…and this is a 
Snip
Category:
Posted on: June 19, 2007 12:00 PM, by PZ Myers
There are two subjects that I know stir up a few dedicated commenters here: abortion and circumcision. Most articles, when they fall off the front page, fade away from continued discussion fairly rapidly. Abortion and circumcision proponents and opponents have endurance, though, and comments will continue dribbling along for months. So I hesitate to bring this up, but…
An infant died, slowly and unpleasantly, of an infection and septic shock after an ordinary circumcision.
I know this is a rare occurrence, but it's the pointlessness of the death that jars. This poor kid died for a silly cosmetic procedure, and the poor parents … think how awful they must feel. Why are people doing this to their babies again?
Comments
I guess this counts as some kind of post-natal abortion, so maybe both (or rather, all four) of the most rabid and persistent contingents will be present for this thread.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 19, 2007 12:08 PM
Wow, I didn't realize this until I read my previous comment again, but I really am bitter and tasteless, however contradictory those adjectives may sound.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 19, 2007 12:13 PM
This is one reason:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298
Posted by: factician | June 19, 2007 12:16 PM
According to BBC News: "Male circumcision significantly reduces the spread of the HIV virus to men, according to research.
In terms of infectious disease, Aids is the biggest killer in Africa, with HIV frequent in the sexually-active populations of many countries.
But the study, carried out by European and African researchers, found that uncircumcised men were at least three times more likely than circumcised men to contract the virus."
New York Times: "A growing number of clinicians and policy makers in the region are pointing to a simple and possibly potent weapon against new infections: circumcision for men.
Armed with new studies suggesting that male circumcision can reduce the chance of H.I.V. infection in men, and perhaps in women, health workers in two southern African nations are pressing to make circumcisions broadly available to meet what they call a burgeoning demand."
MSNBC: "Male circumcision reduces the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women by about 70 percent, according to a study reported in The Wall Street Journal."
Bill Clinton "Prepare to tackle the cultural taboos surrounding circumcision yesterday if, as many expect, trials show that it protects men and the women they sleep with from Aids."
Posted by: Ken | June 19, 2007 12:19 PM
Anecdotal cherry-picking is a cheap rhetorical stunt. It's the kind of thing I'd expect from the local TV news station, but not pharyngula.
Ken, thank you for showing that there are valid arguments on both sides of issue.
Posted by: notthedroids | June 19, 2007 12:25 PM
OK so circumscision lowers risk of spreading AIDs. So why is it being done to babies?
Posted by: Brian W. | June 19, 2007 12:25 PM
Not to jump into the stereotype the fine Mr Myers mentioned but.....condoms work a hell of a lot better. In fact free condoms to the young and needle exchanges would vastly reduce the number of aids cases in the western world. In africa too, if they caould be convinced to all use them, condoms would do a far far better job than circumcision. If you were planning on having unprotected sex with an aids sufferer then, sure, removing part of your penis may make you less likely to catch aids. Perhaps you should just do the whole thing and be done with it.
Posted by: josh | June 19, 2007 12:26 PM
It doesn't matter if it reduces the chance of HIV. It's completely irrelevant. You still should be wearing condoms and getting tested. I think the last paragraph in the link says it all:
I think my biggest complaint is that it is involuntary. I was circumcised as a child, and have suffered some (admittedly minor, but I would have been better off without it) psychological effects because of it. Who are you to determine something like that?
Posted by: Oran_Taran | June 19, 2007 12:27 PM
PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298.
I don't feel like finding the citations for the other studies...but there's been 3 randomized controlled trials on circumcision and HIV in Africa...and the protection ranges from 53-70%. It's stupid and horrible, but it seems to work. There's also a fair amount of evidence that it prevents urinary tract infections and has other benefits related to genital health. I can't decide if i'll do it to my kids or not...I certainly wouldn't if it weren't for these few studies, but it really does seem to work.
Posted by: Ron Richardson | June 19, 2007 12:29 PM
Irrelevant to the subject at hand. We're talking about the US and Canada here, where we have full access to condoms, education about safer sex and risky behavior, and fewer taboos about condom use and protection than Africa.
In this country, if a male engages in penile to genital contact and doesn't protect himself, then he accepts the risk of infection. He makes the choice. He can also make the choice, once he becomes sexually active, to get himself circumcised.
Protection from AIDS is no reason to circumcise an infant. They can't consent, and they won't be engaging in risky behavior until they're old enough to consent.
