynecological/reproductive matters.. This is quite typical of female histrionic and narcissistic behavior. They want men out of their affairs, yet they want men responsible for 'his kid' when he 'gets her pregnant', and at the same time, they want a say in dictating what happens to mens' genitalia..

The hypocrisy and complete lack of respect from feminists on this subject should piss off anyone who actually wants a balanced playing field.

Re:I call bullshit...

[Velex]

Geekoid. E Tu. Is somebody a little butthurt about being curcimcised?

Re:I call bullshit...

[epyT-R]

None of this changes the fact that it's an operation that has little if any real benefit. This is more about politics. Feminist groups will back anything that takes control away from men. It's incredibly childish.. In this case, it denies men a good percentage of sexual pleasure which, anecdotally anyway, most feminists would cheer for. There are a lot of nerves in the foreskin, and it also protects the glans from abrasion

Re:I call bullshit...

[AbRASiON]

Aimed at me or Geekoid? Where did all that come from?

Re:I call bullshit...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

This is more about politics. Feminist groups will back anything that takes control away from men. It's incredibly childish.. In this case, it denies men a good percentage of sexual pleasure which, anecdotally anyway, most feminists would cheer for.

Right, because traditional Judaism is soooo feminist. [rolls eyes] Are you actually listening to yourself?

Re:I call bullshit...

[SuricouRaven]

Medically distinct, but socially similar. Both really come down to parents surgically removing pieces of their infants without any medical basis, just because it is 'tradition' or a religious practice. In the female case, openly admitting that the purpose is to prevent them feeling sexual pleasure and so help them maintain purity, which the parents honestly believe is for the girl's benefit. In the male case, circumcision was introduced in the US for exactly the same reason, although it continued as a cultural practice even after the 'masturbation causes epilepsy' medical view was shown to be incorrect.

Re:I call bullshit...

[Wild_dog!]

The other question could be in light of the studies put forth by the AAP as credible, can anyone take such an organization seriously when there are a number of flaws with the studies they picked, there are studies that find the opposite results, and they cherry picked their studies while ignoring studies that dispute their assumptions? What exactly are they trying to do and why?

Re:I call bullshit...

[Wild_dog!]

Which science will you stick with?
I thought science isn't supposed to stick but move on if it is not really worthy so as to find better hypothesis.
From what I can tell, the AAP picked some goofy science to make their case.

Re:I call bullshit...

[mcvos]

" women do not have any say in this topic of discussion,"
Because they are stupid and can't read data?

You're an idiot.

Because women don't have a penis, perhaps? Just like men should shut up about abortion and rape. I'm looking at you, Todd Akin!

Re:I call bullshit...

[AK Marc]

I love how so much is justified away as "malpractice". Who cares, it was the circumcision that caused the problem. It was unnecessary and caused the problem. How many times are there a problem, and how many are reported? I was malpracticed on, and I know it was never reported. Who would I report it to? "40 years ago, I was cut wrong and it's caused me problems." Given what I was told about the doctor, he was no longer in practice by the time I was aware of the problem.

Don't do it until the person can consent. At least then, if there's a problem, then they'll be able to report it.

Cue the creationists

[Powercntrl]

Shouldn't the creationists be against altering something that was clearly part of God's Great Design(TM)?

Oh right, most of them actually *support* circumcision. Bunch of hypocrites.

Same old

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see that doctors take into account the fact that people lose sensitivity, suffer more from painful intercourse/ED, and not just the healthcare cost. Oh wait...

Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[BMOC]

I'm forfeiting a mod point for this, sorry to whoever I modded up... The actual abstract of the actual paper backing up this claim (BOLD IS MINE):

ABSTRACT. Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

IOW, no, we're not recommending anything, we're simply saying there are POTENTIAL medical benefits. Well there are potential medical benefits to getting my appendix removed, or my tonsils cut out, it doesn't mean I should be forced to make that decision.

Stupid journalists, we need to seriously trim the fat in that industry and start with these jackasses who misrepresent science for political gain.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[Seumas]

It's idiotic that this is even a choice.

I know there's no certain medical evidence of any benefit to having your tongue split and forked like a serpent, but as the parent, how about I be given the choice to have the doctor's perform this before sending my kid home with us after birth?

I don't get some of those guys who are falling apart decades later, because they were circumcised.

Perhaps the only people I understand even less than those dudes who are obsessed with the fact that they were circumcised decades earlier are the people who are obsessed with pushing for circumcision.

Fucking crazy and, considering all of the other aspects of care that we happily ignore from birth onward, pretty fucking hypocritical.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[xaxa]

Does health insurance in the US cover the procedure at the moment?

Circumcision has been in the news in Europe recently, due to a German court ruling that the procedure contravened the rights of the child. Rates dropped massively in the UK in the 1940s, when the NHS was introduced and the procedure wasn't included, as doctors said it wasn't medically necessary.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[BMOC]

appendix removed, or my tonsils cut out

There's no religion who asks for that. At least not one with major influence on the elections...

Flying Spaghetti Monster demands your tonsils in sacrifice.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[Velex]

Thank you for pointing this out.

I posted a letter I wrote to NPR (yes, and snail-mailed, signed, dropped subscription, and even printed at Kinkos on some nice beige paper for like $3) to this discussion (new comment) a few minutes ago where I had assumed that the AAP had flip-flopped. Apparently I've been drunk too much lately, because I'd forgotten that when I'd originally heard this report last week (woo slashdot!), it was the usual criticism of anti-male genital mutilation groups who wanted a stronger proscripton from routine mutilation. I should have realized that NPR (and apparently others) were trolling.

If they're trolling, then I think it lends more credence to the theory I put forth in my letter that this is a political stunt as some kind of return fire in the "war on women."

So here's how it goes I guess -> Akins and others make asses out of themselves -> NPR falsely reports news that may put infant boys at risk to complications from unnecessary circumcision.

Sadly, I think if the left is willing to go that low, it really has influenced my vote this November. I had already decided that I wasn't going third party for the first time in my life. Now I'm not sure what to think about a political stunt from the left pressuring me to vote for a party that wants to turn me into a second class citizen for being homosexual and transgendered. I guess all I can think is that my foreskin will never come back, and 10 years I spent with physical, chronic pain until estrogen/anti-androgen HRT "fixed" it (by making me impotent) can't be undone, but maybe if I vote in Republicans and they pull some national DOMA crap or butcher Romney/Obama-care, maybe I can vote Democrat next time, my karma will balance out, and I'll go back to voting Libertarian.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[VortexCortex]

You fail ethics.

parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

...Only to the extent that their determinations do not permanently modify the body of said infant. Otherwise, due to the fact that "best" is subjective and the mind of the infant can not yet be probed for either "interest" or consent of said modification, it should be prohibited outright. Instead information should be given to the parent about teaching their children how to care for a penis. I mean, they teach girls to care for vaginas instead of sewing them up... It's not only unethical, male infant circumcision is sexist.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[Velex]

I was in physical pain for roughly 10 years from when my male puberty started (yay, facial hair, oddly I never got crackly voice) and when my female puberty started (yay, boobs, goodbye morning wood).

When I started HRT, I didn't even know I was circumcised. I thought pain along with wood was the normal thing for a guy. Apparently, my doctor didn't think twice about my reporting feelings that I should have been a different gender with different body parts and experiencing pain at the normal functioning of the male genitalia. It wasn't until I met my intact ex-boyfriend that I learned I had been mutilated. It turns out that the feelings I experience of the skin tearing were abnormal, even for a circumcised man.

Also, no trans woman I've ever asked has once reported the same pain I reported. Therefore, eliminate my doctor's theory that the pain was caused by some mysterious brain-genital mismatch.

The question that digs at me is this: was my doctor right in dismissing circumcision as a cause or am I right in blaming circumcision as the cause? Because of all the disinformation surrounding male genital mutilation, my doctor may not have been aware of a case presented in The Joy of Uncircumcising by Jim Bigelow (an intereting read regardless of standpoint) worse than mine. Instead of just pain because the skin felt like it might tear, there's a story of a man whose skin DID tear, every night.

At any rate, because I can never return to my natural, unmutilated state, I'll never know. And, if I may since this is slashdot, since estrogen HRT solved my problem, the worst part, being a geek, is not knowing lol.

Cheers

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[BMOC]

That is certainly a story I never expected to read, much less on /.

Being ignorant of transsexuals, I find myself wondering if your initial pain w.r.t. morning wood had any influence on feeling as if your body was wrong for you. From my point of view, it's plausible.

I don't trust doctors, and I don't think anyone else should. The only doctors I've met are mailing it in bigtime.

One thing I find amazing is the double-standard that is allowed to exist. IF anyone dared suggest that female baby genitals should be surgically altered because of research suggesting POSSIBLE health benefits, we would see multi-million-women marches on Washington D.C. But male circumcision is completely accepted and even encouraged. No thought to any research towards a more modern method of dealing with potential health issues of an unmutilated penis is considered, only alteration is considered.

Humans are stupid. Humans that have convinced themselves of the soundness of their intellect can be doubly stupid.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[epyT-R]

maybe because they figure they're missing out on better sex? the same way clitorectomies deny that for women?

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[eli pabst]

I'm forfeiting a mod point for this, sorry to whoever I modded up... The actual abstract of the actual paper backing up this claim (BOLD IS MINE):

ABSTRACT. Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

IOW, no, we're not recommending anything, we're simply saying there are POTENTIAL medical benefits. Well there are potential medical benefits to getting my appendix removed, or my tonsils cut out, it doesn't mean I should be forced to make that decision.

Stupid journalists, we need to seriously trim the fat in that industry and start with these jackasses who misrepresent science for political gain.

You're quoting the American Academy of Pediatrics report published in 1999, not the one from this year. There has been a lot of research published on this since then.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[Velex]

Being ignorant of transsexuals, I find myself wondering if your initial pain w.r.t. morning wood had any influence on feeling as if your body was wrong for you. From my point of view, it's plausible.

I'm not sure.

That's the trouble and what's got me riled up about male genital mutilation. Because I should be sure! There's a mountain of evidence! Gender identity (i.e. subconscious sex or brain sex) is established probably in the 2nd month of fetal development and is unchangeable! No matter what! Period! End of story! And everything about me indicates that I should be a woman! Men don't take estrogen and develop breasts and are just fine about it! Talk to Alan Turing's ghost!!! ...says the mentat computer in my head.

But I'm not sure.

A variety of evidence would suggest that it wouldn't have been a factor. I've not encounterd another trans woman or been exposed to any writings or studies that have suggest that even one other person on the plant has had a similar experience. There are many intact males who undergo gender transition to live female, and from what I understand they have somewhat better results with bottom surgery since there's more tissue to work with (although in the case of mutilated, the results are still pretty amazing in my opinion—the only thing it doesn't do is lubricate itself, and well, anything else it would need the rest of the reproductive system to do).

Perhaps the strongest evidence is some emerging evidence that male and female brains are structurally different. The error bars are ginormous, though. One study found this tidbit based on (iirc) MRI scans. 75% of trans women and womyn-born-womyn will be put in one category and 75% of trans men and born men into another category. The rest are false positives and false negatives, so the there is no useful test here. Additionally, the problem a test like that would present is false negatives for trans women. I'd bet false negatives for trans men, false positives for womyn-born-womyn (indicating that she should take testosterone and start living as a man), and false positives for born men (indicating giving him the Alan Turing treatment, to be a bit morbid) would all be brushed off, even for trans men. Nobody cares if a chick wants to be a dude. For some reason we just have so much angst about letting a man into protected garden of womanhood.

That is also the real reason I'm so critical of feminism and sometimes downright misogynist. As long as the double-standard exists, suddenly the question of what gender I should be becomes a comparative advantage debate. And it's so not like that, and should not be like that. My heart knows I'm female. How could I possibly prove to anybody what's in my heart? Instead it's an issue of "oh, you want it as easy as women have it." You want to get psychologists to make some truly bizarre statements? Ask them critical question about why gender transition should be difficult and why there need to be gatekeepers of gender at every step, challenging, testing the trans woman to make sure she can pass on to the next level.

I don't know if you'll find it interesting, but I recommend reading Whipping Girl to everybody. The book you might find more interesting is The Myth of Male Power if haven't read that already.

As for male genital mutilation, I have my suspicions (and again, will never know for sure, which is a cool trick of doing this to infants and why the UTI argument is critical to these circumfetishists) that mutilated men (excluding myself from that group for a moment) probably believe that what they feel is normal and accept it. Either they're unaware they've been mutilated like I was for the first 20 years of my life, or they're aware they have been, and like our friends at John Hopkins, they become completely obsessed with believing that it must have had some wonderful benefit without any possible drawback at all (again accept

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[AK Marc]

Right. I see this as no different than giving a child a Mike Tyson tattoo at birth. Though that's more reversible than circumcision. It would be considered mutiliation and child abuse. I hear others say the same about pierced ears under the age of 3 (yes, there are infants out there with some sexy ear rings, looking to get in some toddler pants, I guess). Sure, the parents have every right to make a decision in the best interests of the child, but does the parent get to mutilate their children to make them more doll-like because that's what the parent prefers?

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[betelgueseian]

Short answer: forget about that doc. The patient has the best sense of their own body and there is no way to measure pain, despite some bullshit numbered scale. I'm not saying that all MD's in America are only interested in minimizing the ratio of time spent per patient (and I have no experience with medical establishments of other countries) but my opinion is that most of them can't even see a human being, they just see a list of symptoms as reported to them by RN. Trust your instincts, get another opinion if you want (though it is likely to be just as unhelpful). If what you're really looking for is a sense of resolution, try to find a good counselor (good in the sense that you feel a good connection with that person) that is able to provide you with the proper forum and feedback.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod

[Velex]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'll still stand in defense of my original doctor's intuition, only because there is so little data regarding the complications of foreskin amputation when done to infants and so little data regarding the neurological basis of gender.

So, my stance I suppose is a conflicted one. Again, it comes down to proving something in my heart. I could not imagine living, for all its risks (breast cancer in paticular and hypertension and potential loss of bone density), without estrogen.

I want to be able to express a purely ethical argument the same way the feminists present their argument against female genital mutilation. This is me, in my natural state. Conflicted between genders, yet who gives the right to amputate my body parts? What becomes of "my body, my choice?" What should I do, once a body part that's not even of the gender I wish to be (yet an analogue, and I've pondered writing transformation stories where the transformee becomes female only to miss her clitoral hood because the magic had no foreskin to work with) has been amputated, causing me unnecessary complications, so easily denied on the basis of dogma by people I thought I loved?

It's a complex question, and the complexities should not be relegated to the realm of superstition. As I mentioned in my letter to NPR, my ex-parents did not hede the word of the AAP (who so recently recommended amputation) in 1983 to keep me intact. And the problems of that failure have caused me to forgoe communication with the two people on this planet who gave me life. Their own failure may have caused them to be unable to pass the genetic information I carry on to another generation.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's a complex issue, and I can only wish, as you do, betelgueseian, that the same ethics that are applied to the biologies that incubate our young for 9 months, can be applied to the other sex.

Maybe if Dr. S- had been involved in the decision to amputate, as he was in the decision to inject me with testosterone to correct my short height. He veoted the idea of my ex-father's to inject me with testosterone to make me tall based on the evidence: the data is murky in rose colored glasses towards amputation or augmentation, contraindacative probably in reality---do not amputate, do not augment. In the decision to authorize my estrogen HRT, Dr. S- delivered a similar common-sense answer: if it works, let's continue it. Dr. S- believed in first, cause no harm.

Yet, I was mutilated my Dr. D, a one-off, irreversible act that affected me deeply.

I hope my comments help. Thanks.

Re:Lies

[zixxt]

What are the lies?

Circumcision become the norm in the US after it was found out that the rates of penile cancer among Jewish men were zero. And now we know that men
that are circumcised are less likely to infect and become infected with STDs. So again what are the lies?

Cordially invited to Moscow (Putin style)

[Penurious Penguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqrqeeTJek -- Radical circumcision for radical chaps

"And if you want to become an Islamic radical and are ready to be circumcised, I invite you to Moscow. We are a multi-faith country and we have experts who can do it. And I would advise them to carry out that operation in such a way that nothing would grow in that place again."

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chopping off a piece of your body is an excellent way to prevent health problems. Now, why limit this to health problems? How about we prevent people from committing crimes by chopping off their hands at birth. I bet we'd have a lot less shoplifters. Worried about accidently pregnancy? A penectomy for all should do it! Worried about peeping toms? I think enucleation is at something to look, if I have the right word.

Seriously, how about waiting until the child is a bit older to see if the boy wants to "look like daddy"? Unless someone has a religious belief, I don't think it's a good idea to be doing this on babies. So what if it's "slighty healthier"? So what if it "reduces the chances of getting HIV"? It's part of someone's body, a part that doesn't grow back.

Re:Agreed.

[pwizard2]

Really? Are we actually comparing chopping off a small piece of skin that has almost no functional purpose

The purpose of the foreskin is to protect the glans. Without this protection the glans toughens and loses sensitivity to compensate. I don't know why you complain about perceived inconvenience, cleaning your junk isn't supposed to be a huge ordeal. It's part of basic personal hygiene most people do every day like brushing their teeth.

Re:Agreed.

[Johann Lau]

You're right, let's make an actually valid comparison.

How about tattoing random stuff on them as babies? I don't mean swastikas or penises, those might get you shunned or beaten up; how about some random squiggly lines all over the legs and upper body? It's not like it would harm them... ... other than in their dignity of human beings who can decide such things for themselves of course. But that's not a factor here, is it.

Re:Agreed.

[Johann Lau]

Oh, and if keeping your dick clean is some kind of annoying chore for you that needs to be made easier, I don't even know where to fucking start. Just eww.

Re:Lies

[G1369311007]

I for one would like to think they make pockets out of the leftover skin.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Pediatrics - Only concerned with the health of kids, not adults.

You may be physically healthier, on average, without your foreskin. Only if you're not taught about how to properly take care of it. (So the data, framed in this way, will say that circumcised boys are healthier because improperly cared for un-circumcised boys)

The real problem is a social phobia about teaching little boys how they are supposed to wash and care for their penis. Instead, we just cut off the foreskin so we don't have to deal with it. Touching your "penis" is bad, after all.

Later in life it leads to abnormal masturbation, reduced sexual pleasure, and reduced pleasure of your female partner. - This study conveniently ignores these issues because they're not about children.

$313

[Roadmaster]

"each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313.".

At least they're telling you what's the most you should be willing to pay for this. I don't think that the medical "industry" will see a profit from this.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[slapyslapslap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision Read down to the female preference and response section. 79% to 89% prefer circumcised based on the research quoted. So yes, they actually do.

US doctors might...

[Anonymous Coward]

US doctors, within the for profit medical services area may back circumcision.

No other doctors in the public medical system backs it though..... Get rid of your stupid for profit medical system and ridiculous statements like this will soon stop.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the rates of communicable diseases are even lower if we chop off the entire dick, so why not do that?

Can you fucking IMAGINE the outrage if we were pushing for female genital mutilation and justifying by "well there's a tiny bit of possible decrease in risk of some things you won't have to worry about if you're careful in the first place, anyway"?

I'm circumcised and I'm not one of those morons going around spending the rest of my life crying about it, because who really fucking gives a shit? But still, it just seems god damn fucking retarded to push for circumcision under any justification and I don't get why people are trying SO DAMN HARD to make it okay.

Wait wait wait

[tanujt]

Gert van Dijk, an ethicist at the Royal Dutch Medical Association in Utrecht, the Netherlands, thinks that the AAP has underestimated the potential harm of circumcision.

Gert van Dijk....Yes, that could be the name of my next indie band exploring the tenets of post-modernist sexuality.

Re:Lies

[0xdeadbeef]

Oh, look, another person rationalizing a completely unnecessary and potentially dangerous medical fad started by crackpots obsessed with masturbation by cherry-picking a comment that is a bit loony.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[gnoshi]

If you're in the situation where they can tell, it isn't likely to make a big difference is it?

Re:Lies

[CelticWhisper]

We really need a "-1 Trying Desperately to Get That Image Out of My Head"

Re:Lies

[mark-t]

Just because there isn't a proven causal relationship, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

More to the point... has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Re:Lies

[nattt]

Penile cancer rates are not zero among circumcised and it's such a none issue as it's also incredibly rare among the un-circumcised too. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short, thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on whom's facts you read:

The British Medical Association said it had no policy on the issue because of the “absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention."

As far as I'm concerned if the evidence is so ambiguous after all this time then there's no necessity for the operation. Look at it this way if it prevents the spread of HIV then why is the infection level in the UK a third of that in the US in percentage terms yet circumcision in the UK is very tiny.

The AAP is now a disgrace

[Anonymous Coward]

The AAP will be the laughing stock among the international community; this new statement is way out of line with statements from other modern nations with advanced medical systems. The AAP should withdraw this statement immediately.

The foreskin is an important part of male anatomy, and circumcision has serious negative consequences for not only the man, but his female partner as well. Men who were circumcised at birth have never known what a foreskin is like and don't know what they are missing.

The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis are removed by circumcision. These color-coded diagrams show the areas of sensitivity for both circumcised and intact anatomy:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells

The boy is the one who should be able to choose what happens to his body once he is an adult. Bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. Clearly the AAP doesn't understand that.

This is an excellent video narrated by Dr. Dean Edell, a pediatrician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_bEBAdhjGg

The appendix is not useless

[Chemisor]

> Paid for by the "Protect the Appendix" campaign.

Educate yourself: the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines, and thereby helps maintain normal intestinal flora.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[geekoid]

The science is out on that. There is research, and I look forward to the results. But it is a hypothesis at this point, nothing more.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonsils are not necessary part of the body either. Neither is the gall bladder. Hell, you can go on quite fine with one lung and no stomach either.

That do NOT mean you remove things.

Hell, you can cut transmission of STDs by just cutting everyone's dicks off. They are 100% not necessary for anything. We can bypass natural insemination with a syringe and tube, you know, like cattle and other farm animals. Would you pay the price??

