Male Circumcision

[Alexandrah]

I have had this discussion on other (non religious) boards and it seems to be a very sensitive topic. Not really sure why.

Do you believe that circumcision is an acceptable practice and if so what are your reasons for believing that?

Personally, I feel that it is a form of mutilation. You are born with foreskin and removing it or treating it as a disposable part seems ridiculous.

Without going into too much detail, someone I know was circumcised as a baby and his mother did not care for the wound properly and a section of his penis is now fused. He is extremely resentful about being "mutilated" and is avidly against the practice. His situation prompted me to read more about it.

I understand that for Jewish men it is symbolic and a covenant and that is not what I am referring to with this question. This inquiry is in regards to Christian and secular families that chose to do this.

Thoughts?

 

[stan1980]

I had an infection when i was very young, so had to have mine chopped off. To be honest, the reaction i get from ladies now is they seem to prefer it to an uncircumcised penis, so i'm quite glad i had it done (although they could just be saying that!!).

I've got a friend who got circumcised a year ago, because he couldn't pull his foreskin down properly (apparently this is quite common), and judging by the pain he went through, i'm sure he would have prefered to have had the op when he was a baby.

Having been circumcised (albeit for medical reasons), i don't see a problem with it.

 

[Skaloop]

If it's for medical reasons (as with Stan and his friend), I have no problem with it whatsoever.

If it's for religious reasons, I still think it's unnecessary and excessive, but I guess it's up to the parents (provided it is done safely and properly).

If it's just because the parents feel like it, think it looks better, or want their son to look like the dad, then I think it's a ridiculously stupid thing to do and is unjustifiable. Even the issue of cleanliness under the foreskin is easily addressed by teaching proper personal hygeine, and as such is a weak argument in favour of the procedure.

As for Stan's comment that the chicks dig it, well, that might be chalked up to chicks expecting it. It's been conditioned into them (here in North America at least, by a culture that is largely circumcised) that cut is prettier. But as circumcision rates drop (which they are doing) I think that such an arbitrary preference will drop as well.

For the record, my wife prefers uncut.

 

[TheManeki]

A while back my curiosity got piqued on the topic, so I did a little reading. I found two contrasting articles in the Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, which I'll summarize below.

Both of the articles I have, however, are review articles. This means they just summarize the findings of a whole lot of other articles, so the actual data aren't immediately available for direct evaluation. Unfortunately, I never had time to follow up on all the references corresponding to the numbers in brackets, but I can give them to anyone who is interested if they wish to do so.

=================================================================================

"Male circumcision – see the harm to get a balanced picture"
John D. Dalton (NORM-UK, an anti-circumcision group)
Journal of Men’s Health & Gender
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 312–317, September 2007

Criticisms:

• If a child, consent of the individual to be circumcised is not given
• Removes specialized sensory tissue [17], half the penile skin [17], the normal gliding function that facilitates intromission [18], and the most sensitive part of the penis [19]
• Reported complication rates for circumcision have been as high as 55% [21]
• Complications include anesthetic morbidity, pubic abscess, impotence, tetanus, loss of the head of the penis, and loss of the entire penis [13, 23]
• Studies claiming that circumcision alleviates mental illness [2], tuberculosis [3], masturbation [4], penile cancer [5,6], syphilis [7], urinary tract infections [8], accelerated hypertension [9], schistosomiasis [10], and HIV [11–14] have yet to statistically prove it to be an effective measure
• Circumcision may increase the chances of getting of HIV during the surgical procedure [38]
• Circumcision may reduce production of langerin, a natural barrier to HIV transmission [40]

=================================================================================

"The case for routine circumcision"
Yaser El-Hout, MD, and Raja B. Khauli, MD (The American University of
Beirut-Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon)
Journal of Men’s Health & Gender
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 300–305, September 2007


Benefits:

• Prevents urinary tract infections [5-8]
• Prevents/cures Zoon’s plasma cell balanitis [9], lichen planus [9], lichen sclerosus [10], chronic idiopathic penile edema [9]
• Reduces susceptibility to the STDs chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes (Herpes simplex type II), gonorrhea [11]
• Reduces susceptibility to HIV by removing an area rich in HIV target cells and receptors [12-15]
• Reduces risk of penile cancer [16-20]

=================================================================================

 

[jayem]

Dittos to what Skaloop posted. I think the main reasons for routine (meaning non-medical and non-religious) circumcision are aesthetics and conformity. I'm sure that's why I was circumcised. It was just SOP back in the 50s. Even if those reasons are valid, I don't think they justify circumcising an infant who can't give consent. (Personally, I don't think non-consensual religious circumcision is justified, but that's another discussion.)

However there is one lesser known benefit from routine circumcision. The fibroblast cells from newborn foreskins are harvested, grown in cell culture, and used to produce living skin substitutes that are very helpful in treating severe wounds and burns, diabetic foot ulcers, and the like. Dermagraft is one product. So more circumcisions mean better burn care.

 

[stan1980]

So some burns victim is walking around with my foreskin on their head?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Though I think circumcision is probably more healthy, aesthetic etc., it horrifies me that parents think it's OK to mutilate their children's genitals for no reason whatsoever.

If it's for religious reasons, I still think it's unnecessary and excessive, but I guess it's up to the parents (provided it is done safely and properly).

I can definitely see your viewpoint, but I wonder why we think that a parent has free choice to decide any important matter of a child's welfare whatsoever.

 

[Skaloop]

I can definitely see your viewpoint, but I wonder why we think that a parent has free choice to decide any important matter of a child's welfare whatsoever.