Posted by: spondee | June 19, 2007 12:29 PM
My parents considered having that done to me. I'm glad they didn't; I rather like my foreskin.
Posted by: Markk | June 19, 2007 12:29 PM
Ok, how about this. For all the uncircumcised males out there, I have a question. Would you consider getting circumcised because of the protection against HIV it provides?
Posted by: Oran_Taran | June 19, 2007 12:32 PM
Oran Taran:
No, I would not.
Posted by: Andy | June 19, 2007 12:35 PM
Oran,
No.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2007 12:37 PM
Oran: No
(May I vote more than once?)
Posted by: Ray M | June 19, 2007 12:41 PM
Oran, there is 99.99% effective way to stop the transmission of HIV/AIDS, it's called a condom.
Posted by: ji | June 19, 2007 12:43 PM
@ factician
*frown* So infections only happen in backwards countries like Canada. The risk of actually contracting HIV through circumcision would only happen in Canada.
Not the state-of-the-art hospitals in Africa. They never have a problem with sterilization. Certainly not the spread of HIV within hospitals.
The HIV circumcision studies are idiotic games played by MDs and sociologists that want to pretend theyre 'researchers'. Check out what comes up on a PubMed search of their names.
The whole ordeal is fantastically stupid.
Wear a goddamn condom.
Jesus.
Posted by: ERV | June 19, 2007 12:44 PM
Oran,
Nope. Much better methods to avoid AIDS.
Posted by: JRY | June 19, 2007 12:46 PM
A full penectomy would almost certainly prove even more effective than mere circumcision for preventing the spread of HIV. Any volunteers? (Or are we merely going to suggest the procedure for southern Africans?)
Posted by: Alexandra | June 19, 2007 12:46 PM
Fear is a handy tool.
I don't exactly trust a report (link to PLoS site above) which starts with a pool of uncircumsized men, offers a portion of them circumcisions, and then bases their findings off of a comparison of that whole. HIV doesn't always show up within a handy period of time- the circumsized group could easily have had more infections than they were aware of. And where were they? 120 infections out of 3400? That's an infection rate from Africa, I'll bet (the report was a bit long, thanks.) See also: behavior very few of US would exhibit.
Circumsision should be an option for adults, not a forced procedure on infants.
If people started doing body modifications and piercings to their infants, they'd lose them in a second to CPS.
I'm really blown away at the cavalier attitude towards people's feelings on this: if you don't care about it, instead of posting "I don't see what's wrong with it,", possibly consider posting "Perhaps we should consider the feelings of the dick owner."- because the first statement just reinforces the status quo, and we've already got plenty of that.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | June 19, 2007 12:52 PM
My roommate makes a complete and total mess around the toilet when he goes for a wee. I yell at him, and he blames it on not being circumcised. This may or may not be the case - any of you other uncut people have something to say about that? Because I'm about to perform the operation on him myself with a Guillotine Cigar Cutter.
That said, my car has seatbelts and airbags. I prefer having both methods of protection instead of just one. I'm glad I was cut when I couldn't remember it, so thumbs up to circumcision.
And finally, I've never gotten a funny look from a woman when she's handling my donkeyrope. My roommate didn't get laid once because it freaked her out too much that he wasn't cut. Why chance it? I take getting laid VERY seriously.
- Matt
Posted by: Matt K | June 19, 2007 12:52 PM
Oran,
Not no, but hell no. But it's really irrelevant, because the issue I have a problem with is forcing this procedure on infants against their will, and I think it should be outlawed for those under 18.
Posted by: Heterocronie | June 19, 2007 12:54 PM
No. Comment 17 is self-obvious.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 19, 2007 12:54 PM
Should have been "self-evident", I think.
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
A strange place the USA are.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 19, 2007 12:57 PM
If we are to justify surgery on infants on potentially preventing an otherwise preventable illness during adulthood, why stop at circumcision? We can prevent any number of medical conditions by performing neo-natal surgeries.
Why, imagine the drop in breast cancer if we were to remove all breast tissue from girls as soon as they are born. We wouldn't be just preventing, we'd be preempting an otherwise hard to prevent medical condition. Sure, some of them will never reach adulthood since they'll die from the surgery, but it's a small price to pay -- and besides, bringing this up is really cherry picking the data since most won't die but merely disfigured.
