Circumcision – A Deeply Personal, Parental Decision

“Benefits far outweigh the risks,” in what universe may I ask? Ms. Gluck, if you are going to come out in favor of circumcision, please attach a disclaimer next time, stating that your position is completely subjective and based on data that conveniently fits your opinion. For all the studies that you cite pertaining to sexual pleasure, complications, and hiv reduction, I can cite just as many that would dispute your so called facts. However, I think that it would be best if I would simply refer you and your readers to the most recent statement on the matter, provided by the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the link for which you may find below. Needless to say, the Association, like all of its counterparts around the globe, calls circumcision “unnecessary” and “discourages non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.” The statement is very well annotated and reviews all current literature on circumcision up to 2010.

That notwithstanding, by your standards, as long as studies show any potential prophylaxis for tissue removal, it is fine to amputate healthy, full functional body parts from non-consenting patients (no matter their age). Fortunately, most health professionals consider this approach a breach of ethics, the only exception being circumcision. Once one realizes that circumcision is simply a unique and bizarre case of a cultural paradox, then the thin veneer of medical benefits that you so liberally cite becomes easily debunked.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/05/30/royal-dutch-medical-association-male-circumcision-medically-unnecessary/

Comment by chojnacm — April 18, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

how does cutting off 1/3 to 1/2 of the skin of the penis not reduce sexual pleasure?? It’s proven that that skin is full of nerve endings. Ask any intact male if it isn’t sensitive. Or read this testimony:

http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4791

I know for me the most sensitive part of my penis, the part where orgasm is most powerful, is the skin closest to where the foreskin was (i.e. the little bit of foreskin I have left, which doesn’t even come all the way up to the glans all the way around)

This info given here is very wrong. I hate being circumcised. I hate it.

Comment by Tom Potter — April 18, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

@chojnacm: First, thank you for taking the time to read my article and share your opinions with me and the other readers. Regardless of how or why we disagree, so many do not get involved or take the time to do so. That being said, I strongly disagree that circumcision is unnecessary. Certainly, uncircumcised males can have satisfying, healthy, and well-adjusted lives. That is why I believe the decision is up to the parents of the male infant and that the public should respect their decision to or not to circumcise. However, it is necessary for those of the Jewish faith and Muslim faith — not for health, but for their deeply held religious beliefs. It is, in fact, mandatory for them if they wish to continue as faithful servants of their G-d. Regarding health, empirical evidence does exist (in the studies cited and countless others), that circumcision benefits males in a number of ways (denoted in article). That being said, I in no way pass judgement on parents who choose to forego circumcision for their male infants.

Again, thank you for visiting and for your time. Sam

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 18, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

This is all based on faulty studies, and anyone who cares about their child’s future knows that it’s a basic human right to be able to choose whether or not something permanent happens to their body. 85% of the modern world is not circumcised and they all look down on circumcision that is done without the male’s consent.

Circumcision IS a deeply personal decision, but not for the parents. It is a deeply personal decision that should be thought over by a grown man about his own body.

The study for HIV which you reference is easily debunked by the fact that many European countries have the lowest rates of circumcised grown males AND the lowest HIV/STI rates. While, in the United States, we have the highest rates of HIV/STI in modern, westernized countries, but have the highest rate of circumcised grown males. Circumcision solves nothing when it comes to HIV and STIs.

In 2009, only about 30% of boys were circumcised. The majority once they reach school age will be boys who are in fact intact and whole. The insecurities that will surmount from not being a “whole man,” as many put it, heavily out weighs these false benefits.

With circumcision, you are removing a healthy body part that contains 20,000 nerve endings. The foreskins use is to cover the glans and protect them from becoming slightly desensitized from rubbing against clothing. The penis can still feel, just not as much as it would have with a foreskin still attached.

There are many men who wish they were not circumcised, but can not go back to being intact. If you leave the foreskin attached, your son will have the freedom to choose once you have raised him to be an intelligent young man, a freedom that the parent protected when they chose to keep their son intact.

If you make the powerful and strong decision to protect your child and keep them intact, you must tell all nursing staff of your choice and you MUST tell all nursing staff not to retract your son. There is no need to ever retract your son and sadly it is a common belief that one needs to do work to clean their child which is not true. It is like cleaning the rest of your beautiful newborn boy, simple soap and water to clean what is seen.

Save your newborn son’s future rights as a man and keep him intact.

Comment by Geraldine L. Rivera — April 18, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

By the time your boy is 20, routine MGM prevalence will be well below the 20%. God and tradition are never valid reasons for destroying part of healthy normal tissue.

The parents making this decision are not to blame as they don’t know the truth. The truth is ignored, and in it’s place, lies and myths abound and the medical profession propagates these to continue one of their most profitable cash making

100 boys DIE in the US a year from Routine Infant Circumcision. How much of a risk is “easier to clean” worth? Enough to possibly kill?

Comment by Steve C — April 18, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

To address Chojnacm’s comment:

“For all the studies that you cite pertaining to sexual pleasure, complications, and hiv reduction, I can cite just as many that would dispute your so called facts.” — of course citing cherry-picked studies proves nothing. What matters is what the literature, taken as a whole, indicates, and generally speaking Samantha’s summary is accurate.

‘Needless to say, the Association, like all of its counterparts around the globe, calls circumcision “unnecessary” and “discourages non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors.”’ — that’s a remarkably dishonest statement. The Royal Dutch Medical Association’s position certainly expresses this sentiment, but it is actually unique among medical associations in doing so, taking a far more “anti-circumcision” position than others. Other statements released in the past few years have been more positive; for example, the American Urological Association added in 2007 the words “the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits” http://www.auanet.org/content/guidelines-and-quality-care/policy-statements/c/circumcision.cfm The World Health Organisation recommended circumcision (in certain situations) as HIV prophylaxis http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html And the Royal Australasian College of Physicians moved towards a pro-parental choice position, adding the words “it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of
circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons” to their latest statement http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E

“That notwithstanding, by your standards, as long as studies show any potential prophylaxis for tissue removal, it is fine to amputate healthy, full functional body parts from non-consenting patients (no matter their age).” — I’m puzzled as to how you’ve managed to find this principle in Samantha’s article. Would you be good enough to quote the relevant sections?

Generally speaking, I think your understanding is flawed. Ethically, parental choice is justifiable in most matters, with the proviso that vulnerable patients must be protected from harm. The question, then, is not whether isolated studies show benefits, but whether there is evidence, on balance, of a net harm from the procedure, when benefits, risks, and harms are weighed against each other. If there is no net harm, and indeed if there is a net benefit in an individual case when social, religious, and cultural factors are included, then there is no ethical problem. Circumcision is not an exception in this respect; it’s simply that there are no surgical procedures comparable in terms of risk-benefit balance. There’s a fascinating article by Benatar and Benatar on the subject: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Benatar2

Comment by Jake — April 18, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

Yes, it IS deeply personal – for the OWNER of the penis, and *no one* else.

Comment by Cyn — April 18, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

How tragic that you, Samantha Gluck, are eons behind the times and spouting information to the detriment of others. Circumcision is a cruel, anachronistic procedure that has no place in 20th or 21st century medicine. Not even in religious practices. As a father and grandfather of males rightly left whole and intact, I find it so offensive that people like you make these statements that influence parents who lack instincts so they keep on imposing this perverse, repulsive practices on offspring. Nature and God were correct in putting foreskins on males for a whole lot of reasons. All the insipid pretexts you use are insulting to judgment. Be part of enlightened medicine and reject this hideous thing call circumcision. We know Jews and Muslims who are fine, thank you, without whacking off healthy structures.

Comment by Lawn Griffiths — April 18, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

Yes, very personal decision, I agree!!!….

One that belongs to the OWNER of the body, HELLO!!!..
HIS body, HIS rights. Genital mutilation is a disgusting practice, and people should stop disguising it as “religion”. YOUR religion ends where another human being´s body begins. Parents should have no right to strap an infant down and amputate healthy tissue from his penis.

As for “health benefits”, each and every one of them has been or is being discredited. There is a reason why NOT ONE major pediatrical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision. Not one. Not even Israel´s.

And yes, it does affect sex life. Majorly. May I suggest O´Hara´s studies on circumcision and sexuality.

Comment by Clara Franco — April 18, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

The debate of circumcision has come to a crossroads for one reason; men are now speaking out about feeling violated. As a feminist, I’m not inclined to deny an individual the same rights that I enjoy to bodily integrity. That would make me a hypocrite, degrade feminism as being double standard and redefine victim-hood. That being said, how can we as a society continue to support procedures that violate the fundamental human rights of one gender and not the other? Isn’t it also my choice as a mother to reduce my daughters risk of UTI in the same fashion? Females have a urinary tract instance of 9/100 while intact males are approximated to be 1/100. It seems that we’re allowing parents to make choices for the gender that already has the lower risk ratio. For our daughters we use antibiotics, but males are excluded from non-invasive prevention methods simply because they were once popular.

To better prove my point, 1 in 8 females will suffer from breast cancer each year. Yet, regardless of this well known statistic, I’m denied the parental right to decide to remove my daughters breast tissue to reduce her risk rate of cancer. The procedure may very well save her life later on, especially if our family is already at risk of the disease. Secondly, it would be less disfiguring if done as an infant and would yield better post-op results. However, due to legislation passed in 1997 this operation is considered abuse even when performed with the best of intentions.

Aside from all of the pros/cons rhetoric, what should be the course of action should a male determine that what was done to him was ‘wrong for him’? Is legal action permissible (as it is for females) or are they to hide in dark corners as females suffering from genital cutting once did?

From a legal standpoint… Constitutionally, the law shall show no preference to any religion, gender, age, color, etc. The law is also obligated to uphold a standard of equality and provide equal protection for ALL American citizens. Why then is it that females are protected from genital alteration and males are not despite their’ lower infection ratio? The only way our country can guarantee that all persons are created and treated equally is to either reverse the ban on female circumcision instituted in 1997 OR ban the procedure for both male and female. The only acceptable reasoning for genital cutting shall be that of medical need.