Well, I still think it shouldn't be done for religious reasons, but I am willing to cut them a little more slack on the matter than I am with performing it for aesthetic reasons. But it's still a religious tradition that I think they could do without.

And as I am not sure, are there any other religions besides Judaism that "require" circumcision?

 

[flicka]

I decided, as a parent and for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, to have my son circumcised when he was born 17 years ago. I also decided, as a parent, to get my kids all the vaccines available to them, including the new HPV shots for my now 21 year old daughter. And, unlike my friend with two uncircumcised sons, mine never had any kind of infection. I realize my decisions might annoy some people but what do I care? My kids are both happy and healthy and glad that I took responsibility for them.

 

[stan1980]

I know it's not quite the same thing, but what about parents who get their babies ears pierced for cosmetic reasons. Is that wrong?

Or if a baby has an unsightly growth, should they leave it till the child is old enough to make it's own decision on whether it wants to operate, or is it better to operate while the baby is young enough so that it wont remember the pain.

 

[jayem]

And as I am not sure, are there any other religions besides Judaism that "require" circumcision?

Islam does also. Because in the OT, God tells Abraham to circumcise both Isaac and Ishmael.

 

[Skaloop]

I decided, as a parent and for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, to have my son circumcised when he was born 17 years ago. I also decided, as a parent, to get my kids all the vaccines available to them, including the new HPV shots for my now 21 year old daughter. And, unlike my friend with two uncircumcised sons, mine never had any kind of infection. I realize my decisions might annoy some people but what do I care? My kids are both happy and healthy and glad that I took responsibility for them.

I never had any kind of infection. Neither did my brother. Neither of us are circumcised. Circumcision does not remove the risk, it only reduces it. While at the same time increasing the risk for other things (such as HIV).

I will not argue that circumcision cannot reduce the chances of infection. That's been demonstrated. But teaching a boy about hygiene is a far less invasive method than cutting off a bit of the penis.

I don't exactly fault you for having your boys circumcised. Especially because you appear to have done it for health reasons rather than looks or tradition. But the health issues can be addressed by non-surgical procedures, and as such circumcision is becoming less necessary.

 

[Merlin]

Personally, I feel that it is a form of mutilation. You are born with foreskin and removing it or treating it as a disposable part seems ridiculous.

Do you feel this way about toe nails, finger nails, hair (leg, arm, facial, head) etc?

 

[stan1980]

While at the same time increasing the risk for other things (such as HIV).

I'm pretty certain i've read in a few different sources that the HIV risk is reduced if you are circumcised. Unless you are talking about the operation itself, and in that case you could apply that to any operation.

 

[Skaloop]

Do you feel this way about toe nails, finger nails, hair (leg, arm, facial, head) etc?

Those things are (a) dead cells, and (b) non-sensitive.

 

[flicka]

I never had any kind of infection. Neither did my brother. Neither of us are circumcised. Circumcision does not remove the risk, it only reduces it. While at the same time increasing the risk for other things (such as HIV).

I will not argue that circumcision cannot reduce the chances of infection. That's been demonstrated. But teaching a boy about hygiene is a far less invasive method than cutting off a bit of the penis.

I don't exactly fault you for having your boys circumcised. Especially because you appear to have done it for health reasons rather than looks or tradition. But the health issues can be addressed by non-surgical procedures, and as such circumcision is becoming less necessary.

Truth is I don't think it's necessary but I don't think it's a bad thing to do either.

Mostly I don't think it's appropriate for anyone else to be concerned with a penis that isn't their own.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm pretty certain i've read in a few different sources that the HIV risk is reduced if you are circumcised. Unless you are talking about the operation itself, and in that case you could apply that to any operation.

I've heard that with the foreskin removed, there is less of a barrier to HIV. I could be wrong, though (which I am if your sources are correct).

I still stand by my point that the infection risks associated with non-circumcision can be ameliorated by teaching about cleanliness rather than surgery.

 

[Skaloop]

Truth is I don't think it's necessary but I don't think it's a bad thing to do either.

Mostly I don't think it's appropriate for anyone else to be concerned with a penis that isn't their own.

Yet you're showing concern for your sons' penises, which are obviously not your own. Why not let them make their own choice once they are old enough (although very very few men choose the procedure as adults, outside of medical necessity and religious conversion reasons).

But, that's just me being facetious. You are right; it is not a grievous thing to have done. If it's done safely, there is little risk of problems. There are plenty of worse things that can be done to a child. But personally, I would not have it done to my child.

 

[stan1980]

I think the real question every man wants to know is will you get more oral sex if you have been circumcised.. if the answer is yes, then you are doing your baby a favour by getting the op done early

 

[tapero]

I have had this discussion on other (non religious) boards and it seems to be a very sensitive topic. Not really sure why.

Do you believe that circumcision is an acceptable practice and if so what are your reasons for believing that?

Personally, I feel that it is a form of mutilation. You are born with foreskin and removing it or treating it as a disposable part seems ridiculous.

Without going into too much detail, someone I know was circumcised as a baby and his mother did not care for the wound properly and a section of his penis is now fused. He is extremely resentful about being "mutilated" and is avidly against the practice. His situation prompted me to read more about it.

I understand that for Jewish men it is symbolic and a covenant and that is not what I am referring to with this question. This inquiry is in regards to Christian and secular families that chose to do this.

Thoughts?

Hi, I don't know as to the truth of what they say as pertains to the health bit..such as some say if circumcized, less chance of something, like bacteria or cleanliness or something.

no idea if that is true.

I imagine all types of bad things have occurred during a circumcision, even total removal of a big portion.

but as to how do I feel on it, whatever the parent desires to do as pertains to their child is what I feel on it.