The recommendations are retarded. 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 3 in 1,000,000 chance of cancer. They are saying uncircumcised result in $300+ extra costs per person, that means each penile cancer costs $150,000,000 dollars in costs. I'm sorry, but someone can't count. Or maybe they hope no one else does either.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[countach74]

Define necessary. It acts as a kind of lubricant during sex and protects the most sensitive area of the penis. Without it, your dick isn't as sensitive (read: sex isn't as good). Welcome to the world, son! SNIP!

Re:The appendix is not useless

[ameen.ross]

Circumcision, which amputates part of the male phallus, generates intense emotions,[1] both for and against circumcision, which influence the medical literature.[2] The circumcision-related medical literature, therefore, is uniquely voluminous, argumentative, polemical, confusing, chaotic, and contradictory.

Results of studies of the effect on penile sensitivity have been mixed. In a British study of 150 men circumcised as adults for penile problems, Masood et al. found that 38% reported improved penile sensation (p=0.01), 18% reported worse penile sensation, while the remainder (44%) reported no change.[6] In a survey of men circumcised as adults for medical (93%) or elective (7%) reasons, Fink et al. found an association between adult circumcision and decreased penile sensitivity that "bordered on statistical significance" (p=0.08).[7]

In a 2008 study of Kenyan men, Krieger et al. stated that "Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."[8] In a 2009 study of 22 men in Mexico circumcised for medical or aesthetic reasons, Cortés-González et al. reported a statistically significant improvement in "perception of sexual events" (p=0.04).[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Re:The appendix is not useless

[Talderas]

Correct. Someone cannot count and it is you.

the cost of performing circumcisions and treating complications would be tiny in comparison to the savings from the resulting lower rates of HIV, HPV, herpes and urinary tract infections, as well as from lower rates of bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis in women. Each circumcision that is not performed costs the US health-care system US$313, the researchers estimate.

In fact, the figure of $313 is never even linked to cancer.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[Erikderzweite]

Even if the number is correct, a post in this thread mentions that a circumcision costs $350 for parents. So if you don't do this, you save $50.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[JSmooth]

I can vouch for this. I had an appendicitis and had my appendix removed (thankfully I still have an index). Since then I have developed diverticulitis and have IBS.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[Derek Pomery]

Could it be they mean that if circumcision reduces penile cancer rates by some tiny amount, that therefore, the average reduction in costs per-case-of-penile-cancer would be $313? (which is indeed miniscule).

I guess I should RTFA instead of speculating :)

Re:The appendix is not useless

[AK Marc]

My appendix was removed about 30 years ago when I was 12, and I have not had any intestinal troubles after of any regular nature.

Re:The appendix is not useless

[Keen Anthony]

There's something like 70,000 erogenous nerve endings in the foreskin as I understand it, and foreskin plays a part in providing the extra skin for a full erection and plays a part in helping to keep intercourse comfortable, so whilst not necessary for some life-preserving function, it clearly facilitates sex. One thing is absolutely certain, those circumcised people who have endured horrible mangling (actual disfiguring) as a result of circumcisions probably would have liked to have had a choice.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is also very light on numbers. It mentions a reduction in STIs and whatnot, but provides absolutely no quantitative data. How much are these infections and disorders decreased by? Are we talking a couple percentage points? Or dozens of percentage points? Furthermore, I don't see any definitive causes described. What I see is a correlation with some hypothesizing as to the cause but nothing which has actually been verified by scientific inquiry.

And in other news

[rmdingler]

Auto mechanics back the 1000 mile oil change. Conoco Phillips is in favor of an ethanol ban. Coal miners give nuclear power a big ole thumbs down.

Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure.

Ultimately the choice should be up to the person who is going to be ritualistically mutilated for life. If you still want to have a part of your genitals cut off when you are old enough to give informed consent, that's fine. If they are worried that fewer men will agree to a circumcision later in life then it only strengthens the argument that it should not be performed on babies.

Parents are not owners, they are guardians. The body belongs to the child. Their job is to ensure that it is delivered intact when the child finally becomes independent and responsible for his own well-being.

Furthermore, savings of $313 does not justify irreversibly removing part of someone's body. The boy can come back when he's 18 and pay the difference of whatever medical costs were incurred before then due to the continued attachment of his foreskin.

Mechanics

[slim]

(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)

I occasionally see reports about circumcision affecting cancer outcomes, AIDS transmission, things like that.

What completely mystifies me, is the mechanics of these effects. Perhaps a foreskin can lead to increased transmission of AIDS. How? By what mechanism?

Re:Mechanics

[obarthelemy]

Take a group of men
Circumcize some of them. Those circumcized can't do anything much sexually for a few weeks, maybe longer
Observe that circumcision lowers STDs
Pat yourself on the back, and go maim a few hundred thousands kids. Don't forget to bill them for it.

Re:Mechanics

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for the religious connection. Just find out what the religious affiliation is of all the interested parties and I suspect the pattern will be pretty obvious.

I have inside knowledge on this one.

http://www.tgen.org/news/index.cfm?pageid=57&newsid=1735

TGen is a cancer research institute in Phoenix Arizona. They also have a small branch office in Flagstaff that focuses on pathogens. One of the researchers there, Lance Price, a guitar playing guy, worked on the above study.

The work and research came his way very purposefully.

You see, the top leaders at TGen are all Christians. The top thee or four guys in the organization take bible study breaks for an hour or two, at work. This is well-known among the long-time staff within the organization.

The fundamental problem is that the entire basis for similar scientific study is to support a per-conceived idea of male genital mutilation. Basically, people with an agenda are trying to support something they already do, by using science, instead of just saying what circumcision is really about; "We do this as a way to put our religious stamp of ownership on people, like a tattoo."

In this case, they are abusing science to look for a justification after-the-fact.

Re:Mechanics

[erice]

(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)

I occasionally see reports about circumcision affecting cancer outcomes, AIDS transmission, things like that.

What completely mystifies me, is the mechanics of these effects. Perhaps a foreskin can lead to increased transmission of AIDS. How? By what mechanism?

By having unprotected sex and never washing, infectious detritus can be trapped between the foreskin and the penis.

The whole idea is asinine. Butchering babies because they might grow up to be promiscuous while neglecting basic hygiene.

Re:Mechanics

[Master Moose]

This is something that I would really like to see answered!

Re:Mechanics

[Nimey]

It's not uncomfortable. It's really not /anything/, not painful, not ticklish.

Re:Mechanics

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a 4th year med student. Briefly, an uncircumcised glans is covered with non keratinized skin, and is a mucosal surface, which allows much more efficient transmission and uptake of pathogens. After circumcision, the skin of the glans keratinizes and forms a tougher barrier.

Re:Mechanics

[eli pabst]

(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)

I occasionally see reports about circumcision affecting cancer outcomes, AIDS transmission, things like that.

What completely mystifies me, is the mechanics of these effects. Perhaps a foreskin can lead to increased transmission of AIDS. How? By what mechanism?

The foreskin is known to be highly enriched for the types of peripheral immune cells that carry the specific receptors used by HIV for entry into the cell, such as Langerhans cells and macrophages, while the rest of the penis is not. So by removing the foreskin you are limiting exposure to the specific cell types that HIV can infect.

Re:Mechanics

[fsterman]

Uhh, I think researchers whom are dedicating their lives to this kind of research would put more thought into their methodology than that.

Re:Mechanics

[erice]

(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)

No. It isn't uncomfortable. The body adapts. Without the protection of the foreskin, the penis becomes less sensitive. This, of course, has other consequences.

Re:Mechanics

[skine]

As an uncircumcised man, it's weird to think that it would be that insensitive.

Every now and again, I accidentally leave the foreskin pulled back after using the toilet/showering/having sex/masturbating, and even five minutes of walking around like that makes my cotton boxers feel like sandpaper.

Re:Mechanics

[slim]

Thanks, that's plausible - along with the microtears mentioned by another commenter.

Icky though. I'm kinda fond of my non-keratinized skin.

Re:Mechanics

[nosferatu1001]

Look up the Africa studies. That was pretty much their exact methodology

It shouldnt be given the name "research".

Re:Mechanics

[WeatherServo9]

(Speaking as a man with a foreskin, who can't quite imagine what it would be like not to have one... uncomfortable?)

I am circumcised; it is EXTREMELY uncomfortable; at some times almost painful. I frequently find it very depressing and can't even come close to imagining how good it would feel to not have had this happen.

Re:Mechanics

[fatphil]

Only if you overlook the claim that "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells."

Both sides can cherry pick evidence. The truth will out when all the bullshit is stripped away. Alas, the majority of that is from the pro-maiming group and, for example, their outrageously-flawed-in-almost-every-way African trials:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

Re:Mechanics

[eli pabst]

Only if you overlook the claim that "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells."

No, not really. Cells can express a lot of different proteins that are innately antiviral, but that doesn't mean that the cell still can't be infected. Infection of Langerhans and other classes of dendritic cells by HIV is a well established fact. Not to mention that on immune activation Langerhans cells become mature dendritic cells and stop expressing Langerin.

Re:Mechanics

[Teun]

I can tell you first hand that (Israeli) ladies that are for the first time confronted with an uncircumcised penis love to play hide and seek with the glans :)

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Which studies? Proponents of circumcision continuously invent a new reason circumcision is useful whenever the previous one is debunked. First it was to fight masturbation, then it was because it prevented penile cancer, then it was to prevent genital cancer among women, then it was because men would be too stupid to clean themselves if they were uncut, then it was to protect against AIDS. What will be the next reason, who knows but I'm sure they will invent one then say "prove me wrong".

Re:Lies

[TorrentFox]

Doctors pay dues to the AAP, not babies. Doctors make money off of cutting babies. You joke, but it is a HUGE industry - not just the operation, but afterwards the tissue is sold to make cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Re:Lies

[6ULDV8]

They're only in it for the tips.

why not give the kid a choice?

[loshwomp]

I decided STDs weren't likely to be a significant threat to my infant son. If he wants to have part of himself chopped off when he turns sixteen, I'll give him all the info and support his choice. I think I can predict how it'll turn out, but I'm not kidding--I'll drive him to the hospital myself.

(And before anyone starts, the entire rest of the pro-circumcision argument revolves around an additional 9-per-thousand UTI infection rate. Yawn.)

Re:why not give the kid a choice?

[loshwomp]

well, god luck getting a 16 year old to make a ration decisions.

If my children can't think for themselves, then we've got bigger problems. He can wait until he's much older than sixteen without any rational fear of penile cancer.

You're just a coward who has condemned his son to higher risk with cancer, disease becasoe of an emotional belief.

What do you mean *I* condemned him? I am explicitly deferring to his own judgement. Penile cancer is practically down in the noise it's so insignificant, and the risk is damn near nonexistent for young people. He can weigh those risks himself when he's older, just like you could have if someone hadn't played god with your nerve endings.

Alternately, if you went and got yourself circumcised as an adult--which I doubt--then don't assume my children are incapable of making the same choice.

And what about the rest of society? Roughly half of American adult males are uncircumcised--are they all incapable of making rational decisions, too? They should be lining up to swap their nerve endings for a nice shiny $313, right?

Re:why not give the kid a choice?

[ApplePy]

By not aborting you, your mother condemned you to death someday of Alzheimer's or cancer or heart attack or diabetes or....

Maybe you should just kill yourself before you can die a horrible natural death.

Re:why not give the kid a choice?

[compro01]

You appear to be vastly overestimating the incidence of penile cancer and underestimating the complications rate from infant circumcision.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[mjhacker]

Because it's the norm in the states. Women in the rest of the developed western world prefer uncut men. I'm not circumsized, and was the first uncut man most of my partners had. I was told that the sex was much better than with cut partners. *shrug* I rather like my foreskin, and am grateful to my parents for not having me mutilated just to prop up some bullshit cultural tradition bogged in bad science and a complete misunderstanding of male anatomy.

Re:Lies

[Known Nutter]

has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Ask my penis. Specifically, ask my penis about the part that went missing 36 years ago.

Or, consider this:

In the matter of circumcision of newborn males, it must be recognized that the child is normal as born, and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine which is "First, do no harm. "

Or, consider this: http://www.noharmm.org/images/snyder2.gif (graphic)

For more: http://www.noharmm.org/problem.htm

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

Circumcision become the norm in the US after it was found out that the rates of penile cancer among Jewish men were zero.

Really? That was why it became the norm? When was that, and what are your sources?

Another question: How many cases of penile cancer are there each year, vs. how many surgeries causing harm to the baby?

And now we know that men that are circumcised are less likely to infect and become infected with STDs.

Are there any new studies to back that up, or is this still based on the flawed research in Africa, where the men who were circumcised were also taught about condoms while the others weren't (or something like that)?

Winkle

[Trongy]

See this classic Blackadder scene for usage of the word winkle.

Re:Winkle

[oldmac31310]

Likely come from the writing of Ben Elton, himself son of Jewish immigrants to England. Weakest part of the whole thing really...

Re:Lies

[Baloroth]

The real problem is a social phobia about teaching little boys how they are supposed to wash and care for their penis. Instead, we just cut off the foreskin so we don't have to deal with it. Touching your "penis" is bad, after all.

Later in life it leads to abnormal masturbation, reduced sexual pleasure, and reduced pleasure of your female partner. - This study conveniently ignores these issues because they're not about children.

From TFA:

Perhaps the most powerful evidence in favour of circumcision comes from randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda. These found that, for men who have sex with women, circumcision reduced the risk of infection with HIV. (No protection was observed for men who have sex with men.) The South African and Ugandan trials also found that circumcision reduced infection rates for human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes. The World Health Organization has already made circumcision part of its HIV-prevention strategy in sub-Saharan Africa, with a goal to circumcise 20 million men by 2015.

The AAP found that, in addition to preventing sexually transmitted infections, circumcision could reduce the rates of urinary tract infections and penile cancer, probably because the foreskin harbours infectious microbes as well as the immune cells targeted by HIV.... The task force also found no strong evidence that circumcised babies grew up with more urinary difficulties or sexual problems.

So... yeah. Reduced infection rates in children and adults, and no strong evidence of sexual problems at all. It doesn't matter if you could stop infection through education on how to properly clean the penis. Hell, HIV could be stopped dead in a few generations if people stopped having sex with multiple partners and/or used condoms. But guess what? The world doesn't work like that, and a measure that can help prevent disease with very few side effects can and should be used to help stop disease. Hence, the recommendation.

Re:Lies

[oji-sama]

Gah, another one. "Take away your studies and facts, I'm not listening, la la la la, I can't hear you..."

Go read it

From the 'Task Force' article:

There is fair evidence that men circumcised as adults demonstrate a higher threshold for light touch sensitivity with a static mono lament compared with uncircumcised men; these ndings failed to attain statistical signicance for most locations on the penis, however, and it is unclear that sensitivity to static monolament (as opposed to dynamic stimulus) has any relevance to sexual satisfaction.

And what does the actual article marked as source for this say:

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis..

I've never read 'an article' that as blatantly cherrypicks things supporting their view...

In a nutshell.

[Arancaytar]

US healthcare will pay for religious mutilation, but not for planned parenthood.

I think we've identified the core of what is wrong here.

Re:In a nutshell.

[brendank310]

They leave the nutshell intact

Re:In a nutshell.

[dkleinsc]

Actually, we haven't, we've just narrowed it down: The other explanation is that the people making those sorts of decisions are more likely to want a circumcision than they are to want a pap smear.

Re:Lies

[geekoid]

Hi, I've read the data and reports. The majority of which is based on the US and Africa data.
Circumcision is better long term for a person. Less risk of VD, other diseases, as well as fungus. it's not even close. It's very clear. I would call the contrast 'stark'.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Read down to the female preference and response section. 79% to 89% prefer circumcised based on the research quoted.

So yes, they actually do.

in Georgia and Iowa (US)...not exactly a widespread study

Why the AAP is Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The AAP omitted the fact that the foreskin is an important part of male anatomy with specific sexual, sensory, and protective functions. How can the AAP possibly recommend removing part of the body when they won't even discuss its functions? (Google functions of the foreskin)

2) The AAP failed to address the ethical problems with amputating healthy tissue from a child without that child's consent. Doing so without absolute medical necessity is a violation of the child's basic human right to an intact body and the right to choose for himself when he is an adult.

3) HIV prevention is not a valid reason for circumcising an infant who is not sexually active. HIV is easily prevented in other, less invasive ways. Other modern nations are not endorsing circumcision as an HIV prevention method. To learn more see this handout from Intact America. Also, a recent study from Puerto Rico shows that circumcised men in that area have higher rates of HIV and other STDs than intact men.

4) The AAP cannot credibly say the benefits outweigh the risks since they don't have good data on what the risks are. Few good studies have been done on the risks of circumcision, and no state or national system exists for collecting adverse event reports. Further, very little data is available on long-term complications. Without solid data on the risks and long-term complications of circumcision, any conclusion which weighs benefits vs. risks, or benefits vs. cost, is fundamentally flawed.

5) The AAP is out of step with the statements from other countries. Other nations are moving away from newborn circumcision, even to the point of considering bans on newborn circumcision in some areas, but the AAP is moving in the opposite direction. This shows just now biased the AAP has become and that they are really just trying to justify an outdated practice rather than view the situation objectively. I hope that the AAP comes under international pressure to retract this new statement, as occurred with their ill-conceived female genital cutting statement a few years ago.

Re:Lies

[Space cowboy]

Mutilation of children's bodies is generally considered to be harmful, yes.

When you're talking about physically cutting into a baby's body, the burden of proof lies with those who would cut, not those who would not. Quoting from an above post:

The British Medical Association said it had no policy on the issue because of the “absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention."

As far as I'm concerned if the evidence is so ambiguous after all this time then there's no necessity for the operation. Look at it this way if it prevents the spread of HIV then why is the infection level in the UK a third of that in the US in percentage terms yet circumcision in the UK is very tiny

In the UK, there is no financial incentive for doctors to mutilate children. I tend to trust their version of affairs, rather than those with a financial incentive (the doctor is paid for his time, and the hospital sells the tissue).

Simon

Re:Lies

[pdabbadabba]

So is there something wrong with the study that you (or anyone else) can identify, or is this just presumptive cynicism?

F'ing doctors!

[Type44Q]

Apparently none of them have been circumcised; I, on the other hand had part of my dick chopped off at birth and I've been pretty pissed off about it ever since!

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone looked into the medical benefits of female genital mutilation?

Re:Lies

[Stickerboy]

Just because there isn't a proven causal relationship, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

More to the point... has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Yes.

Circumcision is an unnecessary and mainly cosmetic surgery picked by parents because of tradition and/or religion. Recent attempts to find medical justification for its existence are both new and almost laughable. It's a penile "nose job" for a baby so the baby isn't potentially made fun of for being "different" later on.

Unfortunately, circumcision is a surgical procedure. And no matter how "routine" and "minor" a surgical procedure is, it's only "routine" and "minor" until something inevitably goes wrong. Rare, but horrible when it happens.

Promoting circumcisions to prevent STD transmission is the worst sort of self-serving justification. Why not promote mastectomies at puberty for girls to avoid the 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer during their lifetime? Or appendectomies for everyone? If your STD prevention strategy consists of promoting circumcision, instead of promoting safe sex education and prophylactic barrier distribution, your priorities are wildly skewed.

You really want your baby circumcised? Wait until he's 18, and give him the choice.

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

What are the lies?

This? "Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction."

This study seems to contradict that claim.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Anonymous Coward]

In two of the studies, and (taking the article at face value) conducted in states where circumcision is the norm. Other studies on the very same page have differing results.

Re:Lies

[Gorobei]

Yep, one problem with the major African studies was the variation in follow-up support given. Another problem is the difficultly of doing randomized trials (anyone who can be convinced to have his penis surgically modified can probably also be convinced to follow your safe-sex directions.) Thirdly, double-blind trials concerning STDs are a little difficult to do when circumcision is visible to all.

The US studies have similar problems: when a circumcision has an average cost of around $350, the parents opting for the child's surgery tend to be richer and more able/willing to spend on health care for the child. You would expect circumcision to be correlated with benefits to every treatable medical condition.

Re:Lies

[geekoid]

"Doctors pay dues to the AAP"
A) It's not even most doctors. You don't need to be a member to be a pediatrician. So your premise is based on ignorance.
B) Dr.s don't make a lot of money from it.
C) So what? that in know way means the procedure is unnecessary.
What are you going to trot out next? the more babies die from it lie? It caused issues in adult life lie?

You're post is yet another system of critical thinking and science dying in America.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/#more-3310
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-kindest-cut/#more-431

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

The world doesn't work like that, and a measure that can help prevent disease with very few side effects can and should be used to help stop disease.

Wow, nice. So because people act foolishly, everyone (that doesn't approve of it) must suffer? Please. The people dealing with HIV are usually dealing with the consequences of their own actions, but if we remove all foreskins, we punish everyone for their actions. Furthermore, plenty of people without foreskins do have HIV. A small increase in the chance of getting HIV/penile cancer is not worth punishing everyone over.

Study shows women can lower their chance of cancer

[FoolishBluntman]

Study shows women can lower their chance of breast cancer
...
when their breasts are hacked off, but is that really the solution for things?

Re:Lies

[geekoid]

". The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science "
I disagree. please site specific study and flaw with methodology.

Please prepared to defend that along with the mountains of other data. IN short, I have studied this, and IO will destroy you with actual science and facts.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-for-neonatal-circumcision/#more-3310
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-kindest-cut/#more-431

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

>>>my circumcised penis has been greeted with relief by a partner who found the natural look repulsive.

Interesting. If my "partner" said that my natural penis was repulsive, I would tell her that I'll circumcize my dick if she trims those ugly lips off her pussy (female circumcision). Fucking bitch. If the penis didn't need a foreskin, evolution would not have put it there.

For that matter why does God make his followers cut it off? Did God make a mistake when he put the foreskin on the male? Hmmm. But he's supposed to be flawless.

Re:Lies

[sexconker]

I for one would like to think they make pockets out of the leftover skin.

Just cosmetics.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting... as that's the exact same percentage of women that understand the fragile male ego. Coincidence?

Re:Lies

[cheesybagel]

Buddhist, Hindus and Catholics don't practice circumcision and they are doing fine as their population can attest dear /. user without a sense of humor. Perhaps next time I log into /. I will see a report from the USDA on the benefits of Halal and Kosher food and I will see similar pandering to people who want to get paid for shouting Alah every time they hit a chunk of beef with a knife.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

THE STUPID. IT HURTS!