In conclusion, our government does not favor/ nor cater to any religious group which makes religion a non-excuse. My husband is a prime example of this concept. He was denied genital integrity because his parents are Jewish. Though he no longer identifies with his heritage, he is forever branded against his will. It is true that a person has the right to practice their’ religion on themselves, however, it is unconstitutional to physically maim a child lest you deny them their’ right to freedom, expression, religion, bodily integrity and their pursuit of happiness.

Comment by Rachel — April 18, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

In response to the information on complication ratios, I’d like to submit this piece from Dr. David Gibbons. He’s made his urological practice ‘correcting’ the so-called ‘low risk ratios’. For your consideration:
___________________________

Neonatal circumcision is totally unnecessary, and there is no current role for preventative or prophylactic neonatal circumcision. Unfortunately, 70-80% of neonatal circumcisions are performed by obstetricians, who can neither manage their complications (2-5% incidence) nor obtain proper informed consent (defined as outlining risks and benefits of a procedure, as well as alternatives-including nothing) for neonatal circumcision. Currently, the American College of OB-GYN (ACOG) have no parameters for training (learning and performing neonatal circumcision, managing complications) of residents, who then go out and continue this practice.

In my practice, as a pediatric urologist, I manage the complications of neonatal circumcision. For example, in a two year period, I was referred >275 newborns and toddlers with complications of neonatal circumcision. None of these were ‘revisions’ because of appearance, which I do not do. 45% required corrective surgery (minor as well as major, especially for amputative injury), whereupon some could be treated locally without surgery. Complications of this unnecessary procedure are often not reported, but of 300 pediatric urologists in this country who have practices similar to mine…well, one can do the math, to understand the scope of this problem…let alone, to understand the adverse cost-benefit aspect of complications (>$750,000) in this unfortunate group of infants and young children.

Fortunately, neonatal circumcision is on the decline as parents become educated…but the complications still continue. Until the time that the USA falls in step with the rest of the planet who does not submit newborns to neonatal circumcision, ACOG should assure that the training of obstetricians to perform this procedure is adequate, particularly in avoiding and managing complications of a procedure that is unnecessary, and that obstetricians learn to obtain proper informed consent from parents who have no idea of the problems that can ensue.

M.David Gibbons, MD
Associate Professor, Pediatric Urology, Georgetown University School of
Medicine and George Washington School of Medicine.
Attending Pediatric Urologist, Childrens National Medical Center,
Washington, DC.
Director, Pediatric Urology, Georgetown University Hospital,
Washington, DC.
Head, Pediatric Urology, Inova Fairfax Hospital For Children, Falls Church,
Virginia.

Comment by Rachel — April 18, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

Please do not speak for all Jews and Muslims, many of us chose not to have our children’s genitals violated for any potential benefit. G-d did not create males with an imperfection that needs surgical correction. All your “benefits” are currently being argued.
Would you use a birth control pill that was 60% effective? Should females be circumcised to reduce their risk of infections? Are circed males more likely to suffer from ED and PE? Yes, I do pass judgment on parents allowing physicians or mohels to alter the genitalia of infants and children unable to consent. No other part of the body can be amputated, why the foreskin? The foreskin is not extra or redundant tissue, it is vital to normal, natural intercourse. Too many people in our culture do not realize they are missing an important body part. Our society is sick.

Comment by karen — April 18, 2011 @ 6:39 pm

@Samantha Gluck: So what you’re saying is that for Jews and Muslims it’s perfectly okay because a talking shrub told them to do it 3,000 years ago?

Really? Really…..?

I could give you every concession you argue for. It even cures brain cancer, … there. It’s still DUMB to chop bits off your kid to prevent a disease 20-80 years down the line. Yeah, yeah, I know, you disagree….

I have to go, sacrificing a goat to the ju ju stone gods tonight.

Comment by Willow — April 18, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

“circumcision of adults comes with far greater risk of infection and serious complications.” No study has directly compared them. You can’t draw that conclusing by comparing outcomes in different studies with different methodologies.The baby’s penis is tiny, and any mistake is magnified when he grows up, like writing on a balloon.

The Krieger/Bailey study of 1,300 Kenyan volunteers for circumcision (selection bias right there – men who enjoy their foreskins just wouldn’t sign up) found “For the circumcision and control groups, respectively, rates of any reported sexual dysfunction decreased from 23.6% and 25.9% at baseline to 6.2% and 5.8% at month 24.” so the Hawthorne effect – just being in a study affects the outcome – was clearly as great as or greater than any effect of circumcision.

It found “Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was “much more sensitive,”…” Circumcised men never stop telling us that they they couldn’t bear to be any more sensitive than they are, so who says having your sensitivity artifically increased is a good thing?

“… and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as “much more” at month 24.” One man’s “ease of reaching orgasm” is another man’s premature ejaculation.

And what did the men who were not circumcised report? With all that Hawthorne effect, maybe their sensitivity and ease of reaching orgasm went up too.

Yes, they only found any protective effect of circumcising against HIV in high risk populations. Most US babies are not in high risk populations.

“Most significantly, for American men with definite HIV exposure, circumcision reduced actual HIV infection by a statistically significant 58 percent.” You seem to be referring to the Warner study (JID 2009; 199:59–65), in which fewer than 50 of the 385 men with definite HIV exposure were not circumcised, and about 5 more of them had HIV than expected. To call this “statistically significant” is to misuse the term.

In any case, a recent paper pulls the HIV claims to pieces: http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9

There is something very odd about the way you conflate a surgical procedure with a religious ritual. I see no reason to “respect” anyone’s decision to cut a healthy, non-renewable part of a baby, lacking a pressing medical threat to the baby’s health.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 18, 2011 @ 7:40 pm

First and foremost routine infant circumcision violates the child’s right to a normal, intact functional body. Girls are protected from genital cutting. Boys deserve the same rights, respect and protection. Forced circumcision violates the CHILD’S 1st and 14th Amendment rights, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. YES, children DO have rights.
Saying that RIC has no sexual effects is an outright LIE. How does the removal of the gliding mechanism, up to 50% of the penile skin and up to 75% of the sexually sensitive nerves NOT effect sexual function?
Infants do not have sex. Teach your son to use a condom! CONDOMS prevent STD’s including HIV/AIDS. Circumcision does not.
Over 100 babies in the US DIE every year as a result of circumcision. Needless, 100% preventable deaths.
Final considerations, it’s your child’s body, your child’s future sexual life, your child’s RIGHTS. If there is a choice to be made, it is HIS choice as an adult to make.

Comment by tqoe62 — April 18, 2011 @ 9:27 pm

@Jake “And the Royal Australasian College of Physicians moved towards a pro-parental choice position, adding the words “it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of
circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons” to their latest statement http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E”

Context, Jake, context. This immdeiately follows the words: “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia
and New Zealand. However…”

As usual “routine” is ambiguous. Only a handful of nutters think circumcision should be so routine that even parents are not consulted. Therefore it should be read hear as meaning “without medical indication”.

The RACP also says “Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male
circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent.” This was not in the 2004 policy.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 18, 2011 @ 10:56 pm

@Samantha “but for infant male circumcision, the benefits far outweigh the risks.”

It appears that you have allowed your cultural and religious bias to influence your medical judgment. Only a few pro-circumcision extremists claim the medical benefits outweigh the risks and harms.

@Samantha “the public must respect the decision of the parents either way.”

Must we also respect the decision of parents who cut the genitals of their daughters when there is no compelling medical reason for the surgery?

Comment by Stan — April 19, 2011 @ 2:26 am

The fact that Muslim and Jewish parents believe that male circumcision is a religious requirement is not a sufficiently good reason for American doctors to tolerate unnecessary genital surgery on non-Muslim and non-Jewish boys.

Comment by Stan — April 19, 2011 @ 2:32 am

@Jake “If there is no net harm, and indeed if there is a net benefit in an individual case when social, religious, and cultural factors are included, then there is no ethical problem.”

Cutting the genitals of children, boys or girls, for “social, religious, and cultural factors” in 2011 is a disgusting practice that should have ended long ago.

There is NO compelling medical reason to cut off a normal part of a healthy boy’s penis. It is past time for American doctors to put down their knives and to start respecting the rights of boys and the men they will become.

Comment by Stan — April 19, 2011 @ 2:39 am

To respond to Hugh7:

‘“circumcision of adults comes with far greater risk of infection and serious complications.” No study has directly compared them.’ — technically true, but multiple studies have assessed the risk of complications at various ages. Weiss et al reported that the risk of complications in older children is greater than in infants, and further reported that: “Our systematic review was restricted to circumcision complications among boys aged 12 years or under. However, there are several published studies of circumcision complications among adolescent and adult men (Table 6) and these indicate a generally higher frequency of complications than seen in neonates, infants and children.”

“In any case, a recent paper pulls the HIV claims to pieces: http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9” — not very convincingly, unfortunately.

“There is something very odd about the way you conflate a surgical procedure with a religious ritual.” — circumcision is always a surgical procedure, and is sometimes performed for religious reasons.

“Context, Jake, context. This immdeiately follows the words: “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However…”” — words very like these were present in the earlier (2004) RACP statement. I drew attention to what had changed, noting that they “moved towards a pro-parental choice position, adding the words”.

“As usual “routine” is ambiguous. Only a handful of nutters think circumcision should be so routine that even parents are not consulted. Therefore it should be read hear as meaning “without medical indication”.” — nonsense, they’re assessing whether the evidence of benefit is great enough to warrant a policy of routine circumcision (ie., of all newborn boys).

