Circumcision

[Morrigan]

You make a good point. My parents had my ears pierced when I wasn't old enough to make the decision (still pierced, too!)

Some parents take their children to tanning salons. Other parents dye their childrens hair to match their own.

None of those alterations are permanent.

Some parents still spank. Heck, some parents still used whipping rods and birch branches.

What does corporal punishment have to do with the permanent body alterations of children?

Circumcised men also last longer - probably from the alleged reduced sensitivity - thereby providing more pleasure to their partners, from some studies, IIRC.

First, you say the foreskin has no use, yet now, you "sort of" admit it DOES reduce sensitivity. Can't have it both ways, dear.
Second, I recall that studies posted in the older thread showed that women generally preferred uncut men because the sensation was more pleasurable with a foreskin (I'm sure Ivor or someone else has it bookmarked). You could at least try to hide your bias/selective reading...

I know in my case, when having sex with a woman who has had previous uncircumcised partners, she found this to be true - that, on average, I was lasting 3 to 4 times longer than her prior uncut partners.

An anecdote is not the singular of "data".

 

[Z]

And did the entire tub of ice cream not make you ill? Or made others uncomfortable watching you?

Moderation in all things [[including moderation]].

 

[Z]

None of those alterations are permanent.

Neither, apparently, is circumcision... What a strange world we live in.

First, you say the foreskin has no use, yet now, you "sort of" admit it DOES reduce sensitivity. Can't have it both ways, dear.

Which is why I said 'alleged' increase.

Second, I recall that studies posted in the older thread showed that women generally preferred uncut men because the sensation was more pleasurable with a foreskin (I'm sure Ivor or someone else has it bookmarked). You could at least try to hide your bias/selective reading...

I said it was my recollection only, and that I'd like to see current research.

You could at least try to control your immature hostility, and read what was actually written.

An anecdote is not the singular of "data".

Nor did I claim that it was.

But, as usual, the anti-circ crowd immediately jumps to over-emotional attacks, ad-homs, and other fallacies, rather than simply discussing the issue reasonably.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Yes, this pattern is fairly consistent in this and other threads. The perceived risk seems to depend heavily upon personal experience. Those who have had problems or know men/boys with problems due to their foreskin place a greater emphasis on the benefit of circumcision, and those without these experiences tend to dismiss them. It's one of the hardest biases to overcome, I think.

I think it has more to do with parents thinking what happened to dad is normal, thus any reason will do when it is pointed out that it is actually bizarre behaviour.

It is disingenuous to portray people who oppose infant/child circumcision at the discretion of the parents as 'anti-circumcision', as if we have some irrational desire to stop all infant circumcisions, no matter what the cost to the infant.

That observation isn't really born out by research that finds that the sensitivity under conditions of arousal is no different. And from a common sense point of view, circumcised men get erections and have orgasms, which is consistent with the idea that sexual pleasure depends upon sufficient sensitivity rather than an absolute amount. If most men have more than enough, then arguing about the degree to which there is excess baseline sensitivity is somewhat redundant, as it doesn't contribute to the experience.

Linda

Penis envy, Linda?

 

[Southwind17]

And did the entire tub of ice cream not make you ill? Or made others uncomfortable watching you?

Actually, it did not. I'd go through the entire experience again tonight, if I could! Others? I wouldn't risk sharing that experience with ANYBODY!

Moderation in all things [[including moderation]].

... and predisposition to child abuse under the guise of tradition or spurious medical grounds?

 

[Z]

Actually, it did not. I'd go through the entire experience again tonight, if I could! Others? I wouldn't risk sharing that experience with ANYBODY!

Gluttony is hardly an attractive trait. But I understand now why you'd find it to be one.

... and predisposition to child abuse under the guise of tradition or spurious medical grounds?

You can cry all you want, but in our society, choosing elective bodily modification that is considered harmless is hardly child abuse... not from a legal stand point, nor from a common social one. IF the law changes, you then have every right to name-call; but until then, your opinion is merely empty ad-hom.

 

[Lonewulf]

I guess I would come into this discussion with some knowledge of this. I got my foreskin removed as a child, at like, 10 or so years old. I still somewhat remember it. It was painful, and took me a while to recover.