You mean the same “studies” that called the spleen or even the tonsils “useless” for decades, just because they didn't know the use? Until they realized that the spleen is the standing army (!) of the immune system. (And the tonsils are your front entry guards.)
The place where white blood cells reside, that learned to defend your body against past threats.
Yeeeah, totally useless. Let's remove it. We're totally not arrogant dicks with a god complex for acting like that...

Hell, how stupid do you have to be, to not see that obviously, there’s a reason we have the foreskin, since otherwise those without it would have long won natural selection.

All the arguments here are complete bullshit.

The "disease hazard" one: How the hell is it expecting to much, to pull back your foreskin and wash your dick once, every 1-2 days?? How is that a disease hazard and a justification in the first place?? And how, going by that logic, don't they also recommend removing your asshole, bowels, mouth and nose? Those are even more prone to be full of bad germs.

The uselessness one: I guess you never had one, and weren’t even given a choice to experience it. Because otherwise you'd know, that at least 1. it keep the glans lightly humid... which is its natural healthy state, and 2. protects it.
It's the same thing as a vagina, which also has a special humid fauna/climate as the normal state. Hell, it even is the same damn fucking tissue! What's so hard about this??

What kind of fucked up mind do you have to have, to go: "Well, considering it's a integral part of your body, evolved over millions of years, it clearly must be completely useless."?

So shut the fuck up with your blatant thought-terminating chlichees, if you can't even bring up actual arguments! Only idiots life FOX news pound on "facts" and "fair and balanced". Because he has no fucking idea of the difference between a observation, a hypothesis, a theory, and communication of bullshit.

I wish your whole damn backwards wasteland would just go ahead, and cut the Internet, so you can live your dream of The Dark Ages 2.0!

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they account for the fact that devout Muslim and Christian men are more likely to be circumcised, and therefore, less likely to be promiscuous? Correlation does not equal causation.

Re:Lies

[sexconker]

Fuck off. Read the studies; the disfiguring argument is bullshit when you consider that your "natural figure" might well be harboring virii that give your wife/mate cancer.

YOU should read the studies - they're laughable bullshit.

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

>>>Later in life circumcision leads to abnormal masturbation

Define please.

Mutilate your childrens' genitals or...

[DSS11Q13]

teach them how to wash their dicks.

Tough call!

Only necessary for American boys

[stanjo74]

American boys are in deed healthier if circumcised, because they are not allowed to touch their penises to wash properly due to religious/puritanist reasons. It may sound ridiculous to someone outside of the US, but I know parents who do not allow their boys to rub-wash their penises from fear of discovering masturbation. That's why an exposed penis head is important for "touchless" hygiene.

Good Rebuttal

[Lightn]

Here is a good rebuttal article: http://www.intactamerica.org/aap2012_response

So for about a penny a day...

[SecurityGuy]

...I can keep my foreskin?

Sold.

Re:The final word

[stanjo74]

Get a hard-on, pull the skin back and she will not tell the difference.

Re:Lies

[MightyMartian]

Is there some evidence that Muslim and Christian men are less promiscuous? I would be very surprised to learn if that were true.

Fee for service

[PopeRatzo]

US doctors "back circumcision" because you can't bill for not circumcising.

Heck, how do you expect them to pay for their school loans and make the monthly note on that new Audi A8?

Until they can afford to become partners in that lab so they can get a piece of all the tests they refer, they've got to find some way to scrape by, you know?

The US health care system started going into a tailspin about the time doctors decided that it wasn't enough to be upper middle class any more. It wasn't enough to have the nicest house in the nicest part of town, they had to have a boat and a jet and a house in Santa Lucia or it just wasn't worth it.

When you see the levels of Medicare fraud perpetrated by doctors (higher than the level of pedophilia among priests) it's easy to lose respect for this once highly-respected profession. Nowadays, I'm actually relieved when I learn my doctor is South Asian or African or South American, because American doctors all seem like they'd rather be derivatives traders. Of course, the cockamamie system of third-party health insurance contributes to the sleazification of doctors, but a big part of the blame lays with the type of person who believes a medical degree is a license to print money and nothing more.

Re:Lies

[Ckwop]

Evolution has been operating over hundreds of millions of years.

If we didn't need a foreskin, we wouldn't have one.

Re:Lies

[Matt_Bennett]

Report of the task force on circumcision

Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial

Just the first 2 links from scholar.google.com

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

>>>Reduced infection rates in children and adults, and no strong evidence of sexual problems at all. It doesn't matter if you could stop infection through education on how to properly clean the penis. Hell, HIV could be stopped dead in a few generations if people stopped having sex with multiple partners and/or used condoms. But guess what? The world doesn't work like that, and a measure that can help prevent disease with very few side effects can and should be used to help stop disease. Hence, the recommendation.

I agree with your argument and say:
- Let's bring back Female Circumcision too.
Same reasons (healthier).

*
*He's being sarcastic.

Re:Lies

[Carewolf]

A very large recent study in Europe found 1/10 having short term complications with circumcision and 1/1000 having suffering serious permanent problems. 1/1000 is not large enough to forbid adults from getting it if they want to, but it is large enough that it has been forbidden on children in Germany and under evaluation for being forbidden in several other countries.

Re:Lies

[John Bokma]

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

See also: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/circumcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/the-ethics-and-economics-circumcision http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy

Ultimately?

[idontusenumbers]

the choice is ultimately up to parents"

Ultimately it should be up to the person who's penis it is.

It's mine...

[migmog]

It's mine and I'll wash it as fast as I like

Re:Lies

[WarSpiteX]

You do realize that the rate of penile cancer among men is almost zero, period?

Penile cancer is incredibly rare and linked to an infection that results from bad hygiene.

Title is wrong

[Sebastopol]

The dataset comes from Africans living in Africa. How do you adjust the sample population for America from 3rd-world conditions?

The title should be "Circumcision CORRELATES with better health in AFRICAN men living in AFRICA"

As of yet, they have no explanations as to WHY they are healthier.

Be afraid. Be suspicious.

Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's better?

[Taco Cowboy]

One of the arguments for pro circumcision camp, male with circumcised penis are less likely to contact AIDS

Well ...

I am a male, and, thanks to my parents, I get to keep my foreskin

I do not f*ck around - and when I did, I made sure I took all the precautions, like using condom, like wash my private part clean after sex (when possible) and, most importantly, not having any same-sex intercourse

Till now, and knock on wood, I haven't been infected by HIV

Seriously, I think the "less AIDS" argument does not hold much water, scientifically

If one practices hygienic lifestyle - that is, takes the effort to keep private part, including the inside of the foreskin, clean after sexual intercourse

One the other hand, a male who no longer has any foreskin due to circumcision, if he engages in unsafe sex, the man would probably ending up contacting AIDS, even without his foreskin

I find it very ludicrous for a medical association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, to issue such claim
 

Re:Next step

[johnny cashed]

Hey, we can also reduce breast cancer by cutting them off after childbearing age. Who's up for that?

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

>>>I disagree. please site specific study and flaw with methodology. Please prepared to defend that along with the mountains of other data. I have studied this, and IO will destroy you with actual science and facts.
>>>
Come here. I want to cut the lips off your baby daughter (female circumcision). Any objections? I have mounds of data to show that it's perfectly safe. What's that? You don't want you kid mutilated??? Well same applies to your boy you stupid "godhatesfags.com" Christian racist pig.

Re:Lies

[John Bokma]

Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in.

See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

Re:Lies

[makomk]

The task force also found no strong evidence that circumcised babies grew up with more urinary difficulties or sexual problems.

Did they actually bother to ask them about this properly? Because an awful lot of the studies which proponents of systematic circumcision have come up with to prove that circumcised men have managed to screw this up. (For instance, the African studies asked men about their level of satisfaction with their sex life - something like 99% of all men rated their sex lives as "very good", which doesn't exactly make for a terribly sensitive measure of how it affected them.) Meanwhile, a very clever Danish study found that not only did circumcised men have more difficulty orgasming, their female partners had a whole bunch more problems than the partners of uncircumcised men.

When we do mutilation, we always have good reasons

[jbssm]

Of course, male circumcision, which correctly and medically expressed can very well be called, male genital mutilation, it's good, because we do it, so we'll keep getting some obscure excuses to it. Like a $300 buck excuse.

Now, female circumcision, which we call genital mutilation but it's also called by that term (yes, I know it's much worst than male circumcision, I'm not stupid) it's barbaric because it's the others (some Islamic fundamentalists) that do it.

When they look back in some centuries...

[jbssm]

I hope you do realise that in some centuries, everyone will look back at us and state that this is a barbaric act of religious zealotry, just like we do about so many things in mankind's history.

Re:Next step

[cheesybagel]

Don't forget cutting 2/3rds of the liver while you are at it.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[euroq]

The "less AIDS argument" actually holds up in third world countries where there is no access to health care, less hygienic practices, and less education.

It doesn't hold up here in America. There may be like 1-5 cases of the extra foreskin actually causing HIV to be contracted when without it the virus didn't contract - there may be none at all. In all seriousness, the studies cited were not done in the developed world.

This is a letter I wrote to NPR

[Velex]

At the risk of conclusive proof of the real life identity behind this UID. It's a bit lengthly. tl;dr: The AAP did this before in 1986. Nobody cares about all the years the AAP has recommended against it. The AAP will likely reverse its position in a few years. There is no new evidence, not any more than there was in 1983 when they recommended against, not any more than in 1986 when they recommended for, not any more in 1992 (iirc, didn't look that one up) through 2005 when.they recommended against, not any more in 2012 when they recommended for.

More tl;dr (it really probably is tl if this is stil tl;dr): Once removed, the foreskin can never be restored. I've been permanently harmed and since slashdot knows I'm already trans, my doctor and I screwed up in thinking that the pain I was feeling was because I was trans. No other trans person I've spoken to has reported the same pain, but I didn't know I was circumcised when I started HRT, so I figured it was related to my gender issue, not a genital mutilation that had been forced on me.

And also even bring up the subject of female genital mutilation when everybody's ready to lop off foreskins for a 0.005 change (1.7% to 1.2% or something like that) in the rate of UTI and watch everybody lose their minds. A comment I made on NPR.org about a position the AAP took in 2010 regarding proposing a protocol for female circumcision was removed for violating their community rules.

So here goes!

And yes, I was in actual physical pain, and I throught that was completely natural and just part of getting wood, and yes, I really did not know I was circumcised until my early twenties. Oh, and before you go diagnosing my aches and pains, note that my doctor didn't even consider it. Either that means that the first person to diagnose me with something is an idiot, or the fact that my doctor didn't even know about it speaks volumes about our ignorance of male genital mutilation and the side-effects.

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing in response to your reporting of the American Academy of Pediatrics' (AAP) recent flip-flop of their opinion of what body parts men do or don't have the right to keep. I'm calling it a flip-flop, because that's what it is. Typically, the AAP releases reports recommending that male infants should not be circumcised. However, every now and then, they dig up evidence to justify reversing their opinion. I would not be surprised if within a few years, they go back to their usual position of opposing the practice of routine infant genital mutilation for both males and females.

There are two things that discussions of circumcision evoke: jerking knees and giggles. When it's female genitals we're talking about, it's always jerking knees. In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics came under fire for attempting to put a protocol in place for satisfying certain parents' desires to have their infant daughter's clitoris poked with a pin. I referenced this in a post to the comments on the article on your webpage along with their reasoning for attempting to create a framework for this otherwise barbaric act, and my comment was promptly removed. Perhaps the moderator thought in some hysterical misreading of my comment that I was in support of female genital mutilation.

Then there are the giggles and the kink when we're talking about penises. The word \emph{penis} is a favorite of immature internet humor. Let's get this out of the way right here, because I am very serious.

Too much of the debate centers on sexual pleasure. Fortunately, because of a fluke that happened when I was circumcised, I won't need to worry about knowing even the pleasures of a healthy circumcised man, because all I know is pain.

Additionally, this is about more than sexual pleasure or giggles at the word \emph{penis}. This is about my human right to have an intact body. We seem to be overly sensitive to concerns of female welfare, even purely psychological concerns, but we are ever so dismi

Re:This is a letter I wrote to NPR

[Velex]

Oops. Please forgive the \LaTeX I left in there. \emph{blah} = blah. Not sure why it gobbled my enumerated/ordinal list (think ol).

Re:This is a letter I wrote to NPR

[Velex]

Hey, a big Cresant of the Callas thankya to whoever fixed that enumerated list.

Re:This is a letter I wrote to NPR

[Velex]

Er, huh, and it's gone again. Maybe I can just save face at this point and blame broken slashdot.

Re:This is a letter I wrote to NPR

[fatphil]

\emph{penis}

No wonder there's pain - you put your penis in a brace!

Joking aside, and apologies for the poor taste of the humour, it's cases like yours that actually make me froth with anger at the stupidity and ignorance of the the decision-makers who could actually make a difference (by classifying unconsented irreversible body modifications as abuse, for example). Centuries down the line hopefully humankind will cringe at how barbaric some factions of their race were in the 21st and previous centuries.

Re:This is a letter I wrote to NPR

[Velex]

Thanks. I hope more men debate this and come to similar conclusions as we.

You mean "some" US Doctors

[Elijah Lynn]

The "American Academy of Pediatrics" does not speak for all US doctors and this title is highly misleading.

Re:Lies

[__aaltlg1547]

. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).

Sounds like a bad period to me. My bottom line is this: surgery on children only for medical necessity. Surgery on adults only with consent. If consent were a required element, there wouldn't be a lot of circumcision.

Re:Lies

[minvaren]

"...but when you rub it, it becomes a suitcase."

Re:Lies

[Golddess]

- Let's bring back Female Circumcision too.
Same reasons (healthier).

Uh, what? Yes, you are being sarcastic, but I'm curious how one would explain the "health benefits" of female "circumcision" (which isn't even anywhere near male circumcision. It's a couple orders of magnitude worse).

Re:Lies

[__aaltlg1547]

Yeah well, mandatory ablation of the testicles and prostate at birth would prevent a LOT of cancers. Now is that really a good idea, though?

It would also prevent abortions. Think of the babies that would be saved?

Re:Lies

[Nimey]

Lampshades?

Excellent! Move to stage 2: Cyber-implants!

[VortexCortex]

I couldn't be happier with this!

The humans have no respect for the rights of the male infants! We can continue to do whatever we think best to their bodies without awaiting maturation of their minds... The doctors have played right into our hands! It's Perfect!

Humans lose plasticity as they grow into adults, so the younger the mind is when we implant the Cerebro-Cybernetics, the more easily they'll adapt! It's for their own good! Bwa ha Ha HAA!

Re:Lies

[DNS-and-BIND]

Female circumcision is not "trimming the lips off the pussy". It is removal of the clitoris so the female cannot feel any sexual pleasure and hence will not be tempted to stray from her man, all as Allah planned.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason women prefer the look of a circumcised penis is because they are accustomed to them. Arguments for circumcision as an aesthetic or beautification procedure have got to be the absolute MOST moronic. If my son's girlfriend decides that he's not worth loving because of how his penis looks then she will be rightfully kicked to the curb.

Re:Lies

[DNS-and-BIND]

"until something inevitably goes wrong [go.com]. Rare, but horrible when it happens."

So, which is it, inevitable, or rare? Make up your mind, it ain't both.

And honestly, you might be onto something with that mastectomy thing. The same rationale was used recently to ban large soft drink containers in New York. Keep going and soon we'll get there.

Re:Lies

[Golddess]

trims those ugly lips off her pussy (female circumcision).

You're thinking of labiaplasty. Female "circumcision" involves the removal of the clitoris.

Re:Lies

[Penguinisto]

I just want to know who makes $240m a year from chopping foreskins. I mean, seriously - is the stuff a direct replacement for nuclear fuel or something?

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Austerity Empowers]

It holds water from a policy setting standpoint. While sensible individuals would not benefit from the procedure, you do not set policy around sensible individuals, as they don't generally drag the rest of us down. I assume this organization is expecting their findings will be copied by the 3rd world, and are thus setting policies at the lowest level.

So far the only argument against the practice that doesn't sound like magical thinking is that perhaps the consequences were underplayed in the study. I'd like to have heard more about that, and less about the bizarre mysticism that Europeans apparently subscribe to around the sanctity of the human body. I was hoping doctors would stick to the facts.

Re:Lies

[Swave An deBwoner]

For that matter why does God make his followers cut it off? Did God make a mistake when he put the foreskin on the male? Hmmm. But he's supposed to be flawless.

It's complicated but if it makes it easier for you to understand you can think of it as the first recorded instance of a shrinkwrap license agreement:

This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and thy descendants after thee, every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised on the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.

As a parent...

[OldSport]

I am a parent. Holding my newborn daughter in the hospital room, singing to her some of the songs we had played for her when she was in my wife's belly, trying unsuccessfully to choke back the tears of joy and amazement as I gazed into her eyes -- it was without a doubt the most amazing experience of my life. The idea of subjecting that beautiful, fragile, and innocent baby to the kind of trauma and pain that circumcision entails is something I could never dream of doing. Honestly, I'd rather walk into traffic or jump off a building.

And that's not even touching the logical arguments against circumcision, which are pretty much airtight.

Re:Lies

[SomeKDEUser]

In fact good sex ed works: Europe has lower HIV infection rates than the US.

This whole thing is basically "genital mutilation of children is fine because we can cut on education". Amusing fact: female circumcision will similarly risk rates. Will you support it?

The benefits are tiny (and only for adults), and the risks significant (for the kids). Also, what about the right of children to bodily integrity? If an adult wants to be circumcised, this is fine, of course, but this decision, so soon on the back of the German court decision? That reeks of religious lobbying.

Taken apart

[niceworkthere]

The three WHO Africa studies did not survive review:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9

Not application:

http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/20120711501815186/southern-africa/zimbabwe-concern-over-high-hiv-rates-among-circumcised-males-501815186.html

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf (botton of p135)

Also, infection of men by heterosexual sex is the least important transmission vector in the West, nor does circumcision apparently influence the infection of women by men:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract

Besides, how rational is it to tell men that they must be circumcised to prevent HIV, but afterwards they still need condoms to be protected from STDs?

Re:Lies

[tnk1]

Well, evolution has done a lot of things, it's not exactly precise on the value of what it gives people, as long as they can reproduce successfully. Still, if you like it and a girl doesn't, you both have other options.

As for why the Jews cut the foreskin off, according to the story, it wasn't due to the foreskin being an imperfection, it was done to mark the Jews as different amongst themselves. Presumably, he picked something that was not going to be missed, but there was no inherent judgement about how good or bad it was if left alone on other people.

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

Females have the exact-same problems with their pussy as males. In fact I'd say it's worse. If she doesn't properly clean it, she might get urinary tract infection. Which can be a precursor to cervical cancer.

Oh and let's not forget breasts. 5% of women will develop breast cancer..... that's a much higher rate than the 0.01% of men that develop penal cancer.

So let's cure that problem that same way we lop off penis tips. That's right. Lop off the breast buds for female infants, so they never need fear getting breast cancer. Oh. I see a look of horror on your face. You should have that same look at the thought of mutilating little boys (as they scream in pain & blood spills on the hospital sheets).

Responses

[niceworkthere]

There already have been two longer replies to the AAP's statement:

http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf

Their most important points:

1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.

2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.

3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).

One could think they felt the heat as one national agency resp. adviser after another rejected or even condemned infant circumcision.

Re:Lies

[tnk1]

Female "circumcision" does *not* have the same benefits, and it's *not* the same thing. The male parallel would be removing the whole or part of the glans of your penis, because female "circumcision" is a euphemism for removing the clitoris, not the removal of a piece of skin covering it.

Re:Lies

[SomeKDEUser]

The foreskin, it has nerves. These are sensitive. No foreskin -> less nerves -> less sensations. I don't see how that is the cause of a debate.

In any case, the "benefits" are mostly for adults, and adults are free to get circumcised. Finding excuse to mutilate the genitalia of your kid is not a mark of high moral standing...

Re:Lies

[tnk1]

Female "circumcision" does *not* have the same benefits, and it's *not* the same thing. The male parallel would be removing the whole or part of the glans of your penis, because female "circumcision" is a euphemism for removing the clitoris, not the removal of a piece of skin covering it.

HPV

[niceworkthere]

Nowadays vaccinations for both genders are available against most of its strains, and circumcision won't replace the importance of proper sexual hygiene, either. You might as well argue that a false sense of protection leads men to more risky behavior.

Re:HPV

[EverlastingPhelps]

Isn't this the exact same argument as the abstinence only sex Ed crowd?

Re:HPV

[niceworkthere]

I think I see how you meant that, but "no sex" is not what I wanted to imply.

It will encourage people to have more sex without effective protection (ie. condoms) if they falsely believe that circumcision already covers them — particularly women seem to believe in circumcision as some sort of wonder weapon against esp. HPV. Add a bit of alcohol and the bareback with the handsome circumcised stranger recently met doesn't appear just that dangerous anymore.

Same thing (risk compensation) happens in Africa with circumcision against HIV: Whatever little benefit there may be for men is eaten up by enough mislead behavior of those falsely convinced to now somehow wear an "invisible condom".

Re:HPV

[EverlastingPhelps]

And isn't that the argument of the abstinence only crowd? If we teach them anything but abstinence, that will encourage them to have more sex, which increases the chances of the prophylactic measures failing?

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

>>>circumcision reduced the risk of infection with HIV..... a measure that can help prevent disease with very few side effects can and should be used to help stop disease

So you support cutting off penis tips because of the 0.01% who might get HIV if they are uncircumcized. Okay. Over their lifetime 5% of women will develop breast cancer..... that's a much higher rate than the 0.01% disease rate for HIV in men.

So let's cure that problem the same way we lop off penis tips. That's right. Lop off the breast buds for female infants, so they never need fear getting breast cancer. No more nipples == no more breast cancer. OH. I see a look of horror on your face. (I have that same look at the thought of lopping off penis endings.)

Re:Lies

[Intropy]

What forced? They, based on aggregate data, say that circumcision is slightly healthier than no circumcision. By their data, that appears to be true. Now you can say that other things work better or reduce the difference, and that' very well may be true. But as people behave right now, they find it to have a health benefit. Do with that data what you want.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because everyone is you. I was circumcised, I don't obsess over it, but I'm still pissed off that it's unnecessary and it's being forced on little kids. I care more about other people than I do myself in this case, and apparently you only care about yourself.