“The RACP also says “Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male
circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent.” This was not in the 2004 policy.” — Similar words were present in the 2004 statement: “The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit.” http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070104202310/http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/print.htm

Comment by Jake — April 19, 2011 @ 4:49 am

STOP HARMING BABIES THAT WILL ONE DAY BE MEN!

there is no logical reason, EVER, to put a baby through a painful procedure that has ZERO therapeutic results.. as well, circumcising the infant or child has very detrimental outcomes!

if one baby dies from this outdated unnecessary surgery that is too many! it is reported that 100′s of babies die every year from circumcision and who knows how many suffer from a botched circumcision which requires further surgery.. not to mention that putting an innocent child through this torture (yes it is torture!) is against their constitutional rights as an american citizen!

wake up world! please stop letting doctors cut up your child’s genitals, it is mutilation and it is sickening..

Comment by kitty love — April 19, 2011 @ 4:54 am

Without any medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing elective cosmetic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent’s sense of entitlement. Asking parents to sign on the dotted line for medically unnecessary procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals contitutes medical fraud, and one of these days they will be held responsible.

Comment by Joseph4gi — April 19, 2011 @ 5:11 am

We’ve been here before, and as usual, readers should beware Jake Waskett, AKA jakew. Google his profile using “cirlcleaks” and “jake waskett.” This man is interested in just a bit more than your child’s health. Not name-calling, but one should beware of people who have known conflicts of interest; they are incapable of presenting objective advice, only that which suits them.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 19, 2011 @ 5:14 am

The circumcision rate is going down in America. If the CDC is correct, it is as low as 33%. For better or for worse, circumcision is falling out of practice. One of these days circumcision advocates will be embarrassed to ever admit they ever advocated it. Mark my words, Samantha Gluck. Your articles, comments etc. are all being documented and recorded.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 19, 2011 @ 5:24 am

Jake,

“… If there is no net harm, and indeed if there is a net benefit in an individual case when social, religious, and cultural factors are included, then there is no ethical problem. …”

A decision about net harm or benefit is a subjective conclusion, even in the rare case of child circumcision where need for some medical intervention is present. (Beneficial compared to less invasive options?)  In an individual case, the social, religious and cultural factors you cite are purely subjective to the individual’s parents. The opinion of the child’s proxy is irrelevant as a factor on the question of net harm or benefit to him. The only applicable, ethical question is medical need. Where the circumcision would be non-therapeutic, it is unethical because it causes direct, objective harm to the individual, even if you ultimately value the subjective potential benefits more than that objective harm.

Using your personal, subjective opinion is irrelevant to how the conclusion is reached on “an individual case”. Parents are not the individual being circumcised. Their preferences are subjective to them, not the patient in an individual case. What the child prefers socially, religiously, and culturally is what matters.

By your faulty standard, anything can be claimed as ethical and justifiable. Sure, a medical intervention on a healthy child may cause objective harm, but as long as the parents claim that they value the harm for a social, religious, or cultural reason, then no one can question it. There is no standard there. Objective harm must be the key, sole consideration. Otherwise, with your reasoning, anything the parents value is legitimized, no matter how offensive.

Comment by Tony — April 19, 2011 @ 10:03 am

To all respondents: Some of you have implied that I have religious or cultural reasons that affect my views on circumcision. This is absolutely false. My faith says absolutely nothing about it at all; so from my perspective, faith has nothing to do with it. I have the unique privilege of having a close relative who married a rabbi and another (very close relative) who is married to a man who devoutly practices Islam. I honor their religious beliefs as I would want them to honor mine. I thank you for you attention to this important topic and your discourse and opinions.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 19, 2011 @ 10:54 am

@Jake: Thank you for your authoritative and knowledgeable response to the readers. Your show immense understanding of research studies as well as an ability to readily critique study and research methods. The ability to find true flaws in methodologies and research parameters is paramount when making decisions regarding treatments and further research. My personal evaluations of the studies that resulted in empirical evidence pointing to the many benefits of circumcision show them to be valid studies that used appropriate methods and controls.

Again, thank you for reading and taking the time to respond.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 19, 2011 @ 11:00 am

Quoted from Samantha Gluck: “Circumcision – A Deeply Personal, Parental Decision”

Now there is a contradiction. A deeply personal, parental decision? I will be living with my penis for the rest of my life. Not my mother. Not my father. You are right, it is a personal decision. MY decision. There is no good reason that circumcision has to be forced on someone at birth. Let them make the personal decision for themselves. I don’t sleep around without protection. The HIV prevention aspect is useless. I have good hygiene, so cleanliness is not an issue. How are my parents supposed to make an informed decision on my behalf when they don’t even know the lifestyle I will lead?

Another quote: “I strongly disagree that circumcision is unnecessary. Certainly, uncircumcised males can have satisfying, healthy, and well-adjusted lives.”

Ok. Now the contradictions are just ridiculous.

Comment by Joshua B — April 19, 2011 @ 1:42 pm

Jake W is s Circumfetishist and yes, I’ve seen his happy opinions on several sites. Practially a protoge of the imminent infant mutilator Brian Morris, who is himself a Circumfetishist and a member of Gilgal and if you want to know what they are, just do a search around, cause I’m just finished eating and I want my food to stay down. It’s not uncommon for these people to have multiple circumcisions and fantasies about the procedure.

The problem is Jake does not have valid information, he has very little to support his words. As for your personal evaluations, I highly doubt you’ve looked at all sides of the issue with anything but bias towards a decision you’ve already made and are merely looking for people to agree with you, to lessen any guilt you feel.

After 3 years of constant research into Male Genital Mutilation and Female Genital mutilation, I looked at all the evidence I found both for and against and I couldn’t come up with any other conclusion that it’s wrong in all it’s forms for anyone below the age of 19, when they can freely decide for themselves.

Comment by Steve C — April 19, 2011 @ 2:21 pm

Circumcision is a harmful, brutal, painful, needless procedure that is making tons of money for those that profit by it. Make no mistake, this is genital mutilation, and a violation of human rights. It is also sexual abuse and torture.

Comment by Doulalee — April 19, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

Samantha, you insist that your faith does not inform your opinion on circumcision. How do your religious beliefs square with the fact that, as some have mentioned, many of the people who manufacture research promoting circumcision are fetishists who sexualise circumcision? People like Brian Morris, Edgar Schoen, as well as Jake Waskett, the person you congratulate above, are members of a group whose websites feature circumcision-related pornography. Stories on their pages include smut about young boys being drugged and circumcised while those present masturbate. Is this type of thing consistent with your faith? What about your professional ethics as someone who works in the field of medicine? Are we to assume that you support the fetishism these men promote as much as you support their “research?”

Comment by Kelev — April 19, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

The jury is in as far as most parents are concerned: 70 percent choose not to circumcise, a margin larger than most political elections. It’s amazing that intactivists continue to be belittled and treated as out of the mainstream, when in fact they hold the mainstream view. For those of you who believe in leaving boys intact, don’t let yourself be marginalized. Those who are vehemently pro-circumcision are largely from a generation when circumcision was accepted as the norm, and they are fighting the paradigm shift.

Other points to be made …
– The much-touted African HIV studies: Promoting circumcision in the U.S. would not lower the AIDS rate, even if the results were comparable to the U.S. The idea is geared toward maintaining the status quo. Since most sexually active males currently are still circumcised, we could expect turning around the anti-circumcision trend only to maintain the level we currently see. The whole anti-AIDS campaign in the U.S. is based on assumptions about vectors of transmission, and it blows the medical community’s mind to think about changing that approach, so this is why we see the medical community floating trial balloons to promote circumcision as policy.
– The U.S has a vested interest in trying to lower the AIDS rate in Africa, and the powers that be decided circumcision is the way to do that in Africa. The U.S. government wants to support this in order to lower the overall global AIDS rate. But it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to promote circumcision in Africa but not here. So that’s why you see the CDC trying to move toward supporting circumcision. It’s a political decision.
– One could find health benefits in removing any number of healthy body parts, but there is a point when it’s unethical and inhumane to do so. Removing the lips would dry out and keratinize the mouth, making it less of a hotbed for receiving and transmitting germs. The tongue would become less sensitive but might still taste flavors in a dull way, much like the senses of a circumcised penis. Lip removal would certainly discourage overeating and thus obesity, lowering the rates of heart disease and diabetes. Yet removing the lips at birth would be considered unethical and inhumane. The same should be said of the foreskin.
– It’s quite difficult to analyze a culture from within it, but I think we all intuitively know why there’s such a recurring cultural compulsion to circumcise males, and why it’s taken root in the U.S. so deeply. It’s intended as a message to males: “As a male, no one will come to your rescue. You are required to make sacrifices for society, and there will be things you don’t like — like circumcison. But you need to ‘man up’ and accept that because you will have to bear other unpleasant things in life, and you are expected to do so without complaint.” This message is considered so important to make that society wants to imprint it on guys almost from the moment of birth. Shouldn’t we have moved past this ritualistic behavior as a society?
– In analyzing statements from so-called medical experts about circumcision, bear in mind the things they have been wrong about over the years. Up until a few years ago, no anesthetic was used in neonatal circumcisions. And doctors would unequivocally state that baboes felt no pain, so there was no harm. Now even the most vehement circumcision advocates in the medical community will admit that babies do feel pain. If they were so wrong about this for so many years, then why believe what they say now?
– Comparing data from males circumcised as adults is flawed because they likely underwent circumcision due to physical pathology or psychological desire. Therefore, circumcision would be interpreted as an improvement by them. Also, they are typically asked to compare “before” and “after” at most 18 months after circumcision. A more accurate assessment would occur about 30 years later after decades of keratinization.

Comment by SteveB — April 19, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

To respond to SteveB:

“The jury is in as far as most parents are concerned: 70 percent choose not to circumcise, a margin larger than most political elections.” — here SteveB is referring to an obscure slide presented at a conference last year, reporting a 32.5% circumcision rate. Interestingly, both the CDC and the company responsible for the analysis both distanced themselves from the figure, stressing that it may well be inaccurate. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=1&ref=health

“It’s amazing that intactivists continue to be belittled and treated as out of the mainstream, when in fact they hold the mainstream view.” — even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US circumcision rate is less than 50%, you’ve made a serious logical error here, because not circumcising one’s son is not the same thing as opposing circumcision, or believing that other people should not circumcise their sons.