My parents had it removed thanks to an infection I had, I think. My parents didn't originally cut the foreskin when I was just born because they were afraid I might have hemophilia, thanks to my mom being descended from Polish nobility.

You can cry all you want, but in our society, choosing elective bodily modification that is considered harmless is hardly child abuse... not from a legal stand point, nor from a common social one. IF the law changes, you then have every right to name-call; but until then, your opinion is merely empty ad-hom.

If I was forced to have my foreskin removed as a child for no reason at all, yes, I would consider that child abuse. You may not agree with my definition, but I don't care if I agree with the "common" viewpoint or not. I disagree with the "common" viewpoint all the time. I don't have to have a lot of people agree with me to feel I'm right.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In all honesty, I think that is merely a matter of conciliation on the part of the AAP. If you are determined to justify your decision (either as a parent or as a doctor performing the procedure), you can use the medical data. But from a neutral position, it's not good enough to over-rule "do no harm". I just don't think the AAP wants to come right out and say some people are Wrong, as physicians in the US operate in a somewhat different political climate.

Linda

But the point is that there seems to be very little on either side. So it is not like if the risks and benifits where reversed they would be advocateing the procedure either. So the point you are coming from is a do nothing unless a significant benefit.

The favoring of inaction over action as a general principle is a long way away from the strong emotional reactions so many people in the anti circumcision camp have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So you don't know what you might be missing then. That's good enough reason alone to turn me against it!

When looking online for information about the general satisfaction level of people who get circumcised as adults there seems to be very little to merit such a strong reaction in reported effects.

 

[Loss Leader]

When looking online for information about the general satisfaction level of people who get circumcised as adults there seems to be very little to merit such a strong reaction in reported effects.

In the studies that have been presented to me by anti-circs, the data seems to indicate that adult circumcision may have a deleterious effect on sexual satisfaction in some cases. However, I've seen absolutely no study of any cohort that shows that infant circumcision has a negative effect on sexual satisfaction.

This comports with my general belief that the brain is pre-wired for sexual gratification and, in the absense of a foreskin, just maps that response onto the now more-exposed glans.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

But the point is that there seems to be very little on either side. So it is not like if the risks and benifits where reversed they would be advocateing the procedure either. So the point you are coming from is a do nothing unless a significant benefit.

The favoring of inaction over action as a general principle is a long way away from the strong emotional reactions so many people in the anti circumcision camp have.

The 'strong emotional reaction' is to the inflicting of pain and suffering for a highly unlikely benefit on a non-consenting individual.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

When looking online for information about the general satisfaction level of people who get circumcised as adults there seems to be very little to merit such a strong reaction in reported effects.

Apart from this:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/do...410X.2006.06646.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=bju

OBJECTIVE
To prospectively study, using a questionnaire, the sexuality of men circumcised as adults compared to uncircumcised men, and to compare their sex lives before and after circumcision.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS
The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. As the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory does not specifically address the quality of sex life, questions were added to compare sexual and masturbatory pleasure before and after circumcision.

RESULTS
There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.

CONCLUSION
There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

In the studies that have been presented to me by anti-circs, the data seems to indicate that adult circumcision may have a deleterious effect on sexual satisfaction in some cases. However, I've seen absolutely no study of any cohort that shows that infant circumcision has a negative effect on sexual satisfaction.

This comports with my general belief that the brain is pre-wired for sexual gratification and, in the absense of a foreskin, just maps that response onto the now more-exposed glans.

That is a convenient way to look at the evidence. Another way would be to say that men circumcised in infancy have no idea what they are missing because they have never been able to experience it.

You could use your argument to justify impairing children in all sorts of other ways. The brain adapts to the body - That is not an excuse for parents to have their wicked way with the body just because the brain will adapt.

 

[Lonewulf]

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. --Thomas Paine

Sounds about right, here.

 

[Southwind17]

Gluttony is hardly an attractive trait. But I understand now why you'd find it to be one.

Thing is Z, I work out, so I can afford to indulge, now and then, and still remain fit. Some people, on the other hand, don't, mostly through lethargy and plain laziness. I've checked out your profile photo, and I think I understand your probable traits!