Now, many women may end up resentful as adults because they may decide that they'd look more attractive with breasts and they'd also be able to breast feed their infants. But we can patiently explain to them that this was done for their own good, for perfectly legitimate health reasons. Worrying about how they look is so immature when they can avoid a dreaded disease -- and besides they can always get implants; in terms of breastfeeding, who needs it with our hectic, busy lifestyles? Formula is cheap and available, so be thankful your parents made sure you won't get breast cancer. So what if they didn't actually ask you what you wanted?
I can certainly think of other examples, but this one ought to suffice in illustrating the foolishness of removing healthy, functional tissue from infants who have no say in the matter in the hope that their disfigurement is benign since it may reduce their risk of getting a disease.
___________________________
Posted by: Aris | June 19, 2007 1:02 PM
Yeah, I'm circumcised cause my parents are Jewish, which I'm not anymore. When I told her we wouldn't snip our son, she pointed to the Africa studies. I told her that first of all, they're not even recommending circumcising babies there, but sexually active men, and that if our son was having unprotected sex in sub-saharan Africa (or at all, really), we'd have already failed him.
My wife wanted him snipped because it looks prettier. I told her that that would be a valid reason for him to do it when he's older, and if I thought that tattoos or body piercings were pretty, but tried to do it to a 2-day old baby, I'd be rightfully put in jail.
Posted by: Zuckerfrosch | June 19, 2007 1:02 PM
I was under the impression that there were more than a few hygiene-related positives in favor of circumcision. I don't think this bit of skin is doing much otherwise, is it?
Posted by: DaveX | June 19, 2007 1:08 PM
I don't think you can automatically assume because circumcision reduces aids infection in Africa it will do so in a country like Canada. There is a great difference between the two countries in terms of availability of fresh water and soap for hygiene. The study would have to be reproduced in a different environment to be sure.
In any case the only kind of aids transmission it would work for would be sexual, in which case they can choose for themselves when they are adults. However, I suspect if you ask the average teenager whether he would prefer: to get a bit of his dick cut off or use a condom I know which he would choose.
Then there is another disadvantage to circumcision if people think being circumcised gives them protection, they may be less liable to use condoms and end up at higher risk.
Mutilation for religious purposes is idiotic.
Posted by: sailor | June 19, 2007 1:10 PM
Good news is that the circumcision rate is dropping apparently:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_re_us/circumcision_decline_6
It was done to me, but not to my son. I've heard it can reduce sensitivity to pleasure, no real health benefits and why would I want to do that to my child?
...darth
Posted by: darthWilliam | June 19, 2007 1:11 PM
ERV,
You misunderstand me. I do not advocate for circumcision. I do not advocate against it. What bothers me is when people pretend it's an issue that only has one side. There are medical benefits to the procedure. And clearly there are costs (as PZ is pointing out).
This is a classic case where a cost/benefit analysis would be useful. What are the odds of an infection? What are the odds of HIV? What is the benefit? What is the cost? How many would get HIV through infection during the procedure? How many would be prevented from getting HIV by having the procedure? Which is the larger number?
It's all well and good for us to say, "Well, they should wear a condom." That's true. They should. But people don't. When we argue like that, we risk being like the folks who argue for abstinence-only. People should be abstinent. That would protect them from HIV. But people have troubles refraining from sex (and really, why should they?). And people have troubles refraining from condomless sex. So what should we do about it? Encourage people to be faithful. Encourage people to use condoms. Circumcise? I dunno, but it's worth talking about. (see cost/benefit above). Develop a vaccine. Develop a cure. Let's not wed ourselves to simply one or two anti-HIV strategies. Let's come out with guns blazing and use as many as possible.
Posted by: factician | June 19, 2007 1:16 PM
Oran - No. Of course not. If i was planning to sleep with a crack whore then i'd wear a condom.
Matt K - your roommate is clearly a lazy arsehole. A foreskin is no barrier to decent urination and, unless his is unfeasibly huge, it should be no barrier to him cleaning up after himself. Perhaps his idleness and dirtiness were the real reason this chick you cite wouldn't do him.
Posted by: tom p | June 19, 2007 1:17 PM
I see a double standard here.
Christian family organizations have been howling about the recent HPV vaccine. They fear that giving little girls this vaccine will "endorse" teen sex in some way.
But the quoted study that shows circumcision reduces the spread of HIV is not mentioned by Christians as a reason to avoid circumcision because it "endorses" teen sex.
You would think that the HIV study would have Focus on the Family members up on their soapboxes to denounce circumcision as promoting sexual promiscuity.
Posted by: Calladus | June 19, 2007 1:17 PM
Absolutely not - it's full of sensation and it prevents the glans becoming hard and insensitive. I think circumcision, male or female, is barbaric and not appropriate in modern society.