“The much-touted African HIV studies: Promoting circumcision in the U.S. would not lower the AIDS rate, even if the results were comparable to the U.S.” — researchers at the CDC appear to disagree. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2807456/

“The U.S has a vested interest in trying to lower the AIDS rate in Africa, and the powers that be decided circumcision is the way to do that in Africa. The U.S. government wants to support this in order to lower the overall global AIDS rate. But it would be hypocritical for the U.S. to promote circumcision in Africa but not here. So that’s why you see the CDC trying to move toward supporting circumcision. It’s a political decision.” — that’s an interesting theory. Where’s the evidence?

“One could find health benefits in removing any number of healthy body parts, but there is a point when it’s unethical and inhumane to do so. Removing the lips would dry out and keratinize the mouth, making it less of a hotbed for receiving and transmitting germs. The tongue would become less sensitive but might still taste flavors in a dull way, much like the senses of a circumcised penis.” — as noted above, though, the senses of penis aren’t adversely affected by circumcision.

“Lip removal would certainly discourage overeating and thus obesity, lowering the rates of heart disease and diabetes. Yet removing the lips at birth would be considered unethical and inhumane. The same should be said of the foreskin.” — that doesn’t make sense. Any rational cost-benefit analysis of lip removal would inevitably find it was a net harm: the immediate surgical risks, probable long-term medical harms, psychological harms, etc., should make that obvious.

“It’s quite difficult to analyze a culture from within it, but I think we all intuitively know why there’s such a recurring cultural compulsion to circumcise males, and why it’s taken root in the U.S. so deeply. It’s intended as a message to males: “As a male, no one will come to your rescue. You are required to make sacrifices for society, and there will be things you don’t like — like circumcison. But you need to ‘man up’ and accept that because you will have to bear other unpleasant things in life, and you are expected to do so without complaint.” This message is considered so important to make that society wants to imprint it on guys almost from the moment of birth. Shouldn’t we have moved past this ritualistic behavior as a society?” — again, an interesting theory, but do you have anything approximating evidence?

“In analyzing statements from so-called medical experts about circumcision, bear in mind the things they have been wrong about over the years. Up until a few years ago, no anesthetic was used in neonatal circumcisions. And doctors would unequivocally state that baboes felt no pain, so there was no harm. Now even the most vehement circumcision advocates in the medical community will admit that babies do feel pain. If they were so wrong about this for so many years, then why believe what they say now?” — so, by logical extension, are you saying that nobody should ever believe anybody about anything? After all, it seems a safe bet that, given any subject matter, at least one expert has made an incorrect statement about it at some point in history. Right?

“Comparing data from males circumcised as adults is flawed because they likely underwent circumcision due to physical pathology or psychological desire. Therefore, circumcision would be interpreted as an improvement by them.” — this is a gross exaggeration. The physical pathology might not have an adverse effect on sex; the reason for volunteering might have nothing to do with an expectation of improved sexual intercourse.

“Also, they are typically asked to compare “before” and “after” at most 18 months after circumcision. A more accurate assessment would occur about 30 years later after decades of keratinization.” — Szabo and Short showed in 2000 that the glans of the circumcised penis is equally keratinised as that of the uncircumcised penis, and most studies of glans sensitivity have shown that there is no difference, even among adults who were neonatally circumcised. So this objection seems rather unrealistic, as this evidence indicates that those 30 years wouldn’t make any difference.

Comment by Jake — April 19, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

Why was the following quote from The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia not approved for this forum?

“Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non?therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention.”

https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

Comment by Stan — April 19, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

@Jake “the senses of penis aren’t adversely affected by circumcision.”

If a male’s foreskin is cut off, he will never experience the sensations from his foreskin again. The only person who can legitimately say whether or not those sensations have value is the man himself.

Comment by Stan — April 19, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

Samantha, for the record, are you also a member of the afore-mentioned group, that includes Jake and many of those who promote circumcision, and hosts violent, circumcision-related porn as part of its work on behalf of circumcision?

Comment by Kelev — April 19, 2011 @ 7:21 pm

Samantha – You do realize that the age at which circumcision would have any benefit (and all studies prove it would be not significant) a male would be old enough to decide for himself if he wanted to take that kind of drastic action with his body. Circumcision is of absolutely NO benefit to an infant. You are robbing men of making their own informed decisions as adults. As a full grown man, I can fully say that I would rather go through this procedure as an adult, capable of receiving proper pain relief, than as a tiny helpless infant.

Comment by Paul — April 19, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

First a Jew is Jewish because of their mother not their penis. Second your religion ends where another persons body begins. There are many things religions of the world call for (female circumcisions, human and animal sacrifice etc) and they are illegal. Religion is not a reason to mutilate your baby. Besides the practice was NEVER to cut the entire foreskin off!!!

Leave baby boys alone. Neither God nor Nature make mistakes

Comment by Erin — April 19, 2011 @ 8:51 pm

“I honor their religious beliefs as I would want them to honor mine.” See http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

Do you honour the religious beliefs of this devout Muslim mother who had her daughter circumcised? (NB, the Malaysian version seems to be quite minimal, and was carried out in a doctors office, so the horrors of African FGC are irrelevant.)

Comment by Hugh7 — April 19, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

It’s actually quite impressive that Jake, aka JakeW the circumfetishist can type so much crap one handed.

Comment by Willow — April 19, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

The article above is filled with already dispelled myths about circumcision. How is preemptive removal of a functioning body part the right thing to do? Vaginas harbor much more bacteria than foreskin. Should we start allowing FGM in the US again? Have you ever watched a circumcision on an infant, Samantha? It is the most disturbing and violent thing I have ever watched. How can you possibly advocate for the sexual assault and torture of babies? How can you possibly align yourself people who get off on watching babies being circumcised?

Comment by Christine M — April 20, 2011 @ 12:07 am

This was Ms. Gluck’s response to me when I informed her of the fact that many of her sources are known sexual fetishists whose websites contain circumcision related pornography:

“Thank you so much for visiting my site and for taking the time to comment. I am concerned about adults, children, unborn babies, and virtually all human life. I don’t know Misters Waskett, Schoen, and Morris at all. I do know that Mr. Waskett delivers authoritative, concise arguments for the decision to circumcise. He cites his commentary with links that one can easily read and evaluate for themselves. I believe that parents should have the right to decide to circumcise their boys as infants, just as they should have the right to immunize their infants regardless of controversy surrounding certain vaccines. Additionally, I also respect and welcome opinions that are contrary to my own and others, provided it remains free of personal accusations, unproven rumor, and offensive language. Please comment away on this site as well regarding the practice of circumcision.”

Ms. Gluck, I hope you aren’t suggesting that the information about the pro-circumcision fetishism behind your sources is “unproven rumor.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Information about the Gilgal society, its members like Jake Waskett, Brian Morris, Edward Schoen et al, and their perverse preferences is fairly well-known. For better or for worse, they aren’t that discreet. Indeed, I’m surprised that, with all the research you claim to have done on this issue, you have never encountered (or claim you have never encountered) these facts before. You have either been lax in your research, or turned a blind eye to the seedier foundations of the pro-circumcision movement.

Either way, it leads me to question your own validity and ethics. I can’t imagine how any thinking, feeling person who claims to be interested in the causes you supposedly support wouldn’t be horrified upon learning about things like the Gilgal society, its members, and its agenda. Yet you blithely dismiss these facts again and again. Please, Ms. Gluch. Where is your sense of decency? Are you blind to what’s going on? Do you actually possess the morals you claim to represent? Where is your soul?

Comment by Kelev — April 20, 2011 @ 12:15 am

To respond to Christine M:

“The article above is filled with already dispelled myths about circumcision. How is preemptive removal of a functioning body part the right thing to do? Vaginas harbor much more bacteria than foreskin. Should we start allowing FGM in the US again?” — there’s little evidence that FGC would result in health benefits. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: the only study in the literature found greater risk of urinary tract infection in females who had undergone female genital cutting. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16485592

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 4:08 am

To respond to Paul:

“Samantha – You do realize that the age at which circumcision would have any benefit (and all studies prove it would be not significant) a male would be old enough to decide for himself if he wanted to take that kind of drastic action with his body. Circumcision is of absolutely NO benefit to an infant.” — this is incorrect. Circumcision offers multiple benefits to an infant, including protection against UTIs, balanitis and posthitis, acquired phimosis, penile and possibly prostate cancer, HIV and other STIs, etc. If circumcision is performed later, then the magnitude of many of these benefits (with the exception of STIs) are reduced, since the period of protection is shorter. Also, while confounding is possible, it appears that circumcision after infancy does not protect against penile cancer. Finally, the risk of complications is greater when performed after infancy. This is not to say that circumcision *must* be performed in infancy, but if it is to be performed infancy is clearly the best time to do it.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 4:15 am

Ms. Gluck, you do realise, don’t you, that parents use pages like these as a resource for information on health issues pertaining to our children. Do you think it is responsible or ethical to, unwittingly or not, allow your page to become a forum for pro-circumcision sexual fetishists like Jake Waskett? This is a man with no credentials, no training, no education, and no professional qualifications that would make him a credible commentator in these matters. His only “expertise” in the area comes from editing Wikipedia articles in order to give them a pro-circumcision slant, and his reason for doing this is rooted firmly in his sexual fetishism around circumcision, as he has plainly admitted online. Is this someone you want to give free reign to? Is this someone you want to be professionally associated with? There are some very, very serious ethical issues here that you have completely avoided and it does not make you look like a responsible health professional to avoid these issues. I am shocked that you seem to be complicit with what is going on. Who is in control here? Is there someone above you who we should contact with regard to your apparent irresponsibility in addressing these issues?