By the way, earlier in that comment I said, "(that doesn't approve of it)."

Maimonides, one of Judaism's foremost scholars:

[niceworkthere]

"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

http://books.google.com/books?id=SF6fbjNe0yYC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=%22decrease+in+sexual+intercourse+and+a+weakening+of+the+organ+in+question%22

Re:Lies

[Golddess]

I thank you for explaining what you meant, but in the future, the term you are looking for is labiaplasty, not female "circumcision".

Re:Lies

[tnk1]

Yes, and saving lives is a gigantic industry too. Simply ascribing a profit potential to an activity should not be enough to make it suspicious by itself.

Re:Lies

[TorrentFox]

The study relies heavily on prior studies done on adult men in Africa, the scientific validity of which has been very strongly criticized:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

Re:Lies

[SomeKDEUser]

I agree with your position, but you are wrong about the studies. The results are likely real and significant. And if you think about it, you will realise that there is even a mechanism: the skin of the glans is probably thicker, due to it being not protected by the foreskin, and thus less susceptible to micro-cuts, which are the main avenue for blood-borne STDs.

Of course this is exactly why this is genital mutilation and should not be done.

Interesting / relevant data from the CDC

[Darth_brooks]

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/penile.htm

The rate of HPV assisted Penile Cancer in the US among the various demographics of men ranges from .4 per 100,000 for Asian / Pacific Islander to .8 per 100,000 white males, up to 1.3 per 100,000 for Hispanic males. If that's your justification for circumcision (and it's totally fine if it is) you're taking some strong proactive steps against a fairly slight risk.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-key-statistics

Per year, 1570 *cases* are diagnosed, and roughly 310 men die of penile cancer. You quite literally have a 99.9999% chance of never being diagnosed with penile cancer.

So, aside from the cancer part, the overall message re: Penis isn't much different from owning a gun "Take care of it, keep it clean, and use it safely." (also, don't point it at your eye, it might go off.) It hurts me a bit to see people running around like Thomas Dolby with Echolalia yelling "SCIENCE!" in every instance of X > Y. You're right, the numbers certainly side with science. But the data provided also says that, in the Western world where things like soap and running water aren't privileges, you're pretty much (as in 99%+) OK either way, at least until the boy hits an age where a responsible parent can instill care and handling procedures to prevent later issues like STD's.

(as an aside, there is at least the smallest shred of financial incentive for Doctors to perform circumcisions in the US, but that isn't part of a grand "strip 'em and clip 'em" conspiracy, it's a fundamental flaw in the system. Somewhere along the line it was determined that insurance will pay for it, ergo it gets done. My 84 year old grandmother with cmphysema and congestive heart failure was put on Lipitor the last time she was admitted. Her cholesterol wasn't the problem, Smoking for 70+ years was. As the Doctor bluntly put it, the main reason was "Medicare will pay for it." There was was slight medical benefit. But, for the most part, it was a money move. If you try and break that cycle, though, people start screaming about "Death Panels." Sigh....)

This isn't in the same ballpark as say, not getting your kids a whooping cough vaccine. So help me if I find those fuckers at daycare who sent their little outbreak monkeys in....

Re:Interesting / relevant data from the CDC

[Agent0013]

This isn't in the same ballpark as say, not getting your kids a whooping cough vaccine. So help me if I find those fuckers at daycare who sent their little outbreak monkeys in....

Ironically, it's the whooping cough vaccinated people that are getting sick. In 2010 California has a huge outbreak of whooping cough. A study found that 81% of the cases of people under 18 where in those who were fully up to day on the vaccine. There are more people getting sick who are vaccinated than who are not. I'm not against all vaccines, but I think they should actually do the job they say they do. All vaccines carry some risk. But if they don't provide any benefit, or even make things worse, then they don't make sense.

Re:Interesting / relevant data from the CDC

[HornWumpus]

Your not providing enough information (or more likely you source isn't). If 99.9% of people are vaccinated but only 81% of cases are in vaccinated people then the vaccine works (albeit not as well as it should).

Re:Interesting / relevant data from the CDC

[Agent0013]

It seems like you have a point. I do want to understand if I have something wrong. To me it seems like 50% people vaccinated vs 50% non-vaccinated would mean the vaccine is ineffective. I guess that does not take into account how much of the source population is vaccinated. Like you said, if 99.9% are vaccinated, then it would be very difficult to find people that are non-vaccinated and then having 50/50 would be very unlikely. I guess that does make sense and the article I read was a little misleading. Thanks for pointing out my oversight. This is why I love /. so much. It's the most rational thinking group of people I have come across.

However, there are other comparable forms of FGM

[niceworkthere]

Video with an attempted ranking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ

The stark Type III (infibulation) makes up about 15% of worldwide FGM.

Less invasive forms of FGM that are comparable to male circumcision — the so called "Mild Sunnah", for instance — are banned regardless, and rightly so.

Re:Lies

[TorrentFox]

False. It was promoted as a cure-all by doctors in the late 1800s. Read the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Medical_circumcision_from_1870_to_1950_in_English-speaking_countries

Re:Lies

[cheekyjohnson]

Instead, he gave us a large brain and the ability to modify things, so we can build aeroplanes and perform medical procedures when necessary or prudent. Dumbass.

Aside from the fact that there's no evidence anyone gave us anything, I don't see why you'd call him a "dumbass." If someone did give us greater intelligence, then we're using it when we construct planes, but we still have no natural ability to fly. Circumcision is not necessary, either, so I hope that wasn't being implied.

Re:Lies

[IshmaelDS]

I don't recall seeing anywhere that it will be forced on you, I understood it to be a recommendation and not a forced act. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Providing I'm correct, no one is going to force you to chop off your foreskin.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[VortexCortex]

Women also prefer vibrators, which are typically associated with more powerful orgasms. In fact penises are responsible for far less occurrences of sexual stimulation in women than the other leading stimulation techniques. However, You can call me a selfish prick, but I'm keeping my damn dick.

Re:Doctors in other countries disagree

[Swave An deBwoner]

Yeah, but his name is a dead giveaway that he's just a sock puppet for a PAC (Penile Action Committee)

van Dijk

Re:Lies

[LurkerXXX]

Yeah, Germany forbids a procedure which is a requirement of Judism. Shocker there. Nah, couldn't possibly be any other motivation at all. Not like theres a past history. Really, good arguement there pal. I mean 'sieg heil'.

Re:Lies

[TorrentFox]

Furthermore, the incidence of penile cancer in men is lower than the incidence of breast cancer. In men.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Where's the punishment? The research shows that there is no punishment. There's no loss of sensation -- in fact, men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards. (RTFS). Its all upside and no real downside other than complications in the procedure itself, which are rare in infants.

Foreskin is important

[maggern]

Denmark study: Circumcision cuts sexual satisfaction in men and partners

http://www.circinfo.org/controversy.html#frisch1

CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment.

Re:Lies

[makomk]

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, the specific studies in question are the African studies which your links rely on as proof that circumcision reduces HIV infection. (All three studies were conducted by the same group over the same time period and use the same methodology; I suspect that if they didn't get good enough results they were planning to pool them in one study.) The circumcised men were instructed not to have sex for the first two months of the 12-month study period whereas the control group were allowed to; in addition, because all men were given free condoms and advice on safer sex at every visit but the circumcised men had more follow-up visits the circumcised group had better access to both condoms and advice.

The APA article your links bases their claims on is also misleading in other ways. For example, the 3 randomised trials were not exactly " consistent with previous ecological and observational studies in Africa, Europe, and the United States" - as I recall the observational studies showed much larger benefits (and in fact the more robust the studies are, the smaller the effect seems to be). The Ugandan trial also couldn't actually show that "the protective effect of circumcision increased with longer time from surgery" as they claim because there was no control group after 12 months and therefore not a sliver of evidence that the decrease in HIV infection rates over time had anything to do with circumcision whatsoever; while didn't stop the researchers from claiming it as a benefit from circumcision and even extrapolating the decrease out into the distant future and prominently quoting the extrapolated figures in their abstract, they had no basis for those claims whatsoever.

Also, the bit about "Male circumcision and HIV protection among MSM have not been studied as well as heterosexual transmission" is weasel-worded bullshit - we've studied this to death even after study after study showed no benefit, and subsequent studies have still shown no benefit. The lack of evidence for it working has nothing to do with lack of research - we've researched it plenty and it just doesn't work. Furthermore, notice how they dismiss all the studies showing that circumcision doesn't affect the risk of men transmitting HIV to their female partners and cherry-pick some that do; in practice things may be even worse because studies that were showing early signs of concluding that it actually increased the risk to female partners have been terminated early for getting undesirable results!

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Anonymous Coward]

There is other research that shows, among women who have been with both kinds of men, that 86% prefer the natural, whole man.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

The foreskin acts as a linear bearing, reducing friction and increasing comfort and pleasure for women. Ever wonder why so many women in the U.S. have discomfort and dryness while women in Europe don't? It's not women's fault - it's what was done to their male partner's body.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignorant. There are plenty of circumcised people that don't have that condition.

So please don't say there is no medical reason for circumcision.

There is no medical reason for it if they don't have phimosis. If they do, there is one. If they don't, there isn't one. Don't use your own experience and apply it to everyone.

Re:Lies

[LurkerXXX]

My guess is he's got a real short dick and wishes he had a forskin so it might seem bigger.

Re:Lies

[Nethemas the Great]

Perhaps with women... Then again...

I wouldn't dare..

[slashedteddy]

I wouldn't dare to get someone circumcised for one simple reason (in addition to being against it): No matter who actually messes it up, the fault always lies with the one that requested it in the first place, because if it wasn't done, nothing would've happened. Let those who want it get it done themselves when they're of age to do so rather than his parents deciding it.

Re:Lies

[oji-sama]

The foreskin, it has nerves. These are sensitive. No foreskin -> less nerves -> less sensations. I don't see how that is the cause of a debate.

Well.. They reference an article that concludes "Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis" and change the meaning to "these findings failed to attain statistical signicance for most locations on the penis".

I mean... Seriously... "for most locations". I wonder, if I were to burn my fingertip, would they conclude that statistically most locations on the finger retain the same sensitivity.

Mutilate the Facts much?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"When you're talking about physically cutting into a baby's body, the burden of proof lies with those who would cut, not those who would not."

Ask, and you shall receive!

Re:Mutilate the Facts much?

[tolkienfan]

That article doesn't really support the AAPs position...

Re:Lies

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention correlation does not equal causation so we have no idea if the men they chose had other factors that weren't considered.

Hell the wiki on correlation has a medical study that said women that take birth control were at less risk for heart disease but a further study showed those women actually had a HIGHER risk but since they were from a higher socioeconomic group than the women without birth control it was the much better diet and exercise habits that skewed the results.So I'd say before we can give an answer either way further more controlled studies should be done.

And finally I have to wonder how much of the problem isn't western taboos about talking to kids about their genitals. Lets face it like any other part of the body children need to be taught to clean the area correctly and thoroughly but we here in the west are so hung on the idea that little John or Jane may actually play with themselves I seriously doubt any of the kids were being givern a proper education in such matters.

Re:Lies

[LurkerXXX]

Look at it this way if it prevents the spread of HIV then why is the infection level in the UK a third of that in the US in percentage terms yet circumcision in the UK is very tiny

Yes, yes. There couldn't possible be any social factors different in the US than the UK that could contribute to the change.

And god knows that one having universal medical care, and the other not having it, and having much higher medical costs couldn't possibly impact people seeking advice, or treatment. Nah. No other possible factors in the equation at all.

I

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Aids. HPV. Chlamydia. gonorrhea. Yeast infections for their partners. Aids is just a small part of it. Face it, that smegma factory is also an infection Disneyland.

Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Circumcision is an unnecessary and mainly cosmetic surgery picked by parents because of tradition and/or religion. Recent attempts to find medical justification for its existence are both new and almost laughable. It's a penile "nose job" for a baby ..."

So basically, you're jealous that our dicks look better than yours?

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Stormwatch]

I am circumcised, and I say with no hesitation that circumcised penises look grotesque, abnormal, and defective. To be circumcised is to live in an antinatural state.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[tolkienfan]

You realize you are promoting a routine mutilating surgery for possible (but unproven) reduction in the likelihood of various unlikely diseases?
Other countries in the world look at the US and laugh.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[tolkienfan]

Oh - and I have a foreskin. I thank my parents that I have the CHOICE.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[sirsnork]

That's true, but it's usually for any number of other reasons than this :)

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"My wife is the only person who sees my dick. She doesn't see yours."

Bad assumption.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

No. I am not promoting anything. US doctors are, which is the point. Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is more sanitary, especially for children, whom - you may not have heard - are not paragons of health and hygiene responsibility.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

No shit. 14 drivelous points on why it is great to have a foreskin, and you have one! I never would have guessed.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Well I am not envious of any women who would be with you, since you are clearly more concerned with your pleasure than hers. Not having a foreskin might mean less pleasue initially though I have yet to meet someone who has both a circumcised and an uncircumcised dick as far as I know, so any argument one way or the other is ridiculous. Assuming I do get less pleasure initially, that just means I last longer. The orgasm still happens, and if it is delyed that actually means I get more pleasure, not less. It also means my woman get more pleasure. Did you ever notice that the adult store doesn't stock a wide range of dildos that model uncircumcised dicks? Would you care to hazard a guess why that might be? Stop being so selfish, and think of someone else for a change.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I say with no hesitation that you should seek therapy. Seriously.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Stormwatch]

Perhaps I could use it, since post-traumatic stress disorder is indeed a possible side effect of circumcision.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Stormwatch]

If you don't live in the USA, South Korea, Israel, or any Islamic country, the ladies will see your stuff as "non-standard equipment".

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

So you are saying that the vast majority of U.S. citizens have PTSD?

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Stormwatch]

I said it's a possible effect, not that it happens in the vast majority. And my case is something peculiar, since it happened with me as an adult (a case of malpractice, it shouldn't have happened at all... it's more common than you think). But then again, I read a psychoanalyst's hypothesis that it DOES help shape Americans and Muslims, culturally, as violent warmongers.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[fatphil]

> Did you ever notice that the adult store doesn't stock a wide range of dildos that model uncircumcised dicks? Would you care to hazard a guess why that might be?

Apparently you've shot your load right over your foot with that one. The first google hit for ``realistic dildos'' yielded a site ( www.edenfantasys.com/dildos/realistic-dildos/ ) with what seemed like hundreds of dildos, and the *clear majority* of them had the tell-tale ribbing of an uncircumcised cock. OK, that's a sample size of one source, but did you never stop to wonder what "ribbed for her pleasure" on some condoms was trying to mimic?

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

The rib is on a circumcised dick you idiot. Also, I didn't say that you cannot find any if you google for them.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[fatphil]

I see you don't even know the difference between singular and plural. Let alone the difference between taut keratinised scar tissue and flexible skin. Given your previous displays of stupidity, these come as no surprise.

Re:Y]Are you green with envy, or is it fungus?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'm sorry. I stand corrected. You are clearly the expert on dicks.

We've outevolved ourselves many times.

[denzacar]

Plenty of things we no longer need but still have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

In other news...

[fiannaFailMan]

Knocking out all teeth and replacing them with dentures has been found to reduce incidents of tooth decay.

Down with teeth!

Re:In other news...

[fatphil]

I know 2 people (a married couple) who did just that. Although it wasn't the decay /per se/ they wanted to avoid, they wanted to avoid "slowly getting older". No "oops, there goes another one". I never heard them later regret that decision.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Actually, the argument that the people who were smart enough to use the tool of circumcision won the evolutionary competitions pretty strong.

Re:Lies

[tragedy]

The human body does have a use for the appendix and for wisdom teeth. The current leading theory on the appendix is, I believe, that it's a sort of "storm cellar" for beneficial bacteria. The wisdom teeth are spare replacement teeth from an age when we were much more likely to need them. Both are frequently removed when not really necessary. You didn't mention tonsils. They used to pull tonsils at the first sign of a sore throat. These days it's much less common, and most studies are saying that it provides little to no actual benefit. The tonsils, by the way, serve an immunological function.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Obviously, you don't need reasoning faculties, because you didn't get any.

Re:Lies

[characterZer0]

because people act foolishly, everyone (that doesn't approve of it) must suffer?

That is the basis for societal morays, government, and regulation.

Re:Lies

[makomk]

Same way as you'd explain the health benefits of male circumcision. Observational studies using the same methodology as the ones on male circumcision found that female circumcision was similarly effective at preventing HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision was amongst men. The research community has just chosen not to believe or act on this for reasons that are entirely political and have nothing to do with the evidence. (On the other hand, studies have found that male circumcision is totally ineffective at preventing HIV infection amongst men's female partners, but the scientific community has ignored this and chosen to proceed with it as a method of preventing HIV infection amongst women anyway.)

Re:Lies

[yndrd1984]

You could start here, but there are a variety of criticisms of these studies, which explains why so few organizations take them seriously.

IO will destroy you

Io from mythology, Diskworld, D&D, Jupiter, ... which one?

WITHOUT A TURTLENECK

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You get dick blisters.

Re:WITHOUT A TURTLENECK

[arkane1234]

No, sorry buddy, that's just cuz you're rubin too much.

Re:Lies

[tragedy]

More to the point... has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Does death count as something harmful?

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

I'm sorry about your penis, but I think you would probably need more than that 1/4 inch added to feel good about yourself. Perhaps you would like to thumb through my spam folder for a few minutes?

Re:Lies

[makomk]

It does have the same "benefits". There were observational studies in African countries of female circumcision just like the ones of male circumcision, and they found that female circumcision caused roughly the same reduction in HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision did amongst men. It's just that the researchers chose to assume that reduction was due to confounding factors and should be ignored rather than charging in and launching a badly-conducted RCT. There was no reason to conclude that confounding factors were any more likely for female than male circumcision, except distaste for one that didn't apply to the other.

Re:Lies

[loshwomp]

Penile cancer is extremely rare, and damn near nonexistent among children under the age of consent. For the record, here is what the actual paper says about penile caner:

One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications.

Re:Lies

[Whiteox]

Something to do with Roundheads and Royalists in the English civil war. The Roundheads were circumcised (CofE-Lutheran) and the Royalists weren't (RC).
OTOH some ancient semitic covenant about chopping bits of your dick off to identify you as part of the In-Crowd is fucking stupid.
That, and with other covenants like not eating swine has been interpreted as basic preventative health measures - eg parasitic infection by worm eggs from partially cooked or raw pork and no available penis washing water in the middle of the desert. Now that's not bad for a 6000 yr old survival manual, but in 600 AD it all went pear shaped when it was deemed that all muslims are to wash before prayers. This washing was probably the worst thing since raw lamb pie as the devout would clean their nasal and sinus passages in the communal pool specifically set aside for this purpose. The diseases that spread by this practice are rife.
Today, we know better. As god/nature/evolution/lamark/darwin or my shaman intended, my dick is my own and no-one is going to chop off any part of it for any reason.
Also, 3rd world 'female circumcision' is not done in a heathy environment, but in someone's back yard with no anasthetics. The resulting healing can and often does restrict or even stop urination, ultimately causing life long pain and even death.
Think again before you take a knife to your new-born son. Don't let some 'physician' convince you otherwise unless there is a recognised medical reason for it.

Re:Lies

[Drgnkght]

I don't get why people are trying SO DAMN HARD to make it okay.

Guilt and possibly shame. If it wasn't necessary or useful then they mutilated their son(s) for no reason, or they were mutilated for no reason. It's really simple if you think about it. They are simply protecting their self image.

MGM and FGM have the same purpose

[rrohbeck]

namely, decreasing sexual satisfaction in women. It's well known that the foreskin plays a significant role in vaginal stimulation.

Re:MGM and FGM have the same purpose

[HornWumpus]

Not directly stimulating the vag, slowing the man down until she's done. Until the vagina is very wet the foreskin pulls over the glans on every out stroke. Once she's good and extra-squishy it hangs up behind the glans and the man's orgasm will proceed.

Granting that's personal experience. YMMV.

Re:Lies

[loshwomp]

has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Yes, as concerns penile cancer. According to the actual paper, routine circumcision is impractical for prevention of cancers, as the rate of "complications" greatly exceeds the number of cancers prevented.

Not mentioned is the fact that said cancer is practically nonexistent in children under the age of consent.

Quoting TF paper:

One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications.

Re:Lies

[cheekyjohnson]

Well, given the existence of the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other things like it, that seems to be about right. People do seem to like punishing everyone for what others do, or sacrificing choice in exchange for negligible benefits.

Re:Lies

[psiclops]

mutilate (mytl-t)
tr.v. mutilated, mutilating, mutilates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

i would say it fits into all 3, some may disagree on some of these but you can't say it doesnt fit at least one of these definitions.

Bollocks!

[oldmac31310]

that's what I came here to say.

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

Pediatrics is the only branch of medicine that routinely performs unnecessary surgeries.
The US is almost alone in routinely performing circumcision for non-religious reasons.
Canadian pediatrics recommends against it, IIRC.
And every year circumcisions cause disfigurement and death.

But hey, its a money maker!

Re:Lies

[psiclops]

how many infants agreed to be circumsised?

Re:Lies

[Johann Lau]

WTF is Judism? And if the reason is indeed the fact you keenly observed, that all Germans are Nazis, how come it took until June 2012 to reach that decision? Sure not because they didn't really dare to earlier, because they KNEW fucknuts would come out of the woodworks, moaning and lobbying or posting BS on slashdot. Nuh-uh. It was because they planned it for over 60 years. It had to be perfect, it had to work this time. Restricting non-medical irreversible procedures to adults are not only just as sinister as concentration, they are way more effective at hurting Jews (and of course Muslims, but that's just a welcome side-effect).

But what about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_circumcision#Legal_issues

Following widespread criticism largely from Muslim and Jewish groups, most fractions of the German parliament and Chancellor Merkel are calling for legislation to make religious circumcision of boys legal.