He may have a point. Think of the foreskin as a flow speed regulator - you're going from a small aperture to a large one. It's the same principle as the water saver disc in my shower head.
Posted by: Orpheus | June 19, 2007 1:21 PM
Defending circumcision with the HIV-story is rather an ad hoc argument. People were doing it before there was HIV and they would do it even if HIV is eradicated. It basically has nothing to do with that. I mean, do any of you people who have had or will have your kids circumcised seriously use the HIV argument as the primary one? It's religious tradition turned semi-secular (at least in the US).
Posted by: Peiter | June 19, 2007 1:22 PM
Oops, misread - I thought your roommate *was* circumcised. I reckon it's easier to be accurate with a foreskin, for the reason I mentioned above - it slows down the stream.
Posted by: Orpheus | June 19, 2007 1:23 PM
It's sad, but so what? Unfortunately people die from sepsis during surgical procedures at a certain statistical frequency. Circumcision is a routine and usually harmless practice. I'm personally glad I was circumcized as an infant. I don't understand the correlation between atheism and hatred of circumcision. I'm an atheist, and I have no problem with it. What's the big deal?
Posted by: Chuck | June 19, 2007 1:23 PM
Factician,
This is bullshit. The procedure can be done when you are an adult. So there is absolutely NO reason to subject kids to it.
Posted by: sailor | June 19, 2007 1:24 PM
Oran: No. Absolutely not.
MattK: No, your room mate is just a slop who can't be bothered to get a bit of skin out of the way (it's just one of those things, like making sure you've taken off your pants before you try to pee.
DaveX: Hygiene only comes into play for people who don't shower or wash. And no, it isn't just a useless bit of skin. Sure, your tongue would toughen up too if you dragged it along the ground for a few years.
If someone chooses to do so for religious reasons, that's fine, but not before you are an adult. Cutting off a child's foreskin, like other forms of genital mutilation, is child abuse. What's the rationale...if we desensitise it, he won't play with himself? Seems pretty disgusting to me.
Posted by: Ian | June 19, 2007 1:28 PM
Chuck, me too. But the big deal it is an entirely unnecessary procedure based on religious rites with risks and very few obvious benefits. You are a survivor, most of us are. This kid was not. Would you now go through an unnecessary procedure? If not why subject a baby to one.
Posted by: Sailor | June 19, 2007 1:28 PM
sailor #37,
That's certainly worth discussing, whether to wait until they are adults to do it. However, if your reason to do it is going to be prevention of a sexually transmitted disease, I would suggest it is important to do it before sex (much like the HPV vaccine). Do most Americans wait until they are 18 to have sex?
Posted by: factician | June 19, 2007 1:31 PM
Well, uncut guys can continue answering my question, but I think everyone gets the point. Most adults, given the choice, would NOT opt to be circumcised for the benefits against HIV.
However, even if everyone but one person had said "yes", it would still not justify circumcision. It is each person's choice whether they want to be cut or uncut, not their parents.
Circumcising your child is like religious people indoctrinating children or trying to impose their belief systems on other people.
Posted by: Oran_Taran | June 19, 2007 1:32 PM
Two things:
1) My brother left my nephew intact. At about two, the doctor said,"The foreskin isn't elastic enough, it is restricting the growth of the penis". My brother said,"Cut it off". It was so sad to see my nephew in pain saying,"My pee-pee, my pee-pee".
2) Everything I've read about disease prevention and circumcision says that washing the uncircumcised penis regularly is just as good as circumcision, just like brushing your teeth. Now, ask your dentist how good people are at regularly brushing their teeth.
Posted by: Cappy | June 19, 2007 1:37 PM
I think circumcision, male or female, is barbaric and not appropriate in modern society.
Yes, but it's really only MALE cicumcision that anyone cares about. Who can find the clit anyway?
Posted by: alice | June 19, 2007 1:41 PM
I think this pretty much sums up why we perform this unnecessary surgery almost exclusively on infants - because we can pretend it doesn't hurt if they can't tell us about it. If it upset you that your nephew had to go through that amount of pain because of a specific health problem, why would you wish it on millions of babies that are perfectly fine as they are?
Posted by: nicole | June 19, 2007 1:42 PM
Cappy:
1. With regards to the first issue, yes, some people have a problem with foreskins that are too inelastic. I also know someone who had a child born with an inelastic oesophagus. There are times when surgery is needed to correct birth defects. That doesn't mean we all need to get our oesophagus lengthened.