Comment by Kelev — April 20, 2011 @ 5:12 am

Unless there is any medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent’s sense of entitlement. A healthy child isn’t in need of any “benefits,” especially “benefits” that can already be obtained by other means. The only time doctors are qualified to perform surgery, and when parents have a “choice” is when there is an actual problem that cannot be remedied in any other way. Otherwise it’s charlatanism, it’s fraud, it’s abuse, and it’s child genital mutilation.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:18 am

Little fact about UTIs; they are already quite rare in boys. UTIs happen 10x more in girls than in boys, and when they happen, they clear right up with anti-biotics. It makes absolutely no sense to permanently disfigure a child’s penis to prevent an already rare disease that is easily treatable.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:21 am

“Balanitis and posthitis” are also rare and easily treatable. Removing the foreskin to prevent these is like removing the labia to prevent yeast infection. Penile cancer is already quite rare, and it’s limited to older men who have poor hygene and are heavy smokers. Sometimes circumcision CAUSES phimosis. I liked the half-concealed “possibly” prostate cancer… It’d be nice to know why even though 80% of US men are circumcised, 1 in 6 will get prostate cancer… protection? Where art thou? Circumcision does not, cannot prevent against HIV or any other STI. All one has to do is look at the realities between the US, where most men are circumcised, and Europe, where most men are not. STD rates are, in fact, higher in the US. (Jake will be quick to point out differences in condom usage and sex ed, but he only makes my point in showing where the real benefits can be found…)

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:26 am

“If circumcision is performed later, then the magnitude of many of these benefits (with the exception of STIs) are reduced.” (Assuming circumcision actually does provide these “benefits,” and assuming that these benefits cannot possibly be obtained in any other way).

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:27 am

“Little fact about UTIs; they are already quite rare in boys.” — during boyhood, perhaps, but the lifetime risk is 13.7% (see p625, chapter 13, http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/uda/)

“UTIs happen 10x more in girls than in boys, and when they happen, they clear right up with anti-biotics.” — for the sake of accuracy, the female-male ratio is actually closer to 3x, but quite why this should be relevant is another matter. In any case, antibiotic treatment is usually, but not always effective; sometimes renal damage can occur before the infection can be treated.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 5:29 am

“…it appears that circumcision after infancy does not protect against penile cancer.” Not that it matters, as penile cancer is vanishingly rare, and it’s limited to dirty old men who smoke and don’t wash. Here’s what the American Cancer Society has to say about circumcision and penile cancer: “In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren’t circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.”

Found this here:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:31 am

“…it appears that circumcision after infancy does not protect against penile cancer.” Not that it matters, as penile cancer is vanishingly rare, and it’s limited to dirty old men who smoke and don’t wash. Here’s what the American Cancer Society has to say about circumcision and penile cancer: “In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren’t circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.”

Found this here:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention

“Finally, the risk of complications is greater when performed after infancy. This is not to say that circumcision *must* be performed in infancy, but if it is to be performed infancy is clearly the best time to do it.”
But let’s talk about some of the risks of performing non-medical surgery on an already healthy minor. This puts him at risk for infections, including MRSA. This puts him at risks for partial or full ablations (see Mogen clamp). This puts him at risk of death. Concervative estimates say that 117 boys die a year due to the procedure. Since it is a known fact that hospitals hide this information, and/or doctors attribute the death to something else, these deaths are only the tip of the iceberg. These risks are unacceptable given the fact that circumcision is elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery. Not to mention it’s charlatanism, fraud, abuse and a violation of basic human rights.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:35 am

“Finally, the risk of complications is greater when performed after infancy. This is not to say that circumcision *must* be performed in infancy, but if it is to be performed infancy is clearly the best time to do it.”
But let’s talk about some of the risks of performing non-medical surgery on an already healthy minor. This puts him at risk for infections, including MRSA. This puts him at risks for partial or full ablations (see Mogen clamp). This puts him at risk of death. Concervative estimates say that 117 boys die a year due to the procedure. Since it is a known fact that hospitals hide this information, and/or doctors attribute the death to something else, these deaths are only the tip of the iceberg. These risks are unacceptable given the fact that circumcision is elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery. Not to mention it’s charlatanism, fraud, abuse and a violation of basic human rights.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:35 am

“during boyhood, perhaps, but the lifetime risk is 13.7%.”
Surprise, surprise, there are lifetime risks for any condition you choose to name. It does not warrant the mutilation of the organs of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

“for the sake of accuracy, the female-male ratio is actually closer to 3x, but quite why this should be relevant is another matter.”
I’m quite sure it’s higher than that. Why is this relevant? Because it makes no sense to mutilate a child’s genitals to prevent a disease that is already rare and easily treated.
“In any case, antibiotic treatment is usually, but not always effective; sometimes renal damage can occur before the infection can be treated.”
Yes, I’m sure, sometimes. I’m still not convinced that rare, easily treated conditions warrants the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:40 am

To respond to Joseph4GI:

“But let’s talk about some of the risks of performing non-medical surgery on an already healthy minor. This puts him at risk for infections, including MRSA. This puts him at risks for partial or full ablations (see Mogen clamp). This puts him at risk of death.” — while true, these risks are present at any age, and the risk of serious complications is extremely low.

“Concervative estimates say that 117 boys die a year due to the procedure.” — hardly a conservative estimate. It was obtained using a flawed approach – assuming that the difference between male and female infant mortality statistics could be explained entirely as a result of circumcision. See analysis here: http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html

“These risks are unacceptable given the fact that circumcision is elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery.” — irrational. Risks of circumcision need to be compared with risks of lack of circumcision. Considering only the first set in isolation is unrealistic.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 5:40 am

Finally, I’d like to address the (self-interested) use of “studies” to justify human rights violations. It seems people are under this delusion that all is justifies as long as there is “science” to serve as an alibi. This is sick and misguided. There would never be enough “science” to legitimize the forced circumcision of baby girls. Not even if “studies showed” it prevented or “reduced” this or that. Not even if doctors came up with a way to preserve her sexuality. A human rights violation does not stop being a human rights violation by mere virtue that self-interested quacks were able to concoct pseudo-science and successfully blind well-meaning people with it.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:43 am

“while true, these risks are present at any age, and the risk of serious complications is extremely low.”
It’s those serious complications I’m worry about. And no, ablation is more present in babies, where their organs are tiny, more fragile and easier to sever.

And an analysis made by YOU, is hardly worth considering. Seriously. Give me an expert in the field, not someone who jacks off to circ porn.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:46 am

And Jake. We know exactly who you are. You may fool others into believing that you are this objective voice of reason who is only interested in “the facts.” But we know who you are, that your interests lie elsewhere, and that you only present “facts” that are favorable to you, while dismissing or finding “confounding factors” in all that is devastating to your pitiful case. Your little act doesn’t fool all of us; we know you were interested in child genital mutilation long before you ever gave a damn about disease prevention. You fool no one, Jake, you fool no one.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 5:49 am

” irrational. Risks of circumcision need to be compared with risks of lack of circumcision. Considering only the first set in isolation is unrealistic.” – What is “irrational” is the pretense that genital mutilation can be rendered not using “science” cooked up by self-interested “researchers.” What is “irrational” is that so-called “researchers” are working to preserve genital mutilation, not to render it absolete. What is “irrational” is that there ARE already better ways to prevent disease, but people like you insist on all the flimsy “study” to legitimize infant genital mutilation. What’s “irrational” is that “science” and “study” are being used to violate the basic human rights of the defenseless. Circumcising healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of basic human rights. When something is such, there is not enough “science” that can dress it up.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 6:04 am

“Lack of circumcision” is a misnomer. The human penis isn’t “lacking” anything; it is the circumcised penis that lacks normal, natural parts. The circumcised penis is not the basis for comparison; the intact penis is. When considering normal, natural human anatomy, it is the circumcised penis that is “lacking.” What self-diluted logic.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 6:07 am

It looks like there is only one other person here, along with Ms. Gluck, who is defending circumcision. And what do we know are the facts so far? First, Jake has no education, credentials, or professional qualifications that make him a credible source at all on this issue. And second, we know that he is a fetishist who is sexually aroused by circumcision. He cherry-picks and manipulates studies in order to promote his fetish. This is not someone responsible parents should rely on when considering what is best for our children. Ms. Gluck, why do you laud this man, and support what he does? You are either unaware of his reputation, which makes you negligent, or complicit which makes you unethical. This to me makes your own credibility on this issue, and maybe health issues in general, very suspect. I will certainly be contacting anyone you may be connected with in order to alert them to this very troubling situation.

Comment by Kelev — April 20, 2011 @ 7:05 am

For Jake and Gluck: It’s actually fairly easy for guys who were circumcised at birth to make judgments, and, yes, to know that indeed the senses of the penis are adversely affected by circumcision. Many guys circumcised in the 1960s and 1970s at least got away with a fairly decent amount of inner foreskin remaining, say an inch or so on the far side of their scar. Due to the circumcision, it’s been essentially turned inside out to act as shaft skin. They can tell you that even in its dried-out and damaged state, this is quite erogenous tissue. So obviously they know that this is only a fraction of what they should have. The unfortunate thing is that the type of circumcision now being promoted by the scaremongers involves removing all inner foreskin.

And, Jake, you have a lot of nerve saying there would be pychological harm to lip removal while at the same time espousing circumcision as if there’s no risk of psychological harm in that.

Comment by SteveB — April 20, 2011 @ 7:08 am

“‘“while true, these risks are present at any age, and the risk of serious complications is extremely low.” It’s those serious complications I’m worry about.” — as noted, the risk of serious complications is extremely low, and to place them in proper perspective it is important to consider the risk of serious problems associated with lack of circumcision.

“And no, ablation is more present in babies, where their organs are tiny, more fragile and easier to sever.’” — and your evidence for this is…?