You can cry all you want, but in our society, choosing elective bodily modification that is considered harmless is hardly child abuse... not from a legal stand point, nor from a common social one. IF the law changes, you then have every right to name-call; but until then, your opinion is merely empty ad-hom.

'Elective' by whom? 'Harmless' in who's opinion? Starting to look a little 'selfish', now? So you can sleep soundly at night then because it's not 'illegal' nor 'socially unacceptable' in your 'society'. That conveniently avoids the moral and ethical questions, doesn't it! So if the law changes things you'll alter your behaviour accordingly, and without objection. That's a reflection of the shallowness of the humanitarian values you truly behold, I guess.

 

[Loss Leader]

That is a convenient way to look at the evidence. Another way would be to say that men circumcised in infancy have no idea what they are missing because they have never been able to experience it.

It's the only way to look at the evidence because there is no evidence. You cannot produce a single proper study that suggests that infant circumcision impacts sexual satisfaction. No such study exists.

Furthermore, considering the massive number of circumcised men on the planet, you'd think there would be no trouble identifying some sort of trend. Circumcised men should have higher rates of impotence or erectile disfunction. They might have higher rates of divorce or shorter relationships with women overall. Perhaps they give up on sex at a younger age than uncircumcised men. But the data does not indicate any of this.

It might be reasonable to suspect that infant circumcision might affect sexual satisfaction, but it is not reasonable to maintain that it does in the absense of evidence.

 

[sthomson]

None of those alterations are permanent.

Wait, did you just seriously claim that exposing children to elevated levels of UVA/B radiation is not a permanent, medical alteration that could cause deleterious effects in the future? I'm sure many medical doctors will strongly disagree with you on that.

Other potentially harmful things that parents do:
* Feed children too much fast food
* Give children sedatives
* Putting braces on children

I'm not saying I'm pro-circumcision, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that doing so is more harmful to a child's physical and mental state than any of the above.

Edited to add: my point is that parents make irreversible medical decisions for their children all the time, with potentially dangerous effects. Does this make them bad people or bad parents for not waiting until their children are 12 or older to decide anything? No, it's their job to make these sorts of decisions.

 

[Kaylee]

I grew up in a Jewish family and I was always told that circumcision was beneficial to the baby's health and much less painful if done at 8 days rather than waiting until later when the baby became a child or a man.

It looks like this thread has already debunked the health benefits. (Many ciricumcision health benefits assertions are also discussed and dismissed in this 1992 Journal of Nurse-Midwifery article also: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/ )

I looked for information that either confirmed or debunked the pain factor and found this paper: ( http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x -- the link to download the 6 page pdf file is in the upper right corner of the web page).

Looks like that is incorrect also, per that paper a baby boy will normally feel more pain than an adult male during circumcision. Also while many friends and relatives (including me) have watched babies fall asleep shortly after the bris and regarded that as proof that it wasn't that painful for the infant, apparently studies show that babies go into a lethargic semi comatose state in reaction to the stress.



(Normally I would cut and paste some pertinant bits, but it wasn't possible for that paper -- but its a quick read and the information about the baby's pain is on the first two pages.)

 

[Henners]

I'm not saying I'm pro-circumcision, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that doing so is more harmful to a child's physical and mental state than any of the above.

While that is certainly true, in general, it is also true that the few dead ones don't complain much.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's the only way to look at the evidence because there is no evidence. You cannot produce a single proper study that suggests that infant circumcision impacts sexual satisfaction. No such study exists.

Furthermore, considering the massive number of circumcised men on the planet, you'd think there would be no trouble identifying some sort of trend. Circumcised men should have higher rates of impotence or erectile disfunction. They might have higher rates of divorce or shorter relationships with women overall. Perhaps they give up on sex at a younger age than uncircumcised men. But the data does not indicate any of this.

It might be reasonable to suspect that infant circumcision might affect sexual satisfaction, but it is not reasonable to maintain that it does in the absense of evidence.

So long as circumcision does not reduce a man's pleasure from sex below that from other activities, why would you expect to see some sort of trend?

Infant circumcision is like forcing a person to wear glasses that make them slightly short sighted; being able to see is still fantastic and they would not wish to go blind.