2. The comparison isn't with "brushing your teeth properly"...it's with washing your face or armpits. How many people skip that when they shower? In addition, the fact that people don't brush their teeth properly isn't used as a reason for pulling out all your teeth.
Posted by: Ian | June 19, 2007 1:46 PM
"So I hesitate to bring this up, but..."
Oh surrrrrre you do.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 19, 2007 1:55 PM
Let's say that it was found out that having a pinky finger cut off provided some protection from all forms of cancer. Now, the majority of people don't get cancer anyway, and it turns out that some people who had pinky removal still get cancer, but people are three times less likely to get cancer after the pinkyectomy. Adults who have had their pinkys removed seem to have no problems resulting from the operation, by and large - grasping objects isn't inhibited, typing just requires an adapted way of learning. Sure, there are some musical instruments that are off-limits, but that's minor compared to the reduction in the chance of getting cancer. So, if that were the case, should everyone pre-emptively have their pinky fingers cut off at birth?
Posted by: Carlie | June 19, 2007 1:56 PM
If it upset you that your nephew had to go through that amount of pain because of a specific health problem, why would you wish it on millions of babies that are perfectly fine as they are?
Millions of babies that won't remember it anymore than I do. My childhood memories seem to go back further than most, but not THAT far. And it is still under debate whether or not they are perfectly fine as they are.
As for my roommate, yeah, I'm thinking he is a slob too. Thanks for the input, you uncut people you.
With the ratio of 1 death in millions of circumcisions, I would have this performed on any future children. Shrug.
Oh, and yeah, not for religious reasons - Atheist here as well.
- Matt K
Posted by: Matt K | June 19, 2007 1:56 PM
The studies showing that male circumcision helps to reduce the spread of HIV is proof of Intelligent Design. Here me out here. Big Sky Daddy in his infinite knowledge and wisdom knew that thousands of years in the future, the HIV virus would appear. So to protect His followers, He dictated that all of His male followers should be circumcised so that when that virus appeared, His followers would have some protection. Circumcision is a sign of Big Sky Daddy's divine mercy.
Or it could be an attempt to retrofit an ancient religious custom to a more scientific age.
Posted by: Janine | June 19, 2007 1:57 PM
Yes, the issue of involuntary circumcision of children is something to consider. But what interests me here is the whole circumcision-denial bit: "It has no medical benefit! Its advocates are just religious nuts! The studies shouldn't be trusted -- they're part of a socialist plot carried out by French doctors working for the U.N.!"
I wonder whether circumcision-deniers tend, on average, to be global-warming deniers too: people who argue backwards from their political beliefs to the scientific evidence.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
Posted by: mijnheer | June 19, 2007 2:03 PM
Unfortunately people die from sepsis during surgical procedures at a certain statistical frequency.
So then, clearly, reducing the number of unnecessary surgical procedures would reduce sepsis deaths.
Hence, it's an argument against circumcision, which is unnecessary.
I'm an atheist, and I have no problem with it. What's the big deal?
Why would people do it if it wasn't a religious tradition in our culture? And since people are dying from it occasionally, that means it's just one more area where religion kills people.
It just doesn't seem necessary to cut off a piece of a baby, a piece full of nerve endings, with no anesthesia. People talk about their babies "coming back sleeping" from the procedure; I guess the doctors don't tell them that's probably catatonic shock from the pain.
Posted by: Chet | June 19, 2007 2:03 PM
Based on religious rites? Maybe in ancient Judea. My parents are agnostics who haven't been to a church since their childhoods in the 1950s, and yet they circumcized me. I don't think religion had anything to do with their decision. And again, sorry, but I'm glad I don't have to experience circumcision as an adult. But frankly, this is an issue I couldn't care less about.
Posted by: Chuck | June 19, 2007 2:04 PM
"And finally, I've never gotten a funny look from a woman when she's handling my donkeyrope. My roommate didn't get laid once because it freaked her out too much that he wasn't cut. Why chance it? I take getting laid VERY seriously."
I can't believe nobody has pointed out that the exact opposite of this happened in 3001.
Posted by: Andrew | June 19, 2007 2:05 PM
Well, as a brit, I have to say I have NEVER seen a circumcised penis. And I play three sports, so have seen a few penises in my time. (Showers people! Showers!)