[personal attacks deleted]

‘” irrational. Risks of circumcision need to be compared with risks of lack of circumcision. Considering only the first set in isolation is unrealistic.” – What is “irrational” is the pretense that genital mutilation can be rendered not using “science” cooked up by self-interested “researchers.” What is “irrational” is that so-called “researchers” are working to preserve genital mutilation, not to render it absolete.’ — You’ve got several claims here: that circumcision is genital mutilation, that all scientific research has been conducted by self-interested researchers, and that the intent of these researchers is to preserve the practice. You haven’t offered any evidence in support of any of these claims.

“What is “irrational” is that there ARE already better ways to prevent disease, but people like you insist on all the flimsy “study” to legitimize infant genital mutilation. What’s “irrational” is that “science” and “study” are being used to violate the basic human rights of the defenseless. Circumcising healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of basic human rights. When something is such, there is not enough “science” that can dress it up.” — it’s clear that you believe circumcision to be a violation of human rights, but that doesn’t make it a universal truth, I’m afraid.

‘“Lack of circumcision” is a misnomer. The human penis isn’t “lacking” anything; it is the circumcised penis that lacks normal, natural parts. The circumcised penis is not the basis for comparison; the intact penis is. When considering normal, natural human anatomy, it is the circumcised penis that is “lacking.” What self-diluted logic.’ — it’s not a logical statement at all, just a descriptive term. “Lack of circumcision” just means that circumcision hasn’t been performed. It doesn’t seem worth getting so upset about.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 7:09 am

To respond to SteveB:

“And, Jake, you have a lot of nerve saying there would be pychological harm to lip removal while at the same time espousing circumcision as if there’s no risk of psychological harm in that.” — there’s little evidence of serious risk of psychological harm. Schlossberger et al reported that “Circumcised boys scored higher on satisfaction items than did uncircumcised boys” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1610845. That was in California, however, so one might speculate that lack of conformity adversely affected the uncircumcised boys. However, Stenram, in Sweden, found that “There was in no instance any sign of more severe psychological disorder than a certain shyness which was expressed in 8 cases” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3749823

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 7:18 am

I am shocked by so much in this article, but MOST of what upset me has been very well addressed in the comments. For any expectant parents who had the misfortune to land on this page for true information I only have this to say. When 5 babies died from Whooping Cough last year it was called an EPIDEMIC> OVER ONE HUNDRED boys died from complications due to a botched circumcision (read routine), WHAT would YOU call that? For the love of your baby do not cut off something that has a small percentage of causing harm down the road. You wouldn’t cut off your sons breast because there’s a chance he may develop breast cancer later in life would you? In every and ALL decisions, weigh the benefits VS the risks when it comes to your baby.

Comment by Gena Kirby — April 20, 2011 @ 8:32 am

“as noted, the risk of serious complications is extremely low, and to place them in proper perspective it is important to consider the risk of serious problems associated with lack of circumcision.” No, this is a logical fallacy. People should be aware that as a hopeless advocate for forced genital mutilation, you will be apt to downplay the serious complications. Second, people need to consider what these complications are. I will note the major ones again; infection, partial or full ablation, and even death. You would like to only keep these risks in perspective with the “risks” of “lack of circumcision,” but it must also be kept in perspective that circumcision is not “lacking” nor “necessary” in healthy males. Intact males can of course be affected by adverse conditions, and I’ve never denied that. But these aren’t “risks”; the entire body is susceptible to conditions. It is flawed medical logic to suggest that all of our body parts that are at “risk” be removed, especially when the “risks” are actually quite rare and preventable, and especially when the conditions for which these “risks” exist are already quite treatable.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:23 am

“and your evidence for this is…?” <— I think it's flawed logic to expect a study for everything we say. It is no secret that penises in adults are bigger and easier to obtain desired results. The organs of a baby are much more smaller, more fragile, and it is easier for doctors to mess up and cut off more than they intended. There are quite a few court cases that exist in this regard. Advocates of circumcision like to say "there is no risk when performed by a professional." The "professionals" in the latter cases all happened to be mohels and doctors. So yes, ablations are possible, even when a so-called "pro" does them.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:26 am

“You’ve got several claims here: that circumcision is genital mutilation, that all scientific research has been conducted by self-interested researchers, and that the intent of these researchers is to preserve the practice. You haven’t offered any evidence in support of any of these claims.” Unless there is a medical or clinical indication for surgery, it is charlatanism, it is abuse, and yes, it is genital mutilation. Advocates of male circumcision insist that it is not genital mutilation because “(dubious) studies show” this or that. It is a logical fallacy to assume that forcefully cutting off a part of someone else’s genitals is justified because you’ve got some piece of scientific jargon that justifies it. There are some acts that no matter how many “studies” existed for it, they would simply not be justified, not even if the “study” showed there to be “benefits.” There would be some “studies” that would simply never happen. Go on then, what would you think of “studies” that tried to measure the “benefits of rape?” Footbinding? Neck stretching? Far from considering them, any sane person would object to the very idea. Circumcision is a special case; rather than consider whether or not it is ethical to cut off parts of a child’s body first, the point of “studies” is to try and make an act “ethical.” I’m sorry, but just like any other unethical act, studies do not render an act unethical. Perhaps if a man consents to circumcision, there is nothing wrong. It is his prerogative. The trouble starts when you say “I’ve got science that says it’s OK for me to take a healthy, non-consenting individual and cut part of his penis off, and make sure he gets these “benefits,” whether he needs them, wants them, or not.” The “studies” are dubious, and there is reason to believe they are fraudulent. But even if they were 100%, it would still be genital mutilation to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting individual.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:28 am

Continuing: “….that all scientific research has been conducted by self-interested researchers, and that the intent of these researchers is to preserve the practice. You haven’t offered any evidence in support of any of these claims.” There is plenty of evidence… not that you’ll ever consider it… All one has to do is look at the history of circumcision, and circumcision “research,” and all one has to do is look into the lives of these so-called “researchers.” Of course history tells us that circumcision has been around for millenia, but circumcision has only actually been consider medical procedure as of a century ago. It began as a way to curb masturbation and all the illnesses associated with it. For at least a century, circumcision advocates have tried time and time again to associate circumcision with the prevention of some horrible disease. Throughout the years, the disease circumcision was supposed to prevent changed, but the appeal to parental fears was always the same; “circumcise your son, or he’ll get (insert your favorite disease here).” To date, circumcision advocates are STILL groping for a reason why circumcision should be performed on all males at birth.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:29 am

There is a problem when “research” is conducted by people to whom circumcision holds other importance. For example, circumcision is an important tradition among Jews and Muslims. Circumcision is a religious commandment for Jews, and even though it is not mentioned anywhere in the Koran, it is de-facto religious mandate for Muslims. Circumcision has also become engrained in American culture. Even when Jews are not observant, they are still adamant that their children be circumcised because it is considered what identifes them as such. People who come from groups where circumcision is important, if not a requirement, will be at odds; if there is a negative outcome to a study, could we trust that such people will report them? Could we trust that they’re not suppressing data that is detrimental to a controversial practice that some are trying to end? Could we trust that they’re not blowing favorable results out of proportion to put the controversial procedure in a positive light? The latest RCTs were conducted on adult, consenting men who agreed to a procedure. WHAT is the reason that these “researchers” are making the leap to push for infant circumcision, as it is practiced in their own cultures and traditions? (Babies are circumcised in Judaism, and in American culture.) I think this is enough evidence to support my claim. The reason why these “researchers” are overwhelmingly American or Jewish is because their agenda is to legitimize that practice which is ever under fire, the belief being that “science justifies an act.” There is one big exception to the rule; Bertran Auvert is French. But I’d be interested in finding out whether or not he’s circumcised. Could it be he is, and like you, he’s got an axe to grind? Before any scientist presents a study on circumcision, I think it should be a requirement for him to declare his circumcision status, and if it’s a woman, what her cultural background is. Conflicts of interest must be fully declared before the objectivity of observations can be assessed.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:30 am

“…it’s clear that you believe circumcision to be a violation of human rights, but that doesn’t make it a universal truth, I’m afraid.” Oh I know that not everyone things that male circumcision is a violation human rights. There are also those who believe that female circumcision isn’t a violation of basic human rights. What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. It boils down to this; What’s wrong with the child? Is he sick? What is his clinical, medical condition that commands he be circumcised immediately? If there is none, then doctors have no business cutting off any part of his body, much less pretending like he can be absolved by a signed consent form. Unless there is a clinical indication, some sort of problem that cannot be remedied any other way, then yes, circumcision is child genital mutilation. It is charlatanism to be charging money for non-medical procedure. It is fraud to perform non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals. It is abuse to be taking advantage of the defenseless to perform non-medical procedures on them. It is genital mutilation to be cutting off normal, healthy tissue from a healthy, non-consenting individual. It is professional abuse, both of parental naivete, and of the denseless child. There may be “advantages” to be ing circumcised. Maybe. But if they are, like the men in the RCTs, it should be up to a grown man to weigh the pros and cons, not his parents.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:31 am

“it’s not a logical statement at all, just a descriptive term. “Lack of circumcision” just means that circumcision hasn’t been performed. It doesn’t seem worth getting so upset about.” — A “discriptive term” from the point of view of the circumcised male who would like to view, and would like everyone else to view, the circumcised penis as “normal.” I think this alone betrays your objectivity. From an objective, scientific point of view, it is the penis with a foreskin that is normal and natural, and the circumcised penis which is “lacking.”

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:31 am

“No, this is a logical fallacy. People should be aware that as a hopeless advocate for forced genital mutilation, you will be apt to downplay the serious complications.” — obviously I’m completely incapable of even constructing a rational sentence about circumcision. :-)

“You would like to only keep these risks in perspective with the “risks” of “lack of circumcision,” but it must also be kept in perspective that circumcision is not “lacking” nor “necessary” in healthy males.” — nobody said that it was necessary, Joseph, there’s no need to attack a strawman. “Lack of circumcision” is simply a way of saying that circumcision hasn’t occurred, nothing more and nothing less, so please don’t fret about it.