What is that about? She's German, ergo she's a Nazi, so what horrible trap can it be? Oh I know, by having to register a circumcision as religious procedure, religious observant Muslims and Jews can get tracked more easily. After all, those are the ones Nazis really care about, since racism was never their thing, i.e. they don't mind Arabs or non-observant Jews at all. Ah, I was unsettled there for a sec.. pieces that don't quite fit raise questions, and questions make my brain hurt. Good we cleared that up then!

However, it seems lately being a Nazi isn't just exclusive to Germany, read and wheep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_circumcision#Positions_of_medical_associations

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards

I had it done later in life and that is bullshit. The majority of sensation is on either side of the scar and the tip is greatly reduced after the skin roughens.

Re:Lies

[Johann Lau]

Ouch, I really ruined it with all those typos and left out words. Oh well, it's best to not know too much about these things anyway... you didn't read the parent post, it doesn't exist. I know nothing.

Re:Lies

[MrEricSir]

The issue here is that people have evolved to be circumcised.

Um, no. That's like saying people have bad vision because we evolved to wear glasses.

Re:Lies

[Sene]

And this was modded +5 Insightful? :D
I'm very disappointed /.

Re:Lies

[Stormwatch]

The original version of the Torah did not contain those lines, they were added centuries later. The contract is therefore void.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

I don't think so. Look at your scrotum. It's the same kind of skin as the female 'labia'. That's not where the action happens. Female circumcision is way worse than that. It's cutting the clitoris off in most cases. That's like having your bell end amputated. Go ahead and try that sir, I think you will find your life and health greatly enhanced, if you don't throw yourself off a bridge first. Cutting parts off the body when there is no immediate medical need is barbaric and the AMA is a barbaric organization.

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

Admittedly, I haven't rtfa (this IS slashdot), but I'd suggest that there is likely a causative factor in the kinds of parents that choose to circumcise in those parts of the world.
I can say for sure that I get much of my sexual stimulation from the foreskin itself. Denying that of someone because of possible issues later is ridiculous. It's also against the Hippocratic "do no harm" tenet.

Re:Lies

[Johann Lau]

Well, both groups are beat by a junkie who pulls up water from a puddle through a used cigarette filter. That's not only useful, it's also smart.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Uh, washing anyone? Those of you without foreskins seem to be desperately defending circumcision to justify the decision your parents or their pediatrician made, but the foreskin is just a bit of skin. It is not some impenetrable barrier! It's like saying, I can't get at my teeth to clean them so i must have my lips surgically removed. Jeez, some of you smart people are devilish stupid at times. Glad my kids still have their foreskins. They are whole and unscarred and know how to clean themselves. How about you? When did you last have a shower?

Re:Lies

[Golddess]

I think there's been some confusion. I was curious as to what those specific reasons would be.

Re:Penises.

[interkin3tic]

Biology nerd here. No. It's important. Why are there so many patent law stories?

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Exactly what I was wondering - and I don't agree with you often! Is that duration, method, frequency or what the hell is that nonsense? Why do we even need to ask?

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

No I got the term right: "Female Circumcision" - National Center for Biotechnology. "Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision....." - wikipedia.

On the other hand maybe instead of calling it "male circumcision" we should call it "male genital mutilation". As it is called with females.

Re:Lies

[Golddess]

Female circumcision is way worse than that. It's cutting the clitoris off in most cases.

Uh, yeah, I know. Kind of why I was informing cpu6502 that they meant labiaplasty and not female "circumcision" (and why I've been putting "circumcision" in quotes).

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

The medical profession is a business. That should be explanation enough. Need more? The more operations performed, the more money to be 'earned'. Case closed. Next!

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[yndrd1984]

My wife works at a rehabilitation/ nursing home and the women there all agree uncircumcised is gross

If I'm ever desperate enough to bang your wife, maybe I'll start caring what she thinks.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Mod this AC up! Further!

So science lied?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Lies and nonsense designed to prop up the > $240,000,000 per year industry that has been gradually waning.

When conservatives make similar claims about AGW, they are called "anti-science".

I call both sides to start trusting science, even when it is inconvenient.

Re:So science lied?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The freedom of religion is balanced with other rights.

On the case of Jewish circumcision, the family's freedom of religion is more important than the baby's "right" of not being circumcised (remember circumcision is, in fact, good for health, as US doctors say).

If, on the other hand, a Muslim demands the "right" to murder an apostate, then the right to life is immensely more important than the Mulsim's freedom of religion (not to mention the apostate's freedom of religion).

This has been understood long ago.

Re:Lies

[cpu6502]

>>>How dare you call their health choice "mutilation"?

If I remove my breasts myself, it's an elective choice and perfectly legal. If it's done by somebody who holds me down and carves up my breasts with a knife, the law calls it "mutilation" because it was an involuntary act.

We should not be cutting off little boy's penis tips or little girl's breast buds, and I don't care if doing so would prevent penile cancer or breast cancer. The decision should wait until they are old enough to make the decision as legal adults.

Re:Lies

[Golddess]

No I got the term right

No, you didn't. Yes, female "circumcision" exists, but what you described is not the same as female "circumcision". What you described is more accurately referred to as labiaplasty.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Mod this up!

Re:Lies

[interkin3tic]

Wow, nice. So because people act foolishly, everyone (that doesn't approve of it) must suffer?

I'm sorry, was this story about a law that says you MUST get circumcised, or was it about what a health organization was recommending?

"Must suffer?" "Punish?' How about you leave such wild accusations to the political arena. They're giving their advice and getting it to be covered by insurance.. They're enacting a policy to try to reduce sickness, which is their job. They are not forcing anything. Blame your parents for deciding for you if you're mad about losing your foreskin.

Re:Lies

[ShieldW0lf]

They're sexually mutilating children. Children are incapable of giving consent.

I find it so ironic that when Arabs do it to little girls, they're evil monsters, but when Jews do it to little boys, it's considered perfectly acceptable.

Sick, sick people.

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

Circumcision causes disfigurement and death every year.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Actually no. That is complete rubbish and you know it.

Re:Lies

[ShieldW0lf]

Where's the punishment? The research shows that there is no punishment. There's no loss of sensation -- in fact, men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards. (RTFS). Its all upside and no real downside other than complications in the procedure itself, which are rare in infants.

You truly believe that taking skin that used to be protected at all times against friction except during the sexual act and having it rub continuously against the fabric of your clothes isn't going to reduce sensation?

Are you retarded?

It's assault. Ask the Amish.

[todfm]

There's a criminal case going on here in Ohio involving some Amish people who forcibly cut off the beards of some other Amish men. The prosecutors are trying for a hate crimes conviction by proving that the victims suffered willfully inflicted bodily injury. "There is no question that the forcible removal of a person's hair is, in and of itself, disfiguring..." argued the prosecutor.

If the forcible removal of facial hair, a renewable resource, is a disfiguring assault, then why is routine infant circumcision still legal?

People have been prosecuted and convicted of assault for doing far less permanent damage to another human being. By any reasonable standard, infant circumcision should be illegal. It's not a medical procedure. It's a barbaric religious ritual now done for reasons of pointless conformity.

Smell

[todfm]

People say a foreskin gets smelly.

Your armpits get smelly. Should we cut off your arms?

The American Academy of Pediatrics needs to step forward into the 20th century, where we've developed something called regular bathing.

Re:Lies

[mattack2]

and the study was cut short

That's not the only thing that was cut short.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Tough Love]

Not to be cynical or anything, but the studies were done by a group with a vested interested in promoting this lucrative surgical procedure.

Doctor bias

[rs1n]

Here's one youtube video on why circumcision is biased: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruJ62wHpHuw There was another one by a Jewish doctor who DOES NOT advocate circumcision. I cannot seem to find it, now. From what I have read, it appears that even today many doctors still do not know just precisely what the foreskin's function is (more precisely, the literature on this subject is quite lacking). On top of that, there seems to be a lack in education on how to care for the foreskin -- in part because the current situation is such that most men are likely circumcised, so any literature on skin care would be useless for a large number of men. I am also curious how many doctors today also follow religious or cultural practices of circumcision, further adding bias to the debate.

Re:Lies

[interkin3tic]

If the penis didn't need a foreskin, evolution would not have put it there.

I object to the reasoning here. Evolution doesn't really work like that. There are plenty of features that are there not because they're important currently. Male nipples, for example, are not an evolved feature. They're there because of constraints on evolution according to Gould. Foreskins being present doesn't mean they MUST have a purpose.

Not to say they do NOT have a purpose, just evolution doesn't mean everything has a real reason to be there.

I also would guess that a creationist would have problems with your last statement, but I'm okay with people mangling creationist ideas, so carry on. I might buy a bumper sticker with that on it if you're selling.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Not much good for soap...another myth to add to yours...

Re:Lies

[mattack2]

However, the existence of glasses/contacts/Lasik/etc., presumably has slowed down (if not stopped/reversed) our species' evolution to having better eyesight, because the now not-blind-as-a-bat people aren't being run over by busses (or eaten by lions or whatever).

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

Exactly

Re:Lies

[Rei]

I for one would like to think they make pockets out of the leftover skin.

Ever been to Iceland? ;)

Re:Lies

[Rei]

Yup.

Iceland is an interesting country...

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

I think you've hit the nail on the head!
Sorry.

Insult that piss me off

[todfm]

If you object to circumcision and you're straight, sometimes people will try to insult you by suggesting that only gay people are so concerned with their penises.

There's nothing either gay or straight about wanting bodily integrity for yourself, for wishing that a useful and sensitive part of your body hadn't been mangled in the name of religion, pseudoscience, and social conformity.

I am fucking sick of guys who mock you, call you gay, and don't take this issue seriously.

Re:Insult that piss me off

[cheekyjohnson]

So they wouldn't mind if you were to chop off their penises? After all, anyone who cares about that specific body part must be a homosexual!

Re:Cheap investment

[Johann Lau]

As another poster pointed out, male breast cancer is more likely than penis cancer. Would you also be mad at your parents for not removing all flesh above your rib cage after birth?

Also: what are the rates of complications including death resulting from circumcision, what are the rates of penis cancer? Before you know both those statistics, stuff like "unsympathetic, unscientific and frankly reminiscent of the whole anti-vaccination movement" just smells like projection.

And of course, that some people say circumcision should be banned for even consenting adults doesn't constitute an argument for allowing it to be done to children, Mr. Logic Thinker Man.

Even if those "benefits" wouldn't conveniently overlook the risks (did you know that virtually NO KID EVER died of penile cancer, but a bunch die every year because of complications after a circumcision?), it wouldn't justify doing it long before it can provide any benefit. After all, before your sex life starts, none of this even applies. So how about raising the age of consent to circumcision to 12 or something?

Some people would still say 12 year olds can be easily pressured, and they'd be right; but at least some would have a fighting chance. As opposed to babies, ffs.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

'Twas God's arch nemesis Charles Beelzebub Darwin that perverted the course of his grand design to cause by way of Evolution (which had not existed before, these past 6000 years) the male human to have a foreskin - to make his most beloved of creatures (maaaaan!) repugnant to His most loathed (wimmin) of creations. And yea (YAY!) He, in his wisdom intelligently designed circumcision to get back at Darwin, and yea, doth the struggle between sheathed and unsheathed reign supreme in His name verily on /. Here endeth the lesson.

So science lied?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Recent attempts to find medical justification for its existence are both new and almost laughable

So are the pediatricians scientists or not? When conservatives doubt scientists, they are called anti-science.

Why not promote mastectomies at puberty for girls to avoid the 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer during their lifetime?

Oh please. Not remotely comparable.

If your STD prevention strategy consists of promoting circumcision

Straw man. No one said that the STD prevention strategy should consist solely of circumcision.

You really want your baby circumcised? Wait until he's 18, and give him the choice.

You can advocate that through your free speech, but please don't try to make it a law. The first Amendment protects free exercise of religion; so there would need to be a compelling interest to justify restricting it; and since pediatricians say that t is actually beneficial, the rights of the Jews shall be respected.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[rs1n]

Here is the actual info from Wikipedia:

Wildman & Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, where most men are circumcised, and reported that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the noncircumcised penis).[41] Williamson et al. (1988) studied randomly selected young mothers in Iowa, where most men are circumcised, and found that 76% would prefer a circumcised penis for achieving sexual arousal through viewing it.[42]

A sample size of 55 all from Georgia is hardly representative of the normal population. What would be really interesting is a survey done on women on whether they can even distinguish an erect, circumcised penis from one that is erect and not circumcised. When the penis is erect, the foreskin is naturally pulled back and an uncircumcised penis will not look that much different from a circumcised one.

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

Men can choose to have the procedure, if they believe that the penis looks better that way, or if they think they'll have better sex. Having a foreskin, I think it's highly unlikely.
However, the children circumcised don't have a choice, and some of them die. Some of them end up disfigured (more than usual).
In all other cases an amputation is only recommended for an actual extant medical condition.
Whatever happened to "do no harm"?
Why is circumcision given special treatment?? The answer is obvious.

Re:The final word

[Johann Lau]

I know right? She's such a sweetheart :) Sometimes I'm pretty sure does notice, but pretends she thinks I'm him to not ruin the mood.

Re:Lies

[Anonymous Coward]

You really want your baby circumcised? Wait until he's 18, and give him the choice.

At which age, I suspect, 99% of young men will simply say: stay the fuck away with your knife, butcher man!

Re:Lies

[snspdaarf]

"I have a wallet made of elephant foreskin. If I rub it, it turns into a suitcase!"

Re:Lies

[BluBrick]

It appears you have missed a key word in the parent AC's post. Try reading the post again, this time with comprehension enabled.

Re:Lies

[detritus.]

Yes, because we all know that the American Academy of Pediatrics is in the pocket of Big Circumcision.

Of course - don't you know how many tips they receive for the procedure?

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Iceykitsune]

if it smells, tell your man to wash his penis regularly, LIKE HE IS SUPPOSED TO!!!

Re:Lies

[pdabbadabba]

Interesting. Thanks.

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

Nice find!

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Isn't this the abstinence only argument again? If you're prefect, nothing will happen, so if it happens that means you deserved it?

Re:Lies

[LurkerXXX]

Yeah, that was really nice when you bashed me for a typo. Good job. You are a class act. Not.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Well that is a well reasoned argument. I will respond in kind: nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doodoo.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

If you find a calloused dick, I guarantee you it was NOT circumcision that caused it.

Re:Lies

[EdIII]

Wait until he's 18, and give him the choice.

*snicker*

Oh yes, they will be lining up won't they?

Boys who chose to be circumcised, only did so out of religious traditions and they were pretty heavily pressured by their culture to do so. Compared to the world population, it is quite rare.

No man chooses to mutilate his penis unless he has a mental disorder, or challenges with sexual identity. It's either done as a baby where they have no choice, or practically not at all.

My entire life all I have heard is, "it's good for you". However, if the science does not support it, and I mean strongly support it, then there is no reason to risk the boy's dick.

That needs emphasis. If there is a non-zero risk to the boy's dick, than the medical benefit has to be overwhelming. Like uncircumcised penises have a 50% chance of falling off.

young men! mutilate yourself for your country!!!

[dirtyhippie]

n/t

Re:Lies

[TranquilVoid]

I don't think it's surprising that belief systems affect behaviour. As many Muslim men live in conservative theocracies the society itself provides pressure to be less promiscuous so I think the AC's point stands, it is a tricky thing to remove in a study.

Relatedly, reference 93 of the study (" Risk of HIV infection [...] is lower among homeless Muslim men in Kolkata") suggests they equated circumcision with being Muslim, so accounting for behavioural differences between Muslims and non-Muslims would be necessary.

Re:Lies

[psiclops]

Rare as in will not happen often

Inevitable as in will happen eventually

these are not contradictions.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Smallpond]

A lot of us depend on tips to get by.

Re:Lies

[skids]

The thing that gets me is putting a $313 price tag on it. To me, my foreskin is worth way more than that.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[ApplePy]

What if I preferred my women to be genitally mutilated? Would that be a good reason to mutilate girls at birth? What if 80% of men favored it? Or heck, why stop at genitals? I bet we could get 90%+ of men to agree that girls should have their tongues removed at birth, eh? Because we all prefer women who don't talk back, don't we? It's just a minor modification... you don't need a tongue to live... it will prevent a lot of kissing and body piercing and that awful disease-transmitting oral sex, not to mention greatly reducing the possibility of lesbianism!

Imagine the public outrage over *that* notion... at which point anyone should feel very stupid for even using your argument.

Re:Lies

[flimflammer]

Do you even understand the topic you're talking about? I don't know how you can even begin to compare male circumcision vs female "circumcision." For females, it has absolutely no function outside of mutilating the vagina. There is no medical rationale for the procedure.

Whatever your views of male circumcision, attempting to put what they do to girls in the same category shows a large degree of ignorance on the subject and is completely out of touch with reality.

there is an easy solution to this

[circletimessquare]

don't circumcise your male children. then, upon adulthood, if they want to cut off their foreskin, let them make their own decision

oh wait, religion. WHARRGARBBBL applies

nevermind, there's no easy solution here, because we have the assholes who say it is written in a dusty old book, so it must be (blank out all thought and reason)

Re:Anti-circumcision movement

[cheekyjohnson]

not forcing it on anybody, god forbid

Thank goodness. I thought you were advocating something else, but it turns out that you're just opting to give people the choice once they turn 18 (or something such as that).

My 2 cents: let people do whatever they wish so long as it does not cause major harm to society.

Good to hear! I'll just beat my children, then. Not your child, not your business, and it doesn't cause major harm to society. I can punch you in the face, too. Society won't fall apart. It's not that big of a deal.

If it doesn't major harm, it doesn't matter!

then it's none of your business

Only a useful thing to say if someone asks a question they don't know the answer to. If they know something, they can criticize you and act against you if they so please. Saying "none of your business" is rather useless in almost every other case, but you don't have to listen to their criticisms, either.

2. There is no proof that most circumcised males suffer major harm from the ritual/operation.

Suffering "major harm" is not necessary.

Why do people think it's okay to release studies saying circumcision is harmful and should be banned but as soon as a counter-study comes out they cry foul?

I don't know. I'm sure the same is true of some individuals belonging to the [other side]. As for me, whether or not it's extremely harmful is inconsequential to my reasons for wanting it banned (although if it was found to be extremely harmful, that would add another reason).

As for letting the child decide: that's bullshit.

I think they argue for letting the 18 year old decide. In any case, staying in diapers, going to school, and whatever other analogies you can think of are quite different than forcing a child to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure with negligible benefits that is very likely irreversible.

Perhaps this is a surprise to you, but there are some things that parents legally cannot do to their children. Currently, forcing children (the parents, anyway) to undergo male circumcision is legal, but that may change. And if it does, obviously that's just another thing that parents won't be able to do.

Re:Lies

[Malf.me]

how many infants agreed to be circumsised?

The same number that opted to be treated in a variety of positive or negative ways by their parents. Your question is a misdirection at best.

Associated Story?

[SwampChicken]

US doctor's public health priorities totally askew.

Re:Lies

[tolkienfan]

I dislike religion not the religious.

Re:Cheap investment

[cheekyjohnson]

HIV or Herpes etc

Not practicing safe sex, are we? And in your specific case, how could you link such a thing to not having been circumcised?

Re:Lies

[CubicleZombie]

Colossians 3:10-12: Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

So it's okay with my "man-in-the-sky".

I'm sitting here with my 7 week old son sleeping in my lap. He's whole and un-cut. It was quite a fight with my wife (Catholic) but I got him home all in one piece, the way God made him. He will thank me some day.

Really More about Re-imbursement Money

[Wild_dog!]

This is not so much about health. It is about getting money back from insurance. If it is medically imperative then doctors can make the case that they should be payed for this procedure by insurance companies. The previous wording they used wasn't definite enough. It was vague
Now they have made a bold pronouncement and it should be clear enough to make sure the cash is flowing for this "procedure".

Re:Lies

[davester666]

Just ask your dad to come downstairs with the meat tenderizer and give you a good smack upside the head with it.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

Abortion, to me, has to do with the right of the mother to get rid of the baby in her body (not necessarily kill it, but that can be allowed if it's the only option). In this case, the baby is already born, and yet they want to force it to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure. Now that it's out of her body, there is no reason for abortion, so it's not really the same.

You may as well argue that all pro-choice advocates shouldn't mind child abuse.

Re:Lies

[TorrentFox]

Honestly, I'm surprised such an outwardly angry response would be considered insightful. So I'll respond.

A) I never said it was all doctors, and I never said you had to be a member to be a pediatrician. They have 60,000 members, who I'm assuming are mostly pediatricians - is that enough for you?
B) Yes, they do. It's tough to find exact figures, but for example Colorado is saving about a quarter million dollars a year having eliminated the procedure from medicaid coverage in 2010. The issue came back on the ballot in 2012 and was struck down.
C) No, the unbiased science shows it to be unnecessary. The rest of the developed and uncut world already having defunded it en masse shows it to be unnecessary.

And yes, babies die from it. What was the number again, 100-some per year? Ever heard of a baby dying from not being cut? I didn't think so.

Critical thinking much?

Re:Lies

[TorrentFox]

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/spray-skin-cells-heal-wounds-fast/story?id=16921765 , which was released August 4th of this year - what a strange coincidence!

Seriously, I can't make this shit up.

The Nature article makes it clear

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.

The Nature article makes it clear:

But the cumulative benefits can add up. An analysis published last week by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, found that the cost of performing circumcisions and treating complications would be tiny in comparison to the savings from the resulting lower rates of HIV, HPV, herpes and urinary tract infections, as well as from lower rates of bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis in women5. Each circumcision that is not performed costs the US health-care system US$313, the researchers estimate.

Next time, please read before posting!

Badly conducted study = lies

[simplexion]

A write up of why these studies are crap and why your belief that circumcision reduces the chance of penile cancer and STDs are unfounded.
The problem is, there will be no retraction in the news papers about this. Circumcision is completely unnecessary and is nothing but mutilation.

$313?!

[StarryEyed]

This is starting to sound like pulling out all your teeth to save on toothpaste bills.

Re:Lies

[cold fjord]

You should have that same look at the thought of mutilating little boys (as they scream in pain & blood spills on the hospital sheets).

You mean like when they are born, the cord is cut, and they get slapped? I'm surprised you didn't continue on with your line of reasoning to advocate leaving everyone in the womb, although I'm sure you can figure out there are problems with that too.