When it comes to directing the pee, I find my foreskin to be a bonus, not a detriment. In cicrumstances where I wish to be particularly precise (name writing in snow for example), the foreskin can be grasped and used to direct the pee more preisely than the course movements allowed by penile manipulation alone
Posted by: Donalbain | June 19, 2007 2:08 PM
I wonder whether circumcision-deniers tend, on average, to be global-warming deniers too: people who argue backwards from their political beliefs to the scientific evidence.
I can't answer for anybody else, but I:
1) Think circumcision is never necessary, that the scant medical benefits don't outweigh the costs of the procedure, and that what studies there are suffer from various methodological issues and, in general, are mostly attempts by religionists to buoy religious dogma; and would never allow the procedure to be performed on any of my children;
2) Believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for a recent, anomalous warming trend in the Earth's climate, commensurate with the scientific consensus on this issue.
I'm an evolutionist, too. I don't know what that does to your model but people here are leveling pretty good objections to the pro-circumcision evidence. I'd consider rebutting those arguments before you advanced a grand model that equated non-circumcisers with creationists and climate change deniers.
Posted by: Chet | June 19, 2007 2:09 PM
As a male who was circumcised shortly after birth, my opinion of foreskins is roughly equivalent to my opinion of thick, luxuriant back-hair - I don't have either, so removing either is not in the realm of possibility. As another similarity between the two physical attributes, there are apparently (weak) arguments for removal of each in individuals that do have them.
I don't see a strong benefit to infant circumcision that approaches equal weight to the obvious costs merely associated with inherent risks of surgery and of an infant's inability to provide consent. As for the cited costs of reduced sensitivity of the penis / parts thereof, I wonder where those data come from - there must be so much 'noise' in that system that finding an appropriate control group is impossible. You can't circumcise adults and then ask them about their sex lives - the adult surgery could have had an effect. I can't imagine a sham surgery that would constitute a placebo. And cultural, age, and other inter-individual differences will swamp your dataset unless the signal is really clear - and I certainly have no complaints about the sensations I get from my 'donkeyrope' (new favourite term, thanks Matt). Is there a large population of circumcised men I have not heard from that consistently have trouble achieving orgasm?
So, short version: no obvious benefit to infant circumcision, some costs, therefore why bother? I don't regret the loss of my foreskin, since I was too young to remember it. But that's a neutral fact, not an argument in favour at all.
#24: A strange place the USA are.
Indeed, for more than just this reason. As for female preference, I've met women from several countries that have expressed preference for one or the other. I have no real data, but my subjective impression is that among women that care (I gather it's not a big deal to many), the split is close to 50-50. Sadly, very few of these conversations have been in the context of my own performance.
Posted by: TheBrummell | June 19, 2007 2:18 PM
Matt K, you would mutilate your kid because your room mate was slob?
Posted by: sailor | June 19, 2007 2:19 PM
It's a matter of custom as much or more than religion. We had our son circumcised for two reasons: our doctor said there were medical benefits and we wanted our son to look like his father. That was 17 years ago. I think I'd do more research now.
I don't think I've seen an uncircumcised one myself. I say "think" because there were a few years in the 70's that are a little fuzzy.
Posted by: Lana | June 19, 2007 2:22 PM
If I had a son I wouldn't do it to him and I know that my husband wouldn't either. It is unnecessary and really doesn't make the penis more attractive, IMO it kind of detracts from it. I have also never seen a problem with hygiene but they guys that I have been with knew how to use soap and water. Personal question about the bathroom issue though guys: doesn't the foreskin get pulled back for that? Besides, isn't the problem with the toilet seats mostly due to splashing the water in the bowl? As for the roommate, tell him that there are these neat new things called "cleaning products" that he may want to look into. Whatever the cause is, it isn't right for him to leave it for others to deal with.
Posted by: mena | June 19, 2007 2:22 PM
Dr. Dean Edell on KGO radio out of San Francisco is dead set against circumcision and has been very critical of the supposed anti-HIV benefits of the practice. He's very good about following research rather than anecdotes and has raised concerns that HIV infection rates are not actually lower among circumcised African males because they take more risks ("I protected by my circumcision so I can do what I want!"). He doesn't doubt the validity of the reports that -- all other things being equal -- circumcision reduces HIV infection rates, but he gravely doubts the actual efficacy of expanding circumcision in Africa.
If I find a reference, I'll post it.
Posted by: Zeno | June 19, 2007 2:22 PM
ERV: "The HIV circumcision studies are idiotic games played by MDs and sociologists that want to pretend theyre 'researchers'."