“Intact males can of course be affected by adverse conditions, and I’ve never denied that. But these aren’t “risks”; the entire body is susceptible to conditions.” — what strange definition of “risk” are you using? I would have said that there are risks affecting the entire body, too. Would you not agree?

“It is flawed medical logic to suggest that all of our body parts that are at “risk” be removed” — has anybody in this debate actually made that claim?

“I think it’s flawed logic to expect a study for everything we say” — it seems quite reasonable, if a claim is made, to ask for a citation, especially given that the overall complication rate is known to be significantly lower as age increases.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 11:36 am

To close this series of posts, there is reason to believe all circumcision “research” that shows these amazing “benefits” are all cooked by “researchers” with an agenda. The logic in the very idea of “studying” to find reasons why circumcision should be performed in infants has more holes in it than swiss cheese. But let’s just assume that they’re 100% accurate. Let’s assume for a moment that the “benefits” were real; the fact of the matter is that there are already better ways to provide these “benefits.” That’s the magic of actual scientific research; with newer, better solutions to problems, older ones become absolete. It is medically, scientifically, logically flawed thinking, this idea of “researching” ways to legitimize a procedure instead of finding better solutions, likewise the idea of cutting off part of someone’s body for dubious “benefits” that are already achievable by other, less invasive means. It is sound logic that surgery should be reserved to cases where it’s absolutely necessary, and when nothing else will work. To place primacy on finding reasons for surgery instead of seeking non-invasive alternatives is sheer quackery.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 20, 2011 @ 11:42 am

“Unless there is a medical or clinical indication for surgery, it is charlatanism, it is abuse, and yes, it is genital mutilation.” — no, it’s mutilation if and only if it meets the dictionary definition of “mutilation”, and that has nothing to do with indications for surgery. Something is mutilation if it meets any of the following senses: 1) “To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.” (Clearly the foreskin is not a limb, nor is it essential, so this sense doesn’t apply.) 2) “To disfigure by damaging irreparably” (This is somewhat subjective, but studies generally indicate that the circumcised penis is more attractive, rather than less as would be the case if circumcision disfigured, so this sense doesn’t apply.) 3) “To make imperfect by excising or altering parts” (The question here is whether circumcision makes the penis imperfect? Again, it’s wholly subjective; I think many people would think that it actually makes the penis more perfect. So this sense doesn’t apply.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilated

‘Circumcision is a special case; rather than consider whether or not it is ethical to cut off parts of a child’s body first, the point of “studies” is to try and make an act “ethical.”’ — what evidence do you have that this is the intent?

“There is plenty of evidence… not that you’ll ever consider it… All one has to do is look at the history of circumcision, and circumcision “research,” and all one has to do is look into the lives of these so-called “researchers.” Of course history tells us that circumcision has been around for millenia, but circumcision has only actually been consider medical procedure as of a century ago. It began as a way to curb masturbation and all the illnesses associated with it. For at least a century, circumcision advocates have tried time and time again to associate circumcision with the prevention of some horrible disease. Throughout the years, the disease circumcision was supposed to prevent changed, but the appeal to parental fears was always the same; “circumcise your son, or he’ll get (insert your favorite disease here).” To date, circumcision advocates are STILL groping for a reason why circumcision should be performed on all males at birth.” — you’ve made a new set of accusations, again without evidence, but you still haven’t answered my question.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 11:49 am

Jake, I just came across this article, and I have a few questions for you.
Whether or not we use the word mutilation, circumcision does irreparable damage, and this is not subjective. The foreskin is not a vestigial organ, but contains thousands of nerve endings. No one’s “cosmetic” preferences should count over another person’s bodily integrity. If studies showed that the clitoris was unattractive, and that it’s removal made no difference to a woman’s sexual function, would it be okay to cut baby girls?

Comment by Ted Ohm — April 20, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

Circumcision is harmful.

Forced circumcision is a violation of human rights.

Unnecessary surgery on children’s genitals is, by legal definition aggravated sexual assault.

Comment by James Loewen — April 20, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

To respond to Ted:

“Whether or not we use the word mutilation, circumcision does irreparable damage, and this is not subjective. The foreskin is not a vestigial organ, but contains thousands of nerve endings.” — that doesn’t mean that circumcision causes irreparable damage, Ted. One might, however, speculate that removal of these nerve endings results in a loss of sexual sensation; this is a testable hypothesis. And when we look at the literature, we find that, while results of studies are not entirely consistent, they generally reveal no change or improved satisfaction. So there doesn’t appear to be evidence of the “irreparable damage” that you claim.

“If studies showed that the clitoris was unattractive, and that it’s removal made no difference to a woman’s sexual function, would it be okay to cut baby girls?” — To determine whether it is ethical to perform a procedure, it’s necessary to compare risks with benefits. There are considerable risks to female genital cutting, both immediate risks and longer-term harms, and there are no medical benefits, so it would seem fairly obvious that it’s a net harm. The answer to your question, then, is no, it would not be acceptable.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 2:52 pm

The phase “lack of circumcision” is used often by pro-circumcision activists. Describing normal human anatomy in terms of lack of surgery is bizarre, for example: “lack of tonsillectomy”, “lack or appendectomy”, “lack of mastectomy”, “lack of clitoridectomy”, etc.

Comment by Stan — April 20, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

Stan:

“The phase “lack of circumcision” is used often by pro-circumcision activists. Describing normal human anatomy in terms of lack of surgery is bizarre” — okay, Stan, please feel free to substitute whatever descriptive term you prefer. You can call it a “fried banana sandwich” if you like; what you call it doesn’t actually make the slightest bit of difference, so please feel free.

Comment by Jake — April 20, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

Jake: “So there doesn’t appear to be evidence of the “irreparable damage” that you claim.”

The only person who can legitimately say whether or not there has been irreparable damage is the owner of the penis. If a man feels that he has been damaged because a normal part of his penis was cut off without his consent and without a compelling medical reason, his is the only opinion that matters.

It is his body. It is his right to decide whether or not he wants to have a normal, healthy part of his penis cut off without a compelling medical reason.

Comment by Stan — April 20, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

Let;s come to the basic and fundamental issues. A “risk” or “complication is any unwanted or unexpected consequence.

Now here are the tally of outcomes:

1. iatrogenic Phimosis 2.9%

2. Adhesions 71%

3. Meatal ulcers 31%

3. Meatal stenosis 8%

4. infection up to 10%

5. Bleeding <35%

6. the loss of the majority of penile nerves, the loss of nearly all of the specialized nerves which results in a loss of sensations and sensitivity.

Now, unless these are the intended and expected outcome of circumcision, we have a serious dilemma here.

And no amount of feeble, speculative and obfuscating nonsense from Jake to trivialize these, they still remain.

Inconsistency of subjective surveys, has no effect on the objective evidence.

Now, if Jake wishes to actually address these fundamental issues, I would be happy to continue with this discussion…with valid SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 20, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

Dear Samantha, I agree with you!

This is such a charged topic.

I wasn’t circumcised at birth
but finally managed to find a doctor to circ me in my 20′s
and I’m much happier without a foreskin.

That is just my opinion. But…

There are plenty of observational studies all over the world (not just Africa) that tend
to indicate there are many health benefits to circumcison.

And there are randomized controlled trials show conclusively show what the observational studies show.

If anyone thinks all this research is flawed in any way,
please have a go at it, telling what’s wrong with the research. Then go back and forth with the researchers.

This is science, not religion.

I think you’ll find that if you didn’t have an emotional
attachment to foreskin, you would agree about the the
research.

Comment by nobody — April 20, 2011 @ 8:45 pm

I just finished reading all the attacks on Jake W.

Why the attacks? If you can support your beliefs you
don’t need to attack anybody. Just present your evidence
like he does.

Jake has been the calmest person I’ve seen responding
to all the attacks.

All I can say is that if anti-circ people really want to
offer anything other than an emotional attachment to
foreskin, please present some SCIENTIFIC studies
supporting your beliefs.

I suspect I’ll have a long wait for that to happen…

Comment by nobody — April 20, 2011 @ 8:55 pm

I think the last line of this article really gets to the heart of the matter:

“Even so, the decision to circumcise, or not, remains a deeply personal decision between parents of the infant boy; the public must respect the decision of the parents either way.”

What happens when a boy who was circumcised at birth grows up and becomes a member of the public? Does he STILL have to respect his parents’ decision to circumcise him? Well into adulthood and even unto the last day of his life, can’t he develop his OWN ideas about what he would have preferred happen to his penis?

What if he feels he would just rather not have been circumcised? What does that do to his relationship with his parents? Whom did that infant circumcision satisfy?

See, the issue here is that it’s NOT the parents’ decision. It shouldn’t be, because they don’t have to live with the consequences. It’s HIS decision.

Comment by Juniper — April 20, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

Religion:
The Qu’Ran states that the body was made perfect (many places, for example 95:4). It also states to make bodily modifications is to follow Satan (eg 4:119).
The Jewish religion and it’s people are frequently debating aspects, and in recent years this includes circumcision of babies. Many are letting the adult man decide if he want to show his strong commitment of faith through his own choice of circumcision.

HIV studies in Africa:
As well as many scientific reviews of their methodology has shown their research to have produced bad results, a more recent report by USAID (Feb 2009) reviewed the cases of HIV compared with circumcised and intact men, and found that 10 of the 18 countries circumcised men had more cases of HIV than their intact counterparts. This includes countries where HIV is far more prevalent than the countries where the studies were done (eg Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Malawi). It seems the studies that claim circumcision prevents HIV were only done in the 8 out of 18 countries (from the USAID study) where HIV was more prevalent in intact men.
If studies are supposed to “random” they should not cherry pick the countries they perform them in, it’s like taking a survey of what religion people follow by choosing to stand outside Synagogues!