Doctors Now Ease Pain of Circumcision - Survey Shows Most Residency Programs Teach Doctors to Treat Baby's Pain

Of the programs that taught circumcision as part of its training program, 97% of them report teaching residents to ease circumcision pain with either a local or topical anesthetic.

Re:Lies

[biggles69]

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

Re:Lies

[kmcarr]

Yeah, just like those ever so necessary and useful male nipples.

Re:Lies

[fluffy99]

Even funnier is that the hospitals and pediatricians generally charge more than $313 to perform the procedure.

There is a vaccine for HPV!

[mosb1000]

This 2012, we have a vaccine for HPV. There no way this should reasonably be a part of the debate at this point.

Re:Lies

[mosb1000]

Infants become adults later in life. Adults who may have opted not to have an irreversible procedure to remove part of their genetals if it were up to them. What kind of parents would opt for something like that? Bad ones. That a board of pediatricians would recommend circumcision over a supposed savings of $300 or so in health costs is outrageous! Especially as the procedure has horrible side-effects. It just goes to show how little we value individual sovereignty these days. Apparently it's worth less than $300.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

What you said there makes absolutely no sense. I think you are replying illiterately to the wrong post. But no, I do not adhere to any arguments - or more correctly ideas or ways of doing things than those that I have thoroughly thought about. I'm no 'prefect' and not perfect either, but not sure what that has to do with your nonsense. You know what makes a fool of me? Replying to to the likes of you.

Re:Lies

[oldmac31310]

I rest my case.

Re:Lies

[smellotron]

I've heard they don't use anaesthetic for some strange baby-physiology-based reason, and that horrifies me.

My memory may be failing me, but I think there was a weak local anesthetic applied. Mostly I remember that there was a little oral dose of sugar-water, which is standard for infant pain-relief in hospitals. Really, I have seen much worse expressions of pain in my child from mundane GI stuff like gas and reflux.

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

Back in the day that America was a conservative near theocracy (1950) about 50% of adult men used the services of prostitutes. Their wives were slacking, nice girls didn't give head.

Today about 10% of adult men use the services of prostitutes. Wives and girlfriends are busy.

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

'Female circumcision' no more equals clitorectomy then it equals labiaplasty or the clit hood symbolic 'knick' or whatever they call the horror where they cut off all the good bits then sew the pussy shut.

It covers all of the above. Say exactly what you mean or assume others will assume you meant the other end of the spectrum.

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

We still have the videos of Kelly coming down the stairs. Poetry in motion. Destroying that would be vandalism.

Re:Lies

[Richard Dick Head]

Here's some numbers for you:

If we circumcise 100 infants, at a cost of $33,000, we prevent 1 case of urinary tract infection, at a cost of $100 for a doctor's visit and penicillin regimen.

Obviously we can see which of the doctors and patients benefit from this arrangement...

Re:Lies

[Richard Dick Head]

That is a often repeated meme, but no, its the same thing with basically the same result. Female circumcision does reduce incidents of urinary tract infections similarly, and since the pleasure is taken out of it, they're less promiscuous and have a far lower rate of STDs.

Does that make it right? No!

And for the record, your ignorance shows...no FGM practices mutilate the vagina, rather they amputate the labia and the clitoris or the clitoral hood.

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

If you use a feather it's kinky, if you use a chicken it's sick.

I think anything that involves an Ariel atom, heating the exhaust to 98.6 and a remote throttle is abnormal masturbation.

Not science, but ethics and morals

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that the AAP is pushing their agenda in the name of science and buffering it with "parental choice" and cultural issues. I don't think science should be the root of this discussion. This is more a question of ethics and morals.

Routine surgical intervention across a huge segment of a healthy population that is immature and unable to understand or consent is absurd... Almost as absurd as telling the hundreds of thousands of dead circumcised American guys in the 70's and 80's that current experiments in Africa have discovered that their lack of foreskin protected them from getting AIDS, but nobody is suggesting we do that. Why? Because it's nonsense. They got HIV/AIDS (and other treatable and less sensational STDs) because they weren't using condoms often enough, not because of their circumcision status one way or the other.

Nobody would go, or recommend going, sexing up diseased partners under false protection of circumcision. Condoms do a really good job at preventing STD transmission. Having uncommitted sex? Use barrier protection. Simple as that. They're available for free, all over the world.

Would anyone advocate surgery on girls to lessen the chance of them acquiring a UTI (even though their tiny little urethras and proximity to diaper-poop-mash greatly increases the frequency of infections), or to make washing themselves easier? Of course not... though I challenge you to find a guy who really hates spending any time washing his genitals, circed or not.

Remove the silly "science" from the discussion and you're simply left with parental familiarity, tradition (going back only 2, 3, sometimes a whopping 4 generations!), an odd case of so-and-so-supposedly-needed-it-so-you're-getting-it-too, and the shady dark horse of religion.

I won't get too into whether people should have the right to exercise their own religion onto someone else's body. That seems like a no-brainer to me. Jews and Muslims feel they have to (though ignore other "you gottas" of their religions), and only Coptic Christians and some American Christians (mistakenly) practice circumcision as somehow related to their religion. To my knowledge, it's not a sacrament or part of any Christian church. The New Testament and various decrees did away with circumcision for Christians thousands of years ago. My guess is that Americans assume it's part of their flavor of Christianity because the Old Testament is a more entertaining read, few of them or their pastors get past reading Genesis, and since they themselves are circumcised and many around them are too, they assume it must be the right thing to do. News flash... it's not.

What's left? Parental familiarity. Funny thing, though... Nobody in their right mind leaves their sons intact until they're older, explains to them "your father was circumcised when he was a baby, as were some boyfriends, most of your uncles, one of your grandpas, and maybe one of your great grandpas or men before him, so we think your natural penis looks weird to us. To make ourselves comfortable, we're going to cut some of your penis off so that it looks better to us, plus we think your sex partners might not like you if your penis isn't what he or she is expecting to find in your pants." If people did that, we wouldn't be talking about this at all. The practice would drop from our culture very quickly.

Instead, people do it to their baby boys, when they're tiny, when they can't fight back, when it's cheaper, when it's quicker, when it's convenient for the doctor, when it's less embarrassing for the parents, when the boys have no memories of what it's like to be whole so they don't have the opportunity to say "Mom and dad, why did you do that to me? I liked it better before!"

My conclusion... I am only his guardian and custodian until he is of sound mind and body. His body, his choice. Other parents choose differently. I don't resent them for making whatever choices they made, or their justifications. Once it's done, it's done, and no amount of wishing can retroactively chang

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

Jewish women won't take anything that isn't 10% off.

Re:Lies

[Richard Dick Head]

Those positive reports tend to come from two groups:

Men who suffer from phimosis will have a much improved sex life. (Even though they don't realize that it would have been much better if they stretched the area out rather than amputated it).

Many of the adult men who get circumcisions and who are otherwise healthy and have no phimosis are bisexual or homosexual. Anal sex is much improved by the procedure.

Anyone else will seriously regret it.

Circumcision is Un-natural

[seol321]

Circumcision is unnatural thus can't be good.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Too late. Already done and replaced with implants. IIRC, her response was along the lines of "I'll have the perkiest boobs in the nursing home in 40 years!"

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Your reply is, "Ignore the broad effects, if they just do what we tell them, nothing will ever go wrong." Just like how the abstinence only in sex-ed people say, "ignore the broad effects, if they just do what we tell them, nothing will ever go wrong."

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

Steamer trunk in my case.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[TorrentFox]

Post-hoc rationalization.

A few points:

- I would rather have the penis I was born with, which would now include not a 'small ribbon' but an area of skin with the approximate surface area of an index card
- There are far less invasive treatments for penile cancer than the removal of the entire penis

But... becoming a girl because you have cancer and lose your penis? Are you for real? It's funny you mention that though, because there's a notable case where circumcision itself did destroy the penis of an infant, and in attempt to fix things they performed gender reassignment surgery (though doomed sexually for life), put the kid on hormones and raised him as a girl. Problem was, he never identified as a girl, and some decades after learning the truth about what happened to him, killed himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

But yep, the science behind the procedure is bulletproof. Except when it isn't.

And to your assertion of cognitive dissonance, I have not experienced this. To the contrary I have found that people will go to any length to convince themselves that they have not been harmed when it's very obvious they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Re:Lies

[HornWumpus]

I know, but we still have the videos.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Anonymous Psychopath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Read down to the female preference and response section. 79% to 89% prefer circumcised based on the research quoted.

So yes, they actually do.

I prefer big tits, but I don't advocate breast implants for infants. This is a horrific example of a double standard.

Re:Lies

[Stormwatch]

Christian men are more likely to be circumcised

Which is quite insane, when you take in account that Christianity is strongly OPPOSED to circumcision:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. -- Galatians 5

Re:Not remotely comparable

[Stormwatch]

They are also psychologically important - some women who get their breasts removed feel much less "woman". Circumcision is not even similar to that.

You don't know how absolutely wrong you are.

"Wash your hands" is so obsolete!

[Pastis]

Everybody knows that nails get dirty. So instead of educating my kids to wash their hands before they eat, I nail-circumcised their nails when they were born. That way, no more diseases. And you know, 10 years later, they feel OK with that. They never remember having nails. And they didn't get a disease at all. Proof!

Some naysayers mention that the kids on the other side of the fence did get some disease one day, even though they are nail nail-circumcised. That's because their parents let them play everywhere. They should practice playground-abstinence like my kids, and put on their preservahand gloves when they go to school.

Claro

[SlashDev]

Of course they're going to back circumcision, most US doctors are of Jewish faith.

Re:Claro

[fatphil]

Statistically they are highly represented in that field, but I wouldn't necessarily put the blame on them in this instance. It wasn't jews who brought circumcision to the US, it was christains and their anti-wanking policies who are to blame. Probably most famous was Seventh Day Adventist J.H. Kellogg's "Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects". Plain Facts for Old and Young.

Re:Lies

[Stormwatch]

Ask your wife why she wanted to go against the counsel of Saint Paul (see Galatians 5).

Re:Lies

[dryeo]

I thought the Chinese didn't circumcise.

Welcome to...

[giuseppemag]

...USrael!!! Seriously, circumcision? In EU the circumcision rates are amazingly low, and yet I do not see such huge problems. Circumcision is a religious practice, and as such has no room in scientific discussion. Much like Creationism in schools! Oh wait...

Re:Lies

[bjourne]

Undoing mod

Re:Lies

[biggles69]

I forgot to add that while male genital mutilation is currently irrevocable there is some hope for men who are not happy with what was done to them. The field of regenerative medicine is rapidly advancing and holds the key to regenerating a natural foreskin.

The video on this page isn't about foreskins but it gives a good idea of where this is going and how quickly. (requires flash)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec11/tissuescience_12-15.html

There is a non profit organisation raising money for research of foreskin regeneration.

http://www.foregen.org/

It has non profit status in the USA and donations are tax deductible.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Wild_dog!]

From Nicework there above who did some nice work in bringing some other info to this discussion:
------------------

There already have been two longer replies to the AAP's statement:

http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm [circumcision.org]
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-08-26A_Commentary.pdf [doctorsopp...cision.org]

Their most important points:

1. The AAP chose to overblow purported benefits by cherry-picking studies and advertising their results past their proportionality, misleading the public with doublespeak of "pro" while admitting circumcision still does not qualify as routine amputation.

2. The AAP omitted both contradicting studies and objections to those it used, such as to the three WHO HIV studies.

3. The AAP omitted any discussion of the foreskin's functionality and notice of possible complications after circumcision (incl. death, an estimated 117 boys in the US per year).

Re:Lies

[xenobyte]

I find it so ironic that when Arabs do it to little girls, they're evil monsters, but when Jews do it to little boys, it's considered perfectly acceptable.

Sick, sick people.

Actually, the arabs do it to boys as well, although usually later than infancy... Yes, they're all very sick people!

Re:Lies

[xenobyte]

No, it isn't obvious. Go ahead and highlight your anti-semitism for us.

Godwin's Law already?

Appendix has a role

[aepervius]

AFAIR it regenerate intestinal flora and paly a role against harmful bacteria. Just because sometimes it fails does not mean we should remove it *systematically*. By that call we should remove all teeth from everybody and replace by a metal or porcelane fake teeth , imagine all the cost spared ! No the bottom line is that when the illness is affecting so few people (they mention less than 1 kid out of 200) then you do not systematically practice an operation to the 200.


Circumcision started in the US only 200 years ago about as a way to stop masturbation in males. Since then out of cultural stutborness people have tried to FIND way to justify it. "it is my religious freedom to mutilate babies", "it may in some case spare a illness to a very low percentage of male". The bottom line is that mutilation of a kid which has no way to say NO. If you found out that putting vertical scare on the face of a baby spare him a 0.5% chance of getting ill later (99.5% chance of NOT getting ill anyway without scare) would you still scarify your baby for that 0.5% chance ? For fuck's sake I hope not.

They wanted to prevent masturbation

[aepervius]

There was a puritan movement back 200 years ago in the US, and the goal was to prevent masturbation in young boy by circumcising them. Laughable, hu ? Imagine the same movement to circumcise women to prevent them feeling pleasure and thus making more likely to stay fidel. Well it is on the similar stupid level that it started. Nowaday it is more a cultural reason: mother/father did it, so son/daugher do it. Although it tend to decline , in the last few years it was only at about a 50% rate maybe 55%.

Re:Lies

[pbjones]

thanks, saves me from posting that old joke.

Insurance scam

[Coeurderoy]

The "study" mostly uses datas relative to 3rd world countries with bad access to clean water, it even explicitely says that large part of the study do not apply to netherland, so unless your part of the US has water quality closer to sub saharan africa than to the netherlands the study loses a large part of it's value.

But obviously the issue is not if it serves any purpose but to make sure that the poorer of the poor slobs would "want" it do not risk to reconsider because of lack of insurance coverage.

I'm sure that the next step is a study that demonstrate that big books are a necessary psychological help for young sorority girls and therefore boob jobs should also be covered by the insurance.

Here's opposing oppinion

[petval]

Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital

IMHO it's bad, I wonder how the pain from it stores in the unconscious / subconscious mind and later affects the personality.

Re:Lies

[xenobyte]

I dislike religion not the religious.

I dislike both... Actually I hate religion and severely dislike those religious fanboys trying to way too hard to be oh-so-good, and that almost always involve a claim of being better than everyone else (the fans of other religions), a perceived threat from those 'heretics' that happen to believe in something else (they're under influence from Satan) and of course a need to exterminate that threat, usually in very bloody ways.

To conclude, I have to include this very relevant quote:

"Religion is like a penis. It's fine if you have one, its fine if you're proud of it. But please don't whip it out in public and wave it around, and please don't try to shove it down children's throats."
-- Lee --

Re:Lies

[spauldo]

IN short, I have studied this, and IO will destroy you with actual science and facts.

Wait, do you mean you've studied astronomy or Greek mythology?

And seem cultural AGAIN

[aepervius]

Study of US women habitued to see circumcised male find it more pelasant. news at eleven.
If you scroll down you find this gem : "Frisch et al. (2011) studied participants in a Danish national health survey, and found that male circumcision was associated "with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment"

That alone warrant making a step back and thinking a bit more.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm circumcised and I FUCKING HATE IT. It was done when I was aged two and I remember the pain after the operation. I have so little sensitivity that sex with a condom is a total waste of time for me. If anyone suggested that females have their clitoral hood removed and their clitoris exposed there would be an outrage. LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE and let them choose when they are 18.

why?

[SuperDre]

and why would a circumcized boy be more healthier? and how would it save $313 per person? the circumcision isn't free..

Re:Lies

[dasunt]

But it is a very different, much more drastic procedure. Not comparable.

There is a form of female circumcision that only removes the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood is similar to the foreskin in males, in that it protects the clitoral glans.

So at least one form of female circumcision is similar to male circumcision.

A note from one of the mutilated

[Heebie]

As someone who was mutilated by a surgeon when I was about a day or two old, who is now an adult, I can whole-heartedly say that I DO NOT approve of the procedure. I have problems with getting stimulated, staying stimulated, and reaching orgasm, due to the relatively small number of nerve-endings left to me on my penis. If I put a condom on for "safer-sex" purposes, that's the end of it. Not nearly enough stimulation gets through the condom for me to feel pretty much anything, so I am incapable of having "safer sex".. it's logistically impossible without something like Viagra. Perchance the companies that make Viagra, Cialias and Levitra are the ones behind this study that came to conclusions that contradict common sense? It is *NEVER* OK to mutilate a child. It is mutilation, plain and simple, and it interferes with the sex lives of those of us who have been mutilated for a lifetime.

Re:Lies

[Joce640k]

Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial

Yeah, an AIDS ridden country with very little indoor plumbing or condoms. That's a good place to compare yourself with.

Re:Lies

[Joce640k]

The "disease hazard" one: How the hell is it expecting to much, to pull back your foreskin and wash your dick once, every 1-2 days?? How is that a disease hazard and a justification in the first place?? And how, going by that logic, don't they also recommend removing your asshole, bowels, mouth and nose? Those are even more prone to be full of bad germs.

Funny how it's mostly women who are pushing circumcision and they don't seem to have any trouble keeping all their clefts, cavities and flaps clean.

A penis though? Obviously far too difficult to wash...

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[kyrio]

Your whole post about HIV/AIDS is pretty retarded. The #1 way to keep yourself from getting AIDS through sex is to not have sex with those infected with AIDS. It has nothing to do with hygiene, or your homophobia. The only thing that matters with AIDS through sex is not fucking someone with AIDS. Yes, a condom may help, but having a partner who isn't diseased, and making sure of that with current blood tests, is the only way to make sure you aren't getting AIDS - or any other STD.

On that note, male genital mutilation is repulsive. There's a reason that the Americans are the only ones in the world (outside of a few American loving countries) who have such a high rate of circumcision. Go to Europe and it's nearly non-existent. Also, any person who chooses to have his child mutilated is a piece of shit.

Peace out.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Joce640k]

a) The chances of your circumcision being botched leaving serious, permanent dysfunction are higher than the reduction in AIDS risk.

b) Your risk of AIDS is highly lifestyle dependent. The western world isn't Uganda, most people simply aren't at risk. Why can't people who chose risky lifestyles also choose to be circumcised, as adults? Why do we presume all babies are guilty...?

c) All the medical studies in favor of circumcision are written by people who make money from it. The only study you need is the observation that Europe isn't some aids infested den of rotting, cancerous dicks.

d) Masturbation with/without foreskin? Foreskin is best, no contest. Modern circumcision was actually started by the anti-masturbation movements in the 1900s to remove the pleasure from wanking (headed by Doctor Kellogg no less - the guy who invented cornflakes). Think about that before chopping.

Re:Lies

[Joce640k]

There's only one real study that produces impressive numbers and it was done in Uganda (watch it appear in this thread....)

I put it to you that the USA isn't Uganda.

If money is the only issue...

[Tatarize]

Why not remove infant girls breast buds? Seriously. You'd save thousands of dollars in breast cancer costs among other things. By this same logic you could well support removing a great many body parts. Imagine the savings if I could be rendered completely hairless?

Re:Lies

[Joce640k]

Circumcision become the norm in the US after it was found out that the rates of penile cancer among Jewish men were zero.

Nope.

a) Circumcision become the norm in the US because of anti-masturbation movements in the 1800s (led by Dr. Kellogg).
b) Correlation is not causation.

Re:Lies

[bmcage]

We should support plumbers instead. Let's give all households bidets instead, so boys can wash themself easily. And as a plus, it also benefits girls.

Re:Lies

[oji-sama]

So is there something wrong with the study that you (or anyone else) can identify, or is this just presumptive cynicism?

Well. I've only checked two sources yet, but I would definitely say yes. When they reference other articles the negative effects of circumcision are not presented at all the same way as in the conclusions of the actual articles. Even two of these cases would be a bit much in my opinion, and what is the probability that I just happened to check the only two that happen to change the conclusions of the article. (The first one is a blatant lie, the second one is perhaps more a sin by omission..).

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078759&cid=41158789
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3078759&cid=41159567

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[Joce640k]

So yes, they actually do.

When you ask people in McDonalds if they'd like to see healthier choices of food they all say "yes, of course!".

Do they buy it if you put it in the restaurant? No, they keep on with the Big Mac and fries (which is why they went to McDonalds in the first place).

Re:Lies

[Joce640k]

- Let's bring back Female Circumcision too.
Same reasons (healthier).

Even Dr Kellogg (the grandfather of American circumcision) didn't go that far.

He recommends regular application of carbolic acid to the clitoris.

Re:Lies

[Yaruar]

That's the problem when people don't read the EULA properly and just click next blindly when it gets changed.

Unecessary medical operations

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the the US 'health' system. The only 'health' cared about is the health of their bank balances.

Re:Lies

[Wild_dog!]

Your article choices are interesting. Not exactly science, but more like opinion of the science. It would perhaps be better if you listed the scientific articles you find so convincing and that lead you to feel you have correct information and actual insight into how healthy it is for people to remove a part of infants genitalia .

Re:Birds of a feather

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Fuck no. Vaccination and circumcision have absolutely nothing to do with each other. One is the only way to ensure herd immunity and is responsible for eradicating a large number of dangerous diseases. The other is mutilation of an innocent child who is unable to consent.

Any sane person is both pro-vaccination and anti-circumcision.

Re:Lies

[Savage-Rabbit]

The article is also very light on numbers. It mentions a reduction in STIs and whatnot, but provides absolutely no quantitative data. How much are these infections and disorders decreased by? Are we talking a couple percentage points? Or dozens of percentage points? Furthermore, I don't see any definitive causes described. What I see is a correlation with some hypothesizing as to the cause but nothing which has actually been verified by scientific inquiry.

From my POW this issue is rather simple. Evolution put foreskins on the human male for a reason. If foreskins were really an evolutionary handicap and men with foreskins suffer from health problems one would expect this feature to have evolved out of the human gene-pool a long time ago if only because proto-human females would presumably have selected for males with smaller foreskins hundreds of thousands of years ago in Africa way before the invention of loincloths. I don't give a damn about statistics, religious commandments or studies illustrating the 'hygienic benefits' of circumcision. Mutilating the genitals of children, both male and female, is wrong and let's face it that is all that circumcision really is, genital mutilation. If a child then then grows up to be an adult and decides it wants to go to a surgeon and have its genitals circumcised for cultural, religions, psychological or legitimate medical reasons such a decision is that persons own business.