Off topic: I don't see why you're bringing sociologists into it, except perhaps because you don't understand what they do. Every discipline has its nut jobs, and I'd even admit that sociology has more than its share thanks to an unfortunate brush with postmodernism in the early 1990s. But I think if you look at the discipline as it's practiced in top 25 departments, you'd discover that the research is as rigorous as any in a discipline where the questions aren't typically conducive to random assignation and controlled lab experiments.
On topic: In the early 1990s, some sociologists at the University of Chicago conducted a survey of sexual practices using a random sample of men in the US age 18-59 (n=1,410). In an article published in JAMA in 1997, they report that circumcised men are slightly (and not significantly) more likely to have an STD. Circumcised men also engage in a wider variety of sexual practices. The researchers speculate this could be an effect of the stigma of growing up uncircumcised at a time when circumcision was even more common than it is today.
See http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/970403/circumcision.shtml for the original press release.
Posted by: kim | June 19, 2007 2:24 PM
I'm not cut, and I have HEP C, which I am positive I got because of my condition. The foreskin constantly has little stretch breaks that are open.
Posted by: Richard W. Crews | June 19, 2007 2:30 PM
We had our son circumcised for two reasons: our doctor said there were medical benefits and we wanted our son to look like his father.
Why on Earth are your son and his father comparing penises? Who are you married to, James Dobson?
Posted by: Chet | June 19, 2007 2:36 PM
Where condoms and education are readily available, it seems reasonable to allow men (and babies that will become men) to keep their foreskins.
If they decide as adults that they really hate the hassle of monogamy and condoms, they should be allowed elective circumcisions. Which should prevent some of them and some of their partners from getting HIV. Though it'll do nothing to prevent other STDs and pregnancies.
Hmm. Seems like promoting monogamy and condom use might be a better use of everyone's time and money.
Posted by: mommyrex | June 19, 2007 2:39 PM
Actually, dying of such infections it's NOT such a rare occurrence. Not in Africa. Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel". Well, maybe the excision she describes is not the same as circumcision, but that's really just a matter of degree.
Posted by: SteveC | June 19, 2007 2:40 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Posted by: mijnheer | June 19, 2007 2:42 PM
Sailor -
No, it was a circumcision question. I would mutilate my roommate if I thought it would make a difference for the now yellow bathrugs.
I am circumcised. I don't see it as a 'mutilation'. Nice way to up the ante with your rhetoric though. It's not a medical procedure, cosmetic or otherwise, it is mutilation. I can't take people like you seriously.
Mutilation. You fucking twit. This is the part where we idiot liberals begin to turn on each other for something so insignificant it is hardly worthy of debate. We draw the line, argue until anyone who would disagree with us is the enemy, and guess what... now we're acting like a bunch of religious conservatives. Congrats. The more I live in this world the more I realize that everyone is the enemy. Just need to speak with a person long enough to find out why.
- Matt K
Posted by: Matt K | June 19, 2007 2:44 PM
Sorry for being so harsh, fact :) You know I like you, I just really really really hate those 'studies'. Its not the circumcision that pisses me off-- its the idiotic 'science'.
Posted by: ERV | June 19, 2007 2:45 PM
Ok, how about this. For all the uncircumcised males out there, I have a question. Would you consider getting circumcised because of the protection against HIV it provides?
Not for that, or any other reason.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 19, 2007 2:45 PM
This may or may not be the case - any of you other uncut people have something to say about that?
He needs to pull back the foreskin before he wees. If he can't do that, he may have an adhesion between his foreskin and corona, a problem which will also give him some difficulty when he has sex, but which can be cured quickly with a blunt probe in a doctor's office.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 19, 2007 2:48 PM
Oh, and since other women are chiming in with their own experiences, I'll point out that I've never seen an uncut (adult) penis, but that my (cut) husband and I decided to leave our three sons intact. I wouldn't listen to a US doctor's opinion on my son's penis unless the child was experiencing pain or some problem was visible to me.
Posted by: mommyrex | June 19, 2007 2:49 PM
Shall we compare the complication/mortality rate of other cosmetic surgeries?
Source - http://www.liposuctionanswers.org/deathrates.html Source: http://www.dryoho.com/dr-yoho/clinical/surgeryrisks.cfm Source: http://www.breastimplants4you.com/breast_feeding_complications.htmBetween 1940 and 1990 there were an estimated 65,863,000 neo-natal circumcisions with an estimated 2,744 deaths resulting (US only).
