Circumcision

[Paddy]

Hmmm… I am not, but I have seen a few being done over the past few years.

To be honest, what ever the argued benefit, I think there is an issue of informed consent here.

How many non-circumcised men are forced to be circumcised due to medical reasons? It is not the majority by any means. I accept that there is a reduced incidence of balanitis, but does that give us the right to ‘mutilate’ our kids?

Here in Leicester there is a big influx of Dutch Somalians (don’t ask!) and it is routine to ask if the females are circumcised. I know that you can’t compare the two on a hygiene level. However both are done in the name of socio-religious beliefs.

From a medical point of view, if we are born with it, then I believe there is a reason for it. I mean, you wouldn’t ask your newborn to have an appendectomy, would you? Evolution has had a long time to sort out what’s good and what’s not.

I think it’s selfish to impose your beliefs on others. I was brought up in a ‘Christian’ environment, but I was always given the choice whether to accept it or not. Where’s the choice in having a part of your body ‘augmented’ when you are too young to object.

[Lizzard[MPE]]

Originally posted by ZokesPro
I wonder what Liz would reply?

well.. lol. if u must know ive been with one and without one. if i were to have a child one day i would not get them circumsized.

[SitFlyer]

Originally posted by Lizzard[MPE]

well.. lol. if u must know ive been with one and without one........

Hey, does that mean, you've only been with 2?

[ZokesPro]

Originally posted by Lizzard[MPE]
well.. lol. if u must know ive been with one and without one. if i were to have a child one day i would not get them circumsized.

I was just curious as to your view on this. I'm always interested to hear what girls think of this.

[bambam]

why go hardtop when you can have a convertible? Sure it's a little maintenace, but so are the best cars. Besides, chicks dig convertibles

[Novdid]

bambam, that was one of the most twisted comparisons ever made, and a looooong shot aswell!!!

I LIKE IT!

[DentyCracker]

ROFL
I am whole. I won't have my sons snipped (if I have anything to do with it) If they want to get snipped later that is their perogative. If it were up to me no one would have piercings of any sort (or tatoos). But that is just me

[dave m]

Since you mention it Denty, what do people think about seeing toddlers with pierced ears and earrings?

Dave

[Liquid_Memory]

Its turning back to the days of sodom and gomorrah.

[Wombat]

Yeaaaah! Vegas baby! VE-GAS!!!

[Paddy]

I am against piercings in kids for the same reason as above

[Fat Tone]

What about masturbation? Doesn't it change that experience somewhat?

[Tomasz]

Circumcision is a tough issue to argue because it evokes many individual biases based on one’s own experiences, or lack of, with the act. Those who have been circumsized bring up medical studies, religious arguments, etc. in order to rationalize that decision and try to assert that it was the superior one. On the other hand, those who are not circumsized bring up different medical studies, different religious arguments, etc. in order to demonstrate that their choice was superior. How do we tell which side is right?…hey, I’m not omniscient, but I can tell you what I think and then each person can make up his or her own mind.

Personally, I ascribe to the anti-circumcision line of thought for reasons echoed in the previous paragraph as well as those stated previously by Paddy.

Through years of studying chemistry and biology, I have come to realize how little we, as humans, know of the human body and consequently I feel very uneasy when people, with their limited knowledge, try to fix something “that ain’t broke.” Circumcision, especially when argued as creating a more hygienic, HIV resistant, non-cervical cancer causing uber-penis, seems to me as nothing more than man’s attempt to improve on what was already meticulously designed and tested by nature. If our foreskins had been such a horrible affliction through the years, especially in earlier, less hygienic times, we would then expect them to be rooted out by natural selection, if we are to believe Darwin. Clearly, this has not happened.

Another objection I have to the practice is that it involves a quite horrific procedure, which until recently, was done without anesthesia. In fact, just recently in 1997, for some reason doctors studied the obvious question of whether circumcision was painful. They found that “Circumcision causes newborns a lot of pain, and they should always receive anesthesia for it. Suffering caused by the procedure was so clear in a new study of anesthetics that researchers stopped enrollment early because they decided it was unethical to circumcise any more newborns without an anesthetic.” Now to complicate matters further, anesthesiology is not exactly an exact science and could have dangerous side effects, especially when applied to a newborn. This all leads me to ask myself a question: Would I agree to such a procedure being carried out on myself? HELL NO! Perhaps if this trait was acquired in a Lamarckian style, I would mind it less, but Weismann's amputation experiments showed us that evolution does not work this way. Thus, since I would not wish this procedure carried out on myself, it follows that I would not want the procedure carried out on my child for whom I would have to make the decision.

Now to analyze the seeming benefits of circumcision:

*It is more hygienic
Perhaps, but cleaning is not exactly so much tougher a chore (just one extra step)…

*Prevents urinary tract infections (especially early in life)
This seems to be true, but the majority of these cases are not extremely serious. Besides, ear infections are much more common anyways at that stage in life and no one is calling on us to excise our ears…yet.

*Lowers incidence of HIV infection
As is the case with many studies concerning HIV, this has not been proven to my satisfaction. “Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.” (Int J STD & AIDS, 10:8-16, 1999). HIV infection mechanisms are still quite debatable, but if we are to assume that an increase in abrasions would foster a higher incidence of infection, then I would propose that the more taut skin on a circumcised penis would be more prone to such abrasions. In either case, as long as you are mutually faithful with your significant other, you should in theory have little to worry about STDs or AIDS.

*Decreases risk of penile cancer
Sorry, I do not know much about this one. I’m guessing that this cancer would probably be linked to some sort of viral infection… which is probably blamed on an intact foreskin…for some reason…

*Lowers cervical cancer in partners
Similar to the point above, this is probably also linked to a viral infection…how an intact foreskin helps a virus I do not know…

Let’s close this off with a quasi-statistic:
The US, certain Muslim countries, and Israel have quite high circumcision rates. Most of Europe and South America have quite low circumcision rates. Both groups seem to do all right.
Both approaches seem to work, but I choose to be a minimalist and choose the option that requires one to do nothing (if nothing is broken…).

Sorry for the long post… but this has been on my mind lately as I have been trying to (calmly and logically) convince a certain significant other about the correctness of my position.

All my best

[Paddy]

What piercings??? I guess it would...

[Paddy]

Nice post Tomasz.

The only way that i can rationalise the decreased incidence of cervical cancer would be through exposure to HPV (human pappiloma virus) as you surmised. Genital warts are far more prevalent on foreskin tissue than on the glans for some reason. But the strain of virii that causes warts does not cause cancer...

It is a horrific operation, by far the worst that i've ever seen.
I remember mentioning to the theater nurse that i cant imagine this being done without an anasthetic...