Re:Growing shut

[cheekyjohnson]

Except that when they're a baby, there is no guarantee that it will happen. You don't chop off body parts (or parts of them) as a prevention measure; you do it when you need to. Well, that's the ideal situation to me, anyway.

Re:Lies

[dwywit]

Jeez - how many infants agreed to be born? I would think being pushed down a 10cm diameter birth canal, having your skull squashed into a conehead, or cut out of mummy's uterus and plunged into bright lights, cold air and loud noises is just as traumatic and no infant ever gave consent for that. /sarcasm
 
Parents have the right and responsibility to make decisions on behalf of their children. Lighten up, Francis.

Re:Lies

[lourd_baltimore]

My anecdote....

I was circumcised as an infant. My wife and I were born and raised in the US. 5 years ago we moved to the UK.
We had our first child a few years ago and we discussed the topic of circumcision. We did some research online and we came across similar data as presented in TFA. We didn't care about the aesthetics, but my wife did say that maybe we should circumcise due to the potential reduction of risk for UTIs, STDs, and other infections.
I thought for a second and then said that if we're relying on elective and unnecessary surgery to prevent our son from getting an STD, then we're doing it wrong.
We stopped considering the cut after that and now both of our boys are healthy and intact. We were also never pressured to go for the cut by any of the medical professionals here either.

My NHS blag....

Getting off-topic, but reading this parent post brought me back to all of the events surrounding the pregnancies, birth, and ante-natal care for our boys.
Throughout it all, the NHS has been OUTSTANDING.
Overall caring, professional, and knowledgeable staff from the GYN, midwives, EMTs, and ward staff.
The midwives, especially, deserve the bulk of the credit as they are the backbone of birth in the UK. I can't believe they aren't as prevalent in the US.
An OB/GYN seems like overkill for most pregnancies. Our second son was born at home in a birthing pool. This was done on advice from the NHS as this was a low-risk pregnancy.
The midwives showed up to our house and saw us all the way through.

Did I mention that we never had to worry about paying for any of this? I suppose I did make tea for the midwives; a fair bargain.
Now suppose there had been complications in the birth of either of our boys. Also taken care of by the NHS. My wife says she never wants to give birth again unless it's with the NHS (or other single-payer system). Mind you that we've never used the US system for birth so we have no basis for comparison. I'm a true NHS/single-payer convert. Sure it has some problems, but those problems are also present in the US system.
I'll take the higher taxes. I get good service when necessary, an increasing culture of evidence-based medicine (not just tradition/religious based), and not having to worry about being bankrupt.

I rue the day of going back to the US or having a future government dismantle the NHS.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Anonymous Coward]

The arggument does not hold up anywhere. The errors in the African studies were so glaring as to make it impossible to attribute them to incompetence. There was clear manipulation of results. The fact that the only studies showing an aids correlation are completely bogus is revealing.

Re:Lies

[cheekyjohnson]

How many bitch about it later in life?

Does it matter? Does the number of people who don't mind it matter in the least?

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[JosKarith]

"each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313"
NO. It costs the US health care system's customers $313. I think that $313 is a small price to pay for my child getting to grow up with unmutilated genitals.

Re:Lies

[aliquis]

Yeah. I follow the arguments of the GP with interest, especially what others say about the studies.

Though I could see how it may raise the risk of infection with a higher skin area or more places where things could "be held/get stuck."
(The opposite could also be true for whatever reason.)

But I doubt circumcision is something to recommend for STD prevention.

Regardless it's genital mutilation and that's how it is.

If someone really want to do it anyway at least let them decide that for themselves when grown up (and preferably smart enough to not be all that influenced by their social group.)

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is that the science behind the procedure is far from solid.

Hi, this is the rest of the "developed world" here

[Rogerborg]

Just so you know, we look at your obsession with slicing up little boys' penises, shake our heads sadly, and lump you in with equally "developed" nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

You do it because Abraham did it. Don't dress it up in science, you're just embarrassing us all with the pretence.

Re:I'm so confused

[mcvos]

I don't think anyone in the world is pro-abortion. It's just that there are situations where abortion has to be an option, because the alternative may be even worse for the people involved. Abortion is not something that should be treated lightly, and it certainly isn't fun for anyone.

Now tell me what real problems circumcision solves.

Re:Lies

[doshell]

I actually agree with you, but the sentence

Hell, how stupid do you have to be, to not see that obviously, there’s a reason we have the foreskin, since otherwise those without it would have long won natural selection.

is faulty logic. The only thing you can infer from the fact that the foreskin survived natural selection is that its presence does not become a disadvantage for human males. It may well be that the foreskin is simply useless(*). Evolution does not remove unneeded features, it just removes those that reduce the survival chance of an individual.

(*) N.B. I do not actually believe it is useless, but I don't think evolution is the right way to argue about it.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[mapkinase]

You mean, by urologists?

Every specialist in the field benefits from publications that advances that field. Circumcision is very light surgery, it's not a brain surgery. I doubt it contributes much to the income of urologists.

Nowadays there is an alarming trend of doing everything under general anesthesia, which of course makes it more expensive.

Re:Lies

[mapkinase]

You are an idiot.

it's child abuse, stupid

[caviare]

Genital modification/mutilation of infants is a serious human rights violation. This is so fucking obvious that if you don't get it already I doubt there is anything more anyone can say to convince you.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[fearofcarpet]

a) The chances of your circumcision being botched leaving serious, permanent dysfunction are higher than the reduction in AIDS risk.

b) Your risk of AIDS is highly lifestyle dependent. The western world isn't Uganda, most people simply aren't at risk. Why can't people who chose risky lifestyles also choose to be circumcised, as adults? Why do we presume all babies are guilty...?

c) All the medical studies in favor of circumcision are written by people who make money from it. The only study you need is the observation that Europe isn't some aids infested den of rotting, cancerous dicks.

d) Masturbation with/without foreskin? Foreskin is best, no contest. Modern circumcision was actually started by the anti-masturbation movements in the 1900s to remove the pleasure from wanking (headed by Doctor Kellogg no less - the guy who invented cornflakes). Think about that before chopping.

Thank you! The existence of Europe (and possibly South America and Asia--not sure what their policies are) alone trivializes TFA. But a country full of fat people arguing for mandatory circumcision to save a few bucks on health care (while ensuring an extra $500 or so in medical costs for 1/2 of all births) is like pushing your car to work to save on gas. If you want to save money on healthcare, put a $5 flat tax on all fast food items like many states have done with cigarettes. This circumcision nonsense is the male mirror of the HPV vaccine/cervical cancer debate from a few years ago. Shockingly, the manufacturer of the vaccine thought it was absolutely crucial to vaccinate all girls... because it (might) lower their chances of getting cervical cancer... and save money or whatever... think of the children!

Re:Lies

[lxs]

Having it done with consent when there is a medical problem seems like the proper way to go about this, instead of chopping it off on the off-chance that it could be beneficial.

Re:Lies

[Inda]

See my previous post.

Having had sex before and after circumcision, I can say the sensation during sex increased afterwards. Only slightly, mind you.

Going commando, as I do during the summer, sometimes leads to rubbing against the fabric and sometimes leads to an erection. Sometimes. Normal boxer shorts - never noticed a problem.

I was cut 20 years ago. Shagged the wife a few thousand times since then. I know what I'm talking about.

Is AMA doing _anything_ important?

[fygment]

Releasing a study reflecting its own cultural bias, from which it stands to profit handsomely, laced with insinuated fears lacking any kind of meaningful statistics. _This_ is the state of medicine. It's about the money.

Re:Lies

[verifine]

And it's not skin, it's mucosa. Stick your tongue into your cheek; that's mucosa. The head of your penis (and the inner foreskin) are mucosa - when circumcised as an infant, that single layer of cells toughens into about 17 layers. I got cut at age 21, my choice, not someone else's. Looking back, I was being foolish (the grass was SUPPOSED to be greener on the other side of that fence!) But it was my choice. Yes, there was hypersensitivity and a gradual loss of sensation in the head.

As a gay man, I've had intimate contact with both natural and cut cocks. I'll take the natural one ten times out of ten! I feel fortunate that my partner is intact.

I once met a young English man who was uncut. Love the story he told me - in the showers if you're seen to be cut they call you "three-skin" - not enough there for a foreskin.

other medical orgs recommend against male circumc

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really easy to find circumcised doctors who are against circumcision, but surprisingly difficult to find male doctors in favor who weren't circumcised themselves as children.

The AAP are way out of line with other national medical organizations, and it's very disappointing that they say this:
"Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision"

but they provide information that is both biased and highly selective. They simply don't seem to consider that the foreskin might actually be valuable.

How strange that all the health benefits the AAP claim don't seem to exist in Europe, where almost no-one circumcises unless they're Jewish or Muslim.

The AAP is the same organization that changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 btw saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later.

Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".

I suppose it's a good thing they didn't look at operating on girls to prevent breast cancer. 11% of women get breast cancer, and 3% die of it, so the health benefits to the girls would massively outweigh the risks.

Meanwhile, other national health organizations including the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Dutch Medical Association continue to recommend *against* circumcising newborns.

Re:Lies

[psmears]

That is the basis for societal morays,

What have eels got to do with it?

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[simplexion]

The less AIDS argument does not hold up. Full fucking stop.

Male Genital Mutilation

[jasontromm]

All over the world, there are campaigns against the practice of female genital mutilation, yet here in the United States we advocate for male genital mutilation and perform it regularly in our hospitals. We elected not to circumcise our son, if he thinks it will be better for his health then he can have it done when he's an adult. (Although somehow I doubt he will.)

There's an old joke about Moses where he says to God, "We're your chosen people and you want us to cut the tip off our what?"

Re:Male Genital Mutilation

[fatphil]

As rendered on one of my favourite recent (last 10 years) UK comedy shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMfEAp31HE

Re:Lies

[kiehlster]

God made no mistake in creating males with foreskin. Consider the Adam and Eve scenario. They lived in the nude until the time of the original sin and realization and shame of their naked state of living. Follow the logic a little and you'll realize the foreskin's original purpose was to keep the penis clean when one is living in the nude. That's quite a paradox considering the fact that the world today is bent on believing that the foreskin prevents the penis from staying clean. If the world were sinless, children would have been taught proper hygiene, but instead we have slothfulness, and general embarrassment over talking about our private parts, and so hygiene is not universally taught.

Some indeterminate amount of time down the road, God picks Abraham and his descendents as his chosen people and asks them to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant they made together. Circumcision was around before this covenant, so it's not a practice limited to Israel. Also at that time, illness was attributed to God's wrath, or spirits and demons, so hygiene wasn't considered when determining cause of death. So what happens? God comes along, and teaches his chosen people about good hygiene in terms they (and the rest of the world) would understand. It's like God was saying, "Be circumcised as a sign of my covenant (and so you don't catch the syphilis), and don't eat pork because it is unclean (because you're doing a terrible job of keeping your pigs clean), etc, etc."

No uniform FGM, nor originally due to hygiene

[niceworkthere]

Again, there are various forms of FGM (and MGM), including those less invasive (eg. the so called "Mild Sunnah") than circumcision and thus indeed comparable.

See this video with an attempted ranking.

About its purpose in Judaism, here's what Maimonides wrote:

"[W]ith regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [...] How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? [...] The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. [...] The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

The words of Kellogg, the man behind much of its popularization in the US:

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."

Whoosh

[Zinho]

Please recalibrate your sarcasmeter; stephanruby was engaging in deadpan satire, not frank honesty. I'll refer you to my preferred benchmark, Swift's A Modest Proposal .

Re:Whoosh

[stephanruby]

Swift's A Modest Proposal .

Yummy!

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

Roasted would be the way to go I think. That way, you wouldn't lose all the juice.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[X0563511]

most importantly, not having any same-sex intercourse

I smell a troll.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension.

"If they just wash like we tell them to, then everything will be OK" = "If they just don't have sex like we tell them to, then everything will be OK."

Neither one works when met with reality. Since you brought up teeth, I bet you are an anti-fluoride in drinking water nut too. "If they just brush their teeth when they are supposed to, you don't need fluoride in the drinking water!"

As to your reading comprehension, I recommend Khan Academy.

Re:Birds of a feather

[EverlastingPhelps]

If your response to your opponent is "anyone who doesn't believe exactly like I do is INSANE!" then you aren't likely to be using reason.

Re:Lies

[JosKarith]

Don't be silly - they mash it up and make face creams out of it.
Another of those situations where I wish I was joking...

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Nah, most anti-semites are either hard-leftists or Muslims now, not Nazis. The problem is Berkley, not Berlin.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[godefroi]

I've got three boys, all circumcised. None of them were done by a urologist (they were done by the pediatrician), and none of them were done under general anesthesia.

Nowdays, I guess the common method isn't really even considered surgery. They clamp some sort of device on there, and the foreskin falls off after some time. Never seen that method done, but I'm told that all the cool doctors are doing it that way now.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

Later in life it leads to abnormal masturbation, reduced sexual pleasure, and reduced pleasure of your female partner.

Which studies say are also untrue. I don't remember the exact figures, but way over half (65% iirc) of non-virgin adults who have had circumcisions because of medical problems report increased sexual pleasure. I haven't seen any studies about your other allegations, do you have citations?

I knew a man when I was in the USAF in Thailand who got jungle rot on, of all places, his dick. It required amputation of the foreskin. It took a month to heal, and he had to carry amyl nitrate "poppers" in case he got an erection. He later told me that it was painful as hell, sex was better after he healed than before surgery, and wished that his parents would have had him circumsized when he was an infant; an infant doesn't feel pain like an adult (a doctor once told me you can do surgery on an infant with just aspirin as an anestetic; this was before Rye's Syndrome was discovered), it heals in days instead of weeks, and babies seldom get erections.

And circumcision doesn't help the child at all until after puberty.

A Father against Circumutilation

[vinlander]

Circumcision have always been in look for a reason. It have always been heralded as the 'cure' for whatever was the big malady of the times. Since it's beginnings in the western world back in Victorian ages it was a means to prevent male masturbation. Then during the first and second wars it was the cure for venereal diseases. Now is the cure for AIDS, etc. And penile cancer is one of the most rare forms of cancer, and we don't perform mastectomies on baby girls which have a much higher cancer incidence, right? The fact is that it have never been the cure for anything and it have more complications and dangers than any of the claimed benefits. Whether circumcision is good or bad is not really the issue. The bottom line is that it's really NOT the parent's choice, they only have an OBLIGATION to keep and maintain the boys body integrity until the time he is old enough to make an informed decision whether circumcision is for him or not! When my two sons were born I made the decision not to inflict the pain an torture of circumcision. So I fought hard against relatives and the hospital staff to make sure those boys would leave the hospital with all their parts intact. There was never an issue, never an infection, no nothing. Just the way nature intended with a fully functional anatomy. And as they become adults, they can make THEIR OWN decision of what is best for them. What is a baby is born from parents who are into tattoos, piercings and other forms of body modifications. Does that also gives them the right to 'choose' to perform these modifications on their children? Circumcision is a form of body modification, it's cruel, barbaric, butchery, mutilation and a form of child abuse. What we need is a better medical system where money and big profits are not the deciding factor in medical decisions. For more information about the truth about circumcision and it's complications please visit http://www.intactamerica.org/

Re:Lies

[dave420]

So we should also perform double mastectomies on all women so we get rid of breast cancer?

Re:Lies

[OverlordQ]

> This study [oxfordjournals.org] seems to contradict that claim.

And there was a study that said vaccines gave you autism. Look where that got us.

Re:Lies

[kelemvor4]

The world doesn't work like that, and a measure that can help prevent disease with very few side effects can and should be used to help stop disease.

Wow, nice. So because people act foolishly, everyone (that doesn't approve of it) must suffer? Please. The people dealing with HIV are usually dealing with the consequences of their own actions, but if we remove all foreskins, we punish everyone for their actions. Furthermore, plenty of people without foreskins do have HIV. A small increase in the chance of getting HIV/penile cancer is not worth punishing everyone over.

I don't think I saw a mention of anyone being punished based on their circumcision. It sounded to me like a study was done and a recommendation was made that should result in insurance carriers paying for circumcisions if the parents want it done.

Re:Lies

[arth1]

Cut the hyperbole. I'm circumcised, and I don't feel like anyone has punished me over the matter.

You are what you are. You wouldn't have felt that anyone had punished you if they had cut off your little toes either. You don't know any different.

Just like a great many of female circumcision victims are perfectly fine with the way they are, because they can't remember any different. That's one of the main problems with getting the mutilation to stop - most of the women themselves don't see the problem, and subject their own daughters to it.

That doesn't make the mutilation right.

$313

[skyggen]

Is the exact cost of a doctor having to stand in a room and explain to you that one needs to pull the skin back and clean underneath it or it will bein to look like you have a STD. Which you don't just a dirty dick.

Re:Lies

[jmsp]

(...) female "circumcision" (which isn't even anywhere near male circumcision. It's a couple orders of magnitude worse).

Why? How can it possibly be worse? In both cases, the point is to take away and/or numb nerve endings that might bring that God-forbidden, devilish "sex pleasure" thing.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If you're depending on a condom, you have a 3% chance in any given sexual encounter of it breaking and you getting all the diseases of your sexual partner. Condoms simply don't work for protecting against AIDS.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

Evolution put foreskins on the human male for a reason.

Intelligent design? That's what it sounds like you're talking about. But tell me, what evolutionary advantage does an appendix confer? All it does is get infected and kill you. Yet we still have them.

An evolutionary handicap will stay around if it kills only a few of the total population, and especially if only after the organism has reproduced -- which in the case of a foreskin, the problems only occur after sex, especially after a LOT of sex with a lot of women.

I don't give a damn about statistics... or studies...

You sound like an evangelical.

If a child then then grows up to be an adult and decides it wants to go to a surgeon and have its genitals circumcised for cultural, religions, psychological or legitimate medical reasons such a decision is that persons own business.

Circumcision on an infant is painless and heals in a coulple of days. On an adult it's expensive, incredibly painful, and takes over a month to heal. I knew a guy who had to have his foreskin amputated a an adult, and believe me, you would NOT want it done as an adult.

The foreskin, like the appendix, has no biological purpose.

Re:Lies

[Cederic]

You obviously have a problem with mutilating children.

There are no health benefits to boys from cutting off that part of their body. When they reach adulthood, they can choose to
- have surgery
- wash properly
- risk infection

What's the problem with that?

STOP MUTILATING CHILDREN you fucking sociopath.

Statistics

[Roger W Moore]

The recommendations are retarded. 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 3 in 1,000,000 chance of cancer.

Sorry but without statistical and systematic errors those numbers are meaningless and, for all the information presented, could be the same within errors. Even if those were included the incredible rarity and complexity of accounting for all non-circumcision related effects probably mean that there is no meaningful way to determine whether there is a significant difference. For example the US has a far higher circumcision rate than Europe but a lower rate of penile cancer there might be due to any one of a number of as-yet-uninvestigated causes given the differences in lifestyle and diet.

This is part of the problem: the science so far is contradictory and inconclusive. The fact that different medical associations come up with opinions in line with their cultural beliefs is clear evidence of this. However, in general if there is no clear, obvious evidence of a medical benefit to a procedure you would not have it done. If this procedure was not being pushed by two major world religions and the culture of a large first world country there would be no controversy and nobody would be arguing that it should be carried out.

Re:Statistics

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

The recommendations are retarded. 1 in 1,000,000 vs. 3 in 1,000,000 chance of cancer.

Sorry but without statistical and systematic errors those numbers are meaningless and, for all the information presented, could be the same within errors. Even if those were included the incredible rarity and complexity of accounting for all non-circumcision related effects probably mean that there is no meaningful way to determine whether there is a significant difference. For example the US has a far higher circumcision rate than Europe but a lower rate of penile cancer there might be due to any one of a number of as-yet-uninvestigated causes given the differences in lifestyle and diet.

Roger has basically covered all angles and I am not about to reinvent the wheel; but I wanted to state something regardless of it being controversial. Keep yourself clean. This applies to Men and Women. I have my foreskin and doing military training in the Amazon basin plus Belize, My foreskin kept infections out I also saw many people circumcised who were more prone to having a "Tick".

I am not saying I am 100% correct apart from keep yourself clean.

Re:Not remotely comparable

[cpu6502]

>>> The breasts perform a major bodily function (feeding babies). They are also psychologically important - some women who get their breasts removed feel much less "woman". Male circumcision is not even similar to that.

What a dipshit, man-hating reply. The foreskin also performs a major bodily function by protecting the head, protecting the sperm as they enter the body, and helping stimulate the woman's orgasm so she can "collect" the sperm into her womb. The foreskin has also been shown to be effective at scooping-out foreign sperm if the woman has been cheating (history shows that 1/3rd of female stray to other partners).

If the foreskin didn't matter either god or evolution would not have put it there. It would have disappeared. And yes the foreskin is psychologically important since it provides better feelings during pair-bonding with the man's mate.

Re:Lies

[Cederic]

Please be aware of the strong deficiencies in the Ugandan trial referenced here:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

At this moment in time there appears to be no compelling argument for broad scale circumcision across the population.

There's no argument at all for circumcision of children. Please stop mutilating children. Just stop.

Adult men can make their own decision whether to cut their cock off.

lubrication

[markian]

The foreskin is pretty damn useful. It helps the penis slide in and out. It's mechanical (as opposed to chemical) lubrication. If you remove it, you put most of the lubrication burden on the female. While I can understand why Johnson & Johnson thinks this is a great idea, nobody else should! Do you not think it's a big deal if it hurts the girl a bit sometimes? Hey, here's a great idea, let's remove boys' foreskins to make sex a little less fun for the girls!

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

If urinary tract infections were the only danger I would agree with you. However, it also lessens the risk of Aids and Hepatitis B and C, as well as other STDs. And if you visit the tropics, jungle rot. I knew a guy who had jungle rot onhis foreskin, and I have to say I'm damned glad I was circumsized after seeing how much pain he went through.