Source: http://www.noharmm.org/incidenceUS.htm
I thought that, here at least, anecdotal evidence wasn't regarded as reliable.
This will surely be called out at as a strawman, but: For those of you that are OUTRAGED by neonatal circumcision, perhaps you should look at the horrible mutilation of beautiful young hyper-conscious girls during elective cosmetic surgery procedures. These useless mutilations, perpetrated at terrific profit by so-called doctors, are causing so much more misery than neonatal circumcision that it begs the question - Do you really have the welfare of youngsters in mind or are you just gratuitously attacking religion?
Posted by: HPLC_Sean | June 19, 2007 2:50 PM
My daughter doesn't look like me... maybe i should have had her undergo a transgender operation when she was born.
As for those talking about memory... what on earth does that have to do with anything? Should parents be able to amputate a babies arm or leg under the justification of "he wont remember it"? Of course not, because the issue is not about memory, it's about the rights of an (admittedly small) individual and the responsibly of parents to protect those rights.
Posted by: James | June 19, 2007 2:52 PM
Matt K
When I said that I was bantering. But come to think of it your room mate might be the best reason to circumcise your son. I mean you can move away from your room mate, but your son you will be stuck with for at least 16 years.
But if it not your room mate what do you mean by:
No, it was a circumcision question.
What do you perceive are the advantages and disadvantages?
I was circumsized, I have seen no particular disadvantage to it, but that does not mean I force it onto someone else, even my own kid.
Posted by: sailor | June 19, 2007 2:54 PM
Whats the rate of HIV infection in circumcised women ? Obviously if there is a slight statistical difference then we can start promoting this as a 'healthy option' to be performed for all baby girls too.
Actually you lot in the USA are lucky you live in a place where most men are circumcised since this has obviously meant you have avoided HIV infection in your population unlike places like Japan where almost nobody is circumcised (male, or female).
Posted by: MartinC | June 19, 2007 2:55 PM
This will surely be called out at as a strawman, but: For those of you that are OUTRAGED by neonatal circumcision, perhaps you should look at the horrible mutilation of beautiful young hyper-conscious girls during elective cosmetic surgery procedures.
Duh! I forgot two wrongs make a right! I feel so stupid!
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 19, 2007 2:56 PM
HPLC_Sean, parents do not make their children undergo breast implants and liposuction. Your post is irrelevant.
Posted by: James | June 19, 2007 2:58 PM
Do you really have the welfare of youngsters in mind or are you just gratuitously attacking religion?
No. I fundamentally, absolutely oppose liposuction, facelifts, and breast augmentations performed on unconsenting infants, as well.
Posted by: Chet | June 19, 2007 3:00 PM
As much as I'm in favor of what is natural in terms of the human body (anti-piercings, anti-tatoos, don't like women who wear much makeup), I did have my son circumcised. Frankly it was a cosmetic decision made by myself and my wife. Around here (Chicago area), being circumcised is the norm. I've had female friends who have said that they are grossed out by an uncircumcised penis and they won't go down on a guy who is uncut. That was a big factor in my viewpoint (being a typical guy as I am!) plus my wife didn't want our son to look like a freak (in her estimation). I guess it's a cultural thing that varies but I totally understand that this contradicts other stances we have. I just wanted to share our perspective about how we made our decision. We also thought it would be alot easier now when he'd have no memory of the pain rather than later when it would be worse to have done.
Posted by: Vince | June 19, 2007 3:06 PM
Nearly all of my female friends are the same way (and some male friends too), but of course this is only a matter of what they are used to and consider "normal" versus what they have probably never seen in person. I used to be a little freaked out by uncircumcised penises myself, until I started dating a guy who was uncut. He was convinced I would be grossed out, after spending a lot of his childhood getting made fun of by other guys and hearing about girls' bad opinions, but I got over it pretty quick and now definitely prefer it. It just strikes me as a bit superficial to do it for reasons like this, I wouldn't do it if I had a child, and in general I just think it's best to avoid unnecessary surgical procedures - I think most parents probably don't realize that they are as dangerous as they are.
Posted by: nicole | June 19, 2007 3:19 PM
Did Ian (#38) just say that his unit is so big it drags on the ground? LOL LOL LOL
My son is uncut and his pediatrician tried every trick in the book to get me to have it done at every annual check-up. He was constantly scheduling us appointments with urologists that we never kept. When my boy was 6-years-old, he had us wait 2 hours in the office because the boy supposedly had traces of blood in his urine and we needed to wait for tests. No, he didn't have a