He was lucky he was in the military, it would be thousands of dollars out of his pocket had he been a civilian. Also, do you have any idea what the drugs an HIV patient has to take for the rest of their lives (not to mention the frequent doctor visits) cost?

Your numbers are meaningless when you leave out all the biggest numbers and focus on the very least cost.

Re:Lies

[pnutjam]

I'm circumcised, but I wish they would have waited until I was an adult.

probably could have made a nice jacket out my giant foreskin...

Re:Lies

[FreekyGeek]

Even when the decisions are medically unnecessary?

What if I thought it would be wise to have my child's earlobes amputated? By your logic, that woule be fine. Just useless skin, right? So you think the parents should be able to have them amputated from their child?

What more proof do we need that

[ToddInSF]

the American medical establishment is corrupt, incompetent, dogmatic, and does not have our best interests or long term health in mind ?

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[RockDoctor]

It might be worthwhile getting a better job.

If you can.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

First, unless I'm mistaken, female "circumsicion" is an African practice, not an Arabian one. Secondly, it is not the same at all. Female "circumsicion" is not circumcision at all, it's removal of the clitoris. Males do not have a clitoris, females do not have a foreskin, and they do not serve the same purpose. The foreskin's only use is to protect the head of the penis, and its necessity was negated hundreds of thusands of years ago when we started wearing clothing.

The foreskin has no more purpose than an appendix, and having it there is just as dangerous and useless. OTOH, the clitoris does in fact have a useful purpose and its being there is not hazardous and its removal is indeed mutilation.

Re:Lies

[mosb1000]

Most of the "christian religion" is devoted to finding ways to ignore what's written in the Bible.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

Yes (even if you did use the NIV version), but Paul wasn't saying "circumcised men go to hell". What he was saying was, and I quote (5:6) "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

At the time, Jews were circumsized and Gentiles were not. Having to be circumcised was part of the old Jewish religion. Paul was saying to the Gentile converts to Christianity "no, you don't have to be circumcised, you only have to repent and believe in Jesus."

Paul wasn't saying circumcision was a sin, he was saying that if you think you need to be corcumcised to go to heaven then you also have to follow all the other Jewish laws as well.

A Christian being circumsized for religious reasons is a fool. A Christian (or anyone else) being circumsized for health reasons is wise.

Re:Lies

[MarkTina]

Does Saint Paul have a doctors degree ?

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

Oh, for fuck's sake!

Females have the exact-same problems with their pussy as males.

Bullshit. Does your penis bleed monthly? Do you get yeast infections? Toxic shock from sticking a tampon in your penis? No, you don't. A penis is nothing like a vagina (in case you've never seen a vagina).

Oh and let's not forget breasts. 5% of women will develop breast cancer..... that's a much higher rate than the 0.01% of men that develop penal cancer. So let's cure that problem that same way we lop off penis tips. That's right. Lop off the breast buds for female infants, so they never need fear getting breast cancer.

That's so insanely inaccurate I suspect you're going for "+1 funny". removing a niple will not prevent breast cancer, but it will prevent her from breast feeding, the lack of which causes health problems for the infant. And circumcision doesn't prevent penile cancer, it prevents bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. I knew a guy in the USAF who had a fungal infection in is foreskin and I sure was glad I had been circumcised, and he wished he'd been circumcised as an infant. The poor guy went through hell. If I'd had a boy rather than two girls, you can bet your ass he'd be circumcised, considering what I'd seen.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[TheMiddleRoad]

Our moyles, a husband and wife team of urologists, did it with lidocaine ointment. We donated to their temple as payment.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

On the other hand, studies have found that male circumcision is totally ineffective at preventing HIV infection amongst men's female partners, but the scientific community has ignored this and chosen to proceed with it as a method of preventing HIV infection amongst women anyway

Of course my circumcision isn't going to prevent any women I have sex with from getting HIV from a different partner. But if my circumcision prevents me from contracting HIV, then I'm not going to be goving HIV to my partner.

Re:Lies

[psiclops]

How many bitch about it later in life?

I'm sure if they had full memory of the traumatic experience of having their genitals mutilated they'd probably bitch about it a lot more.

People don't complain about what happened in their infancy because memory only goes back so far. That doesn't mean you can just do what you like to babies.

Re:Birds of a feather

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I wouldn't normally use that particular brand of argumentation, but in this particular case, anyone who doesn't believe in vaccination or is a proponent of circumcision is actually insane.

There is absolutely no sound reasoning for their arguments, they're all based on hear-say and old superstitions.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

The foreskin is neither a limb nor essential

To disfigure by damaging irreparably

Removal of something completely unnecessary is not damage. Is removing the tool bars on a new Windows machine "damage"?

To make imperfect by excising or altering parts

It's "making imperfect" like a nose job making a huge honker smaller "imperfect" or a boob job on a flat chested woman is making her breasts "imperfect"..

I'm a Muslim and was circumcised as a baby

[oamasood]

...and am glad it was done then. While in some Muslim societies men get circumcised later on in life, I'm glad it was done when I could have no recollection of it.

Also, female circumcision (FGM), the way it is practiced today in some middle-eastern societies (by both Muslims and non-Muslims) existed long before Islam and is completely forbidden in Islam. Islam actually encourages sexual pleasure for men and women in marriage. Many Islamic scholars worldwide have condemned FGM; however, their voices are not heard by the mainstream news media.

Actually, most people blindly accept whatever they hear about Islam from the media, without taking into account the veracity of their source of information. In fact verifying the source of one's information as scientifically as possible is the basis for the science of hadith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_studies

fuck the health benefits

[Khashishi]

If the boy grows up wishing he was never circumcised, then the wrong decision was made. Simple as that. And no, it's not the same as vaccination.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Khashishi]

I don't think anesthetic is typically used in infant circumcision. Infants can't talk, but their screaming indicates it probably hurts a lot. And the terror is probably worse than the pain.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Whorhay]

Good point, but remember that this is for a largely cosmetic procedure performed normally on infants who are not capable of consenting to the risks. And how does this decision compare to the outlawing of drop side cribs which killed a dozen or so kids over the course of a decade?

Sketchy website calls bs.

[mutherhacker]

According to this slightly sketchy source the existence of foreskin is better for a multitude of reasons.

Re:Lies

[psiclops]

I wasn't actually talking about circumcision but okay.

1. I could live without arms too. Foreskin is essential to those that wish to maintain full sensitivity in their knob.

2. No because you can always add them back. If you were to permanently remove the ability from the hardware I would consider that damage.

3. Perfection is relative. But I would say fake tits are imperfect

Re:Meh

[HornWumpus]

I'd laugh in the face of the fool who told me that lie.

Re:I'm so confused

[HornWumpus]

Now that it's out of her body, there is no reason for abortion

You don't know any teenagers do you? I think abortion should be legal until the 75th trimester. Ether parent makes a call to the school counselor and the kid just doesn't come home. Ends child support too.

Re:Birds of a feather

[SecurityGuy]

Because you're guessing baselessly, probably.

I'm opposed to circumcision. Very much in favor of vaccination. But yes, I think the wisdom teeth thing is sometimes a crock. I had a dentist tell me 20 years ago mine needed to come out. They weren't causing any problems, they just never grew in and one of them is sideways, but under the gums where you'd never know it but for an X-ray. I said I'd get them out if they ever actually cause me a problem. If not, someday I'll leave a skeleton with funny looking teeth. I've had zero problems, but I understand having them out is expensive and really painful. Thanks...but no.

Re:Cheap investment

[HornWumpus]

Except all the studies that link circs with protection from HIV are proven bullshit.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[HornWumpus]

Same here. But I'm skeptical that they thought my ego needed stroking. Women think our egos are super fragile (like theirs but different).

For the record ladies (like any will read this) You boost my ego when you agree and when you squeal and moan (but not when you fake, you aren't that good at acting). You don't need to tell me I'm huge etc, just tell me what you like.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[HornWumpus]

How far it's pulled back varies. Mine will cover about half the head with wood. It only hangs behind the glans once she's good and soaking wet (BTW my church 'Our Lady of Copious Lubricants', love those gushers). Slows me down until she's got or getting her nut. Allows a couple of inches of very low friction mechanical slip.

Re:Lies

[loshwomp]

If urinary tract infections were the only danger I would agree with you.

And how many of those other scary dangers you cite are of significance for small children under the age of consent?

Re:Lies

[Tyler Durden]

The foreskin has no more purpose than an appendix, and having it there is just as dangerous and useless.

False. Also, it turns out the appendix does currently serve a purpose after all. You ever think of doing some research before making baseless claims?

Re:Cheap investment

[cheekyjohnson]

A lot of people who get lung cancer later wish that they hadn't smoked, even if they don't have direct evidence that *their specific case of lung cancer* is directly related to smoking

Actually, you (or whatever posted that) said that you'd be angry at your parents if you contracted one of those things and found out they didn't get you a circumcision. I was simply curious to know how you'd know it was because you weren't circumcised. The studies often cited have been questioned time and time again, and plenty of circumcised people do get HIV and such.

Re:Lies

[Stormwatch]

No, but GP mentioned that his wife's reason to support circumcision was religious... when she is in fact going AGAINST her own faith by doing so.

Re:Lies

[dwywit]

You have the right and responsibility to make those sorts of decisions on behalf of your children, but not on behalf of anyone else's children. It's medically unnecessary for a 10-year-old to have her ears pierced, yet it's a common practice. There's a sliding scale here (i.e. some doctors say yes, and some say no to male circumcision), and healthy debate about it will help parents make those decisions. There's lots of procedures that are medically unnecessary, even potentially unhealthy, yet they're common. You don't like infant male circumcision, we get it - so make your choice, and leave others to do the same.
 
BTW, your example about amputating earlobes is fallacious, and only weakens your argument.

It's three things

[ebvwfbw]

1) Child abuse
2) Genital mutilation
3) Child molestation.

Any doctor performing this in a hospital absent of a protected religious right should be put in jail, labelled a sex offender and charged with 1-3 above. There is no proof it actually does any good any more than cutting the same amount of skin off of a girl - which can be done by the way. It's about 15 square inches of highly sensitive erotic skin. We wonder why we have homosexuals. They aren't being stimulated enough in my humble opinion. Do this to a girl and it's lambasted as a cardinal sin to which you should be executed. It's like saying because girls can't keep clean we should do this. What sexist hogwash. Most males in the world are not circumsized and they do just fine thank you.

BTW, if this has been done to you and you are not 21 yet, get a lawyer and sue the crap out of the doctor and hospital. Lawsuits will make it stop. It's way to late for me. I was sold this BS when my Son was born. That was in the 1980s before stuff was available on the Internet, though I did have internet access back then. So I had him done and I'm beside myself because of it. Don't you do it too!

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[mjhacker]

Ego stroking is always a possibility, but I can safely say it's doubtful in my instance... I tend to have a lot of frank and open dialogue with my partners about sex. But if you think about it, the gliding mechanism that the foreskin provides means you can hit all the nice areas inside a woman without it creating uncomfortable friction, so it would make sense that it would feel better. I dunno, just my guess.

Re:Lies

[psiclops]

bah replied to myself instead of you

Re:Lies

[Richard Dick Head]

Really, when the chances are my son will be a straight, middle class white guy who maybe has sex with 3 or 4 women in his life, just like his dad?

All you need to do is go to a local bar to see how well circumcision works for a society...always loads of 40-50 something women with rings on, and totally DTF.

We're a cougar society, all the old guys have broken dicks. Severed/damaged veins become varicose and stop working over time, no matter where they are in the body...

Re:Lies

[fatphil]

"Big Circumcision" may be a joke, but of course many biotech companies do want the skin from circumcisions to research and experiment on, and sometimes to culture. And biotech does have quite a powerful lobby, so the joke might not be as off-the-wall as it was initially intended.

Re:Lies

[geirlk]

I guess you're talking about US women. Yes, I've heard about that tendency. It's amazing what lack of education can lead to.

This is not a problem for European women. But I guess vanity is more important than infant health.

Re:Lies

[mcgrew]

I wish they would have waited until I was an adult

If you knew the hell an adult circumcision was you wouldn't wish that. In an infant it's painless and heals in a day or two. But I had a buddy in the Air Force who got a fungal infection on his foreskin (Jungle rot, Thailand at the end of the Vietnam war). It took six weeks to heal and he had to carry amyl nitrate poppers in case he had an erection, which would have torn the stitches. An infant needs no stitches.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises

[heefeneet]

US women greatly prefer circumcised penises over non circumcised penises. That's reason enough for me!

Thats because they cant resist anything with 10% off.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[FreekyGeek]

"Because it's part of our ancient supertition" was never a good excuse for genital mutilation, either.

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

And there was a study that said vaccines gave you autism. Look where that got us.

That study was based on fraudulent claims and was completely destroyed by other scientists. The study I linked to seems to hold up, unlike the "circumcision prevents AIDS" studies in Africa that had huge weaknesses that rendered them useless.

By the way, you can mention that bogus vaccine study in response to anything if you want to be in denial about science. The problem is, it doesn't apply here. And it wouldn't apply if, for example, a creationist mentioned it to undermine Evolution.

Re:Lies

[FreekyGeek]

BTW, your example about amputating earlobes is fallacious, and only weakens your argument.

Perhpas if you cared to mention in what way you imagine it's fallacious, your objection would hold more weight. Just saying "it's fallacious" doesn't mean anything.

Saying "if you don't like it, don't do it" is the fallacious argument. So I'm supposed to ignore peopel who are randomly and unncessarily mutil;ating helpless infants? "Oh, well, not my kid, I'll just let them perform whatever ritual abonimatin they want to...". So because the person is under 18 they don't have the right to rermain unmutilated?

Idiocracy

[Xyanthiae]

I am not sure why any of this actually matters. If a male has good hygiene habits there shouldn't be any issues.

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

So the most powerful evidence in favor of circumcision is that male babies that have sex with women are less likely to be infected with HIV?

WTF?

Babies are not supposed to have sex! And when that baby grows old enough to have sex, he should have been taught safe sex in the first place. So when he's old enough, he can choose to be circumcised if that's what he wishes.

But babies are not supposed to have sex! How the hell is the rate of HIV infections during sex relevant to a baby?!

Lastly, those trials in Africal they are referring to... Aren't those the ones where the circumcised men were taught about condoms, while the other group wasn't given any info at all? And that was just one of the many major problems with these trials.

Never mind the fact that you can't automatically transfer trial results from Africa to Western countries.

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

Getting it done as a baby is horrible. Do you really think it hurts any less for that little baby?

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

men with adult circumcisions report that sex is BETTER afterwards

Nope.

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

Contradicted in the study reported in this thread. RTFS.

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

Yeah... Amy Tuteur was booted from the site after writing that tragic piece of trash.

Re:Lies

[RespekMyAthorati]

Didn't you mean Muslim and Jewish? Christians outside of the U.S. are rarely circumsized.

Re:Lies

[dwywit]

Okey doke. You gave a "by your logic" example of amputating earlobes. I can't imagine too many people would be OK with a non-medical amputation of an earlobe (i.e. removal of a skin cancer would be OK). Fair enough. But it's just as "medically unnecessary" to punch holes in those earlobes for the placement of pretty jewels - stretching the logic in that direction would also mean that ear piercings are mutilation. Your example is one extreme (very few would approve of amputation), and my example is the other extreme (very few would disapprove of piercing that same earlobe). I say that there are a range of personal and cultural opinions regarding infant male circumcision, and a range of medical opinions. It's not universally approved or disapproved. Trying to stretch the logic of the argument to extremes (either your example or mine) doesn't make one's position more credible - rather the opposite.
 
THAT'S why it's fallacious. BTW, as you feel so passionate about it, please tell us what concrete efforts you've made to have the procedure declared illegal. That would strengthen your argument.

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[FreekyGeek]

It has nothing to do with "hatred of Jews". It has to do with hatred for ignorance, superstition, and mutilation. I disagree with anyone guilty of those things, no matter what religion. Nice try at the automatic "anti-semite" smear, though. Of course anyone who disagrees with what Jews do must automatically be a Jew-hater. How's that eternal persecution complex doing?

For thousands of years your ancestors were ignorant, superstitious savages. Nice job keeping up their ignorant, superstitious, savage traditions. And, yes, there are plenty of other, NON-Jewish people I feel the same way about. Lots of non-jews also maintain ignorant, superstitious, and savage traditions. So don't get your panties in a bunch: you just aren't that special.

Re:Hmm

[cheekyjohnson]

I believe the woman (the owner of the body) should be able to remove unwanted things from her body. This has nothing to do with abortion; in once instance, the baby is already born (and therefore abortion is not necessary), and in the other, the baby is still in the woman's body and therefore subject to whatever she wants to do with it. If the baby is independent, then it will probably eventually grow up to be an adult that's part of human society (and as I said, it's no longer in the woman's body, so abortion is no longer relevant) and therefore I believe its body is its own.

Abortion is irrelevant to circumcision.

Re:Lies

[TranquilVoid]

The 1950's stat is surprising high to my ears, but might this not prove the point? Increased promiscuity means less need to visit prostitutes, and less religion has lead to increased promiscuity. Of course it all depends how you define promiscuity. It may include prostitution, but it is certainly not equivalent to it as you may be implying.

Re:Lies

[omnichad]

You left out my favorite part:

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Bad Science Brigade out in force for this post

[DavidHumus]

When I saw the large number of the usual bogus arguments - http://www.circinfo.net/anti_circumcision_lobby_groups.html - being trotted out for this post, I wondered if I had accidentally stumbled on one about anthropogenic global warming.

Personally, I think even a small reduction of the risk of HIV or penis cancer is worth a minor surgery I can't even recall.

Re:Lies

[hkmwbz]

Contradicted, as in specifically addressed, or just contradicted with flawed research similar to the "research" from Africa that turned out to be completely bogus? Could you point to the page number in the PDF?

Re:Lies

[EverlastingPhelps]

So it's bogus because it's from Africa? How does that make sense? The only ones I've seen calling it bogus are the rabid deniers, with no other evidence than "well I have a foreskin and I think it's great." Here's the footnotes from the section:

127. Krieger JN, Mehta SD, Bailey RC, et al. Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in Kisumu, Kenya. J Sex Med. 2008;5(11):2610–2622

128. Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effect of circumcision on penile neurologic sensation. Urology. 2005;65(4):773–777

129. Waldinger MD, Quinn P, Dilleen M, Mundayat R, Schweitzer DH, Boolell M. A multinational population survey of intravaginal ejaculation latency time. J Sex Med. 2005;2(4):492–497

130. Senol MG, Sen B, Karademir K, Sen H, Saraçoglu M. The effect of male circumcision on pudendal evoked potentials and sexual satisfaction. Acta Neurol Belg. 2008;108(3):90–93

131. Senkul T, Is erI C, sen B, KarademIr K,Saraçoglu F, Erden D. Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function. Urology. 2004;63(1):155–158

132. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007;99(4):864–869

133. Kim D, Pang MG. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int. 2007;99(3):619–622

codswallop

[DABANSHEE]

what a load a crap

Tell you a secret, if a woman's dry it means she's not aroused (well except those with medical issues)

Re:I'm so confused

[supersloshy]

Oh trust me, I know lots of people who think abortion should be allowed in many, many circumstances. People use it as a form of birth control all the time, as evidenced by the rather high (and grotesque IMO) rates of abortion relative to the number of cases where those people would consider it a "legitimate option". Also, circumcision isn't meant to solve a problem I think. All I know is that it's a long-standing religious practice and that it has little-to-no difference in the child's life anyway. As long as we have freedom of religion we have to allow this practice, especially since it's not very harmful at all.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

Wait, abortion without killing the fetus? Please explain. I'm curious as to what you mean.

Right now, killing the fetus is required. However, if a way to remove the fetus without killing it was somehow developed, I'd have no problem with it. That's all I meant.

And whether or not this is child abuse is really a matter of opinion.

That's not what I meant. He argued that pro-choice people should have no problems with this since abortion kills babies, but in that case, he may as well argue that pro-choice people should have no problems with anything done to a child.

Re:I'm so confused

[cheekyjohnson]

As long as we have freedom of religion

"Freedom of religion" doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to other people. You can believe whatever you want, but just because you deem something to be "not very harmful," that doesn't mean you should be able to do it to other people. Punching someone in the face probably doesn't have long-lasting consequences in most cases, but that doesn't mean you should be able to do it to others (even if your religion commands it in some cases). I would label forcing a child to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure thing brings negligible benefits as harmful. You want to be circumcised? Go get circumcised, but don't force your kids to do it.

Why?

[hilltaker7]

Why are we bothering to discuss this? As soon as our healthcare system is fully in government hands this will be a budget decision, not ours. That's right around a half billion dollar savings (roughly 1.5E6 males in the US * $313). You need to stop whining and except what ever benevolent choice our government makes for you and your children. They are way smarter than us and only have our best interests at heart, right??? I never, ever, thought before the current administration that the farcical sci-fi action flick Demolition Man could ever become reality. Now I have my doubts. "I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". " - Edgar Friendly in Demolition Man

Re:Lies

[Stormwatch]

Which implies that circumcision is partial emasculation. Which is correct.

For crying out loud

[fish_sauce]

I call this bullshit, most likely biased "researchers" that are religious and want to force their religion on others.
Fore-skin is there for a reason (for protection of the glans while no erection)

Males have always been bad at cleaning themselves, especially there, so there is no surprise they get infections because of uncleanliness.
Females will get the same issue if not cleaned good.

Funny though, you can use the existence of foreskin to determine the intelligence of the person and their parents. If it is there than they are more intelligent than others.
So since this is very popular in america, it proves americans really are that stupid and naive.

If i would write a paper saying that castration increases your health i bet, unfortunately after they have had children, that they would do it.
Bloody morons. Dumb enough to do this but just smart enough to manage to survive and make offspring. That really irks me greatly.
Why can't the morons and religious hypocrites die off already !

Re:Circumcision or healthy lifestyle, which's bett

[Keen Anthony]

As I recall, the "less AIDS" argument was the result of numbers taken from a survey done in Africa which was highly problematic for several reasons including that circumcised group were given increased behavioral monitoring and education on STDs whilst the uncircumcised group were more or less encouraged to maintain their sexual behavior.

Re:Lies

[gay358]

You are wrong. Only some forms of FGM have removal of clitoris.