Sensation:
It seems the studies you quote reviewed newly circumcised men, and while there are many men who after the operation attest to immediately having less sensation (pretty obviously really, it’s like cutting off your fingertips and claiming you can feel things just as well), there is also an issue of desensitizing over time due to the drying out and thickening of the skin of what remains, as the glans is now unprotected, which is what a baby will end up having over the course of 18 years.
Notice there’s a suspicious correlation that countries that do most circumcising (USA and Israel) are countries that require most Viagra, whereas countries that do not (ie mostly everywhere else), Viagra sales are extremely low.
Then there are reports of men who restore their foreskin (eg through many months of using tugging devices for example) regaining sensation they never knew they could have.

Complications:
Nobody has died from being left intact.
An estimtated 117 babies die in the USA, each year, although the study believes this number is far higher as many doctors put “blood loss” or “heart failure” on the death certificate and not why there was such blood loss or that the shock of the procedure (or the blood loss) caused the babies heart to stop.
No adult has died from a circumcision.
And that alone shows that the adult should make the choice. The adult knows how to control their bladder and will not be pooping in a diaper all over their circumcision wound, and if the procedure is claimed to not be painful, I’m sure babies must have pain from that, they just cannot tell you.

But there are many complications, just search for “Botched circumcision gallery” for images of problems that can occur, whereas the rare case of phimosis in an intact male can be cured with some steroid cream, or even careful manual stretching over a few weeks. No need to cut off a body part (except maybe in a really small number of cases), and there’s now a procedure which only makes two small cuts to solve those.

So as there are no benefits to circumcision outside of how some people prefer it to look, it should be left up to the owner, as an adult, to choose it, or not, based on their personal preference. Really, if a mother is making this choice in their child based on what their sexual preference is, that is close to pedophilia, similarly if the dad wants the son to look like him, just exactly when does he expect to be comparing himself and his son!

Let me alter your last sentence:
“Even so, the decision to circumcise, or not, remains a deeply personal decision of the owner of the penis; the public must respect the decision of the owner either way, and so too must the parents.”

Comment by BryTee — April 20, 2011 @ 10:09 pm

@nobody
It’s not an attack, we’re just laughing in his general direction. You see he is incapable of accepting the damage done to him and the fact that he’s psychologically aroused by it at the same time.

Here are some facts for you. 0.6% of the North American population is HIV+ (CIA Factbook). That’s a rate 300% that of the U.K. where circumcision is not the norm by a long way. That should stop that argument right there…

But if you want to play with numbers…
Then you have the infection rate per person year with an infected partner (from the touted studies). That’s about 1.6%. So if you accept the 50-60% reduction rate in infection that they claim, then it’s around 0.7% (again, from their touted studies).

So basically these circumfetishists are trying to push an agenda where 150,000,000 males should have their foreskin removed, so that their chance of contracting HIV goes from 1.6% to 0.7%, if they are having sex in a population with high existing infection rates like Swaziland, or dating drug users.

You can prove anything with statistics. A 60% drop in an already rare event, is, well … rare.

It’s the same crap with UTIs. That’s why we make fun of the poor guy. Maybe he should try restoration. Ha ha ha.

Comment by Willow — April 20, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

@nobody: Thanks for stopping by and reading through the commentary. Jake has indeed had the most level head of all the respondents on the topic. I do, however, welcome healthy debate backed up with studies and using noninflammatory language regardless of viewpoint.

Thank you for sharing your very personal story with us as well. I appreciate the anecdotes and hope all of this back and forth will help others in some, albeit small, way.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 20, 2011 @ 10:23 pm

Samantha, “level head?!” Well, if the moral outrage some of us express here at the fact that this known sexual fetishist is using this forum to promote his fantasies of cutting the genitals unconsenting minors means we aren’t “level headed” in your view, I’ll gladly sacrifice that moniker. If ignoring his well-known reputation also gives you the illusion that he is has a “level head”, I’ll take the Truth, thank you very much. You can squint at reality and look at it through your false objectivity, in the end we know the Truth. He is a well-known pervert and you are obviously his accomplice. Like people denouncing the holocaust, female circumcision, and all forms of child abuse, give me anger, moral outrage, and righteous indignation any day over your negligent “level” headednes.

Comment by Kelev — April 20, 2011 @ 11:40 pm

To reply to Willow:

“Here are some facts for you. 0.6% of the North American population is HIV+ (CIA Factbook). That’s a rate 300% that of the U.K. where circumcision is not the norm by a long way. That should stop that argument right there…” — why on earth would it stop the argument at all? Comparing aggregate statistics between countries is a notoriously unreliable methodology. One of the major problems is that it fails to isolate the effect of circumcision itself, because the two countries differ in many other ways. For example, differences in sexual behaviour and condom usage: “In comparison with that of Britain, the US population has greater variability in sexual behavior, less tolerant opinions about sexual behavior, and a higher STD prevalence and lower condom usage among men.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508929/

“Then you have the infection rate per person year with an infected partner (from the touted studies). That’s about 1.6%. So if you accept the 50-60% reduction rate in infection that they claim, then it’s around 0.7% (again, from their touted studies).” — per year. Multiply that over a lifetime, and the difference is quite large (mind you, 7 in a thousand deaths due to AIDS is hardly insignificant).

Comment by Jake — April 21, 2011 @ 4:26 am

To respond to BryTee:

“As well as many scientific reviews of their methodology has shown their research to have produced bad results, a more recent report by USAID (Feb 2009) reviewed the cases of HIV compared with circumcised and intact men, and found that 10 of the 18 countries circumcised men had more cases of HIV than their intact counterparts.” — it would, of course, be cost-prohibitive to test the entire population of a country for HIV. What this report documented was a number of studies in which (hopefully representative) samples of the populations were included. So in other words, it documents 18 observational studies. These have value, to be sure, but they aren’t inherently more valuable than other observational studies, and they need to be considered alongside the others. Overall, the majority of observational studies (21 of 27 in one meta-analysis) have found a protective effect of circumcision, consistent with the randomised controlled trials.

“It seems the studies you quote reviewed newly circumcised men, and while there are many men who after the operation attest to immediately having less sensation (pretty obviously really, it’s like cutting off your fingertips and claiming you can feel things just as well), there is also an issue of desensitizing over time due to the drying out and thickening of the skin of what remains, as the glans is now unprotected, which is what a baby will end up having over the course of 18 years.” — I’ve addressed this above: “Szabo and Short showed in 2000 that the glans of the circumcised penis is equally keratinised as that of the uncircumcised penis, and most studies of glans sensitivity have shown that there is no difference, even among adults who were neonatally circumcised. So this objection seems rather unrealistic, as this evidence indicates that those 30 years wouldn’t make any difference.”

“Notice there’s a suspicious correlation that countries that do most circumcising (USA and Israel) are countries that require most Viagra, whereas countries that do not (ie mostly everywhere else), Viagra sales are extremely low.” — nonsense. First, there are many other countries with high circumcision rates – most of the Muslim world, for a start. Second, some countries (notably the USA) consume a much higher per-capita volume of *any* pharmaceutical products, so higher consumption of one particular product should be unsurprising.

“Then there are reports of men who restore their foreskin (eg through many months of using tugging devices for example) regaining sensation they never knew they could have.” — two problems here. Firstly, no studies of such men exist, which means that these reports are anecdotal in nature and thus susceptible to inherent biases (for example, if a man found it made no difference, would he be as likely to report it?). Second, due to the immense propaganda surrounding it, most men who restore their foreskins do so with the *expectation* that it will improve sensation, setting up a placebo effect.

“Nobody has died from being left intact.” — obviously wrong. Lack of circumcision is associated with greater risk of several conditions, including HIV, penile cancer, and urinary tract infections, all of which can prove fatal to various extents. So it is quite obvious that a number of deaths will be attributable to being uncircumcised.

“An estimtated 117 babies die in the USA, each year, although the study believes this number is far higher as many doctors put “blood loss” or “heart failure” on the death certificate and not why there was such blood loss or that the shock of the procedure (or the blood loss) caused the babies heart to stop.” — that was Bollinger’s analysis, which made the mistake of assuming that differences between male and female mortality rates were due to circumcision. See analysis at: http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html

“No adult has died from a circumcision.” — I think you’d better cite a source for that.

Comment by Jake — April 21, 2011 @ 4:40 am

I actually was hoping Jake would be able to refute my personal observation that the inner foreskin remnant is sensitive and erogenous — that maybe he could say that is CAUSED by circumcision, not a sign of what was lost. I was hoping, not because I wanted to argue, but because I wanted to be convinced. It might make circumcision seem less horrific.

Comment by SteveB — April 21, 2011 @ 6:38 am

I was actually hoping Jake would provide a rational explanation -with solid numbers and a working model that used them to explain how and why circumcision fails to fulfill its prediction–after all this a fundamental requirement for real science, but it seems he would rather dance around this crucial question.

And he seems to ignore another requirement of real science–an hypothesis based solely on data with Known flaws is invalid–yet he dances away from this requirement also.

Apparently he thinks flawed evidence trumps empirical evidence–against scientific principals.

A lot of dancing, but no substantive answers, and certainly no science.

One last crucial question–is circumcision NECESSARY?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 8:39 am

“here SteveB is referring to an obscure slide presented at a conference last year, reporting a 32.5% circumcision rate. Interestingly, both the CDC and the company responsible for the analysis both distanced themselves from the figure, stressing that it may well be inaccurate.”

This “company” was commissioned by the CDC to do the study, so its good to know that data and statements from the CDC are not to be trusted…something many have suspected for years.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 8:45 am

I have a question to ask, just how can it be a “personal decision” when the person who owns the penis is the only person not allowed to have input in this decision.

Does the author understand the meaning of cognitive dissonance? Is she aware that this is hardly the thinking of a logical person?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 9:34 am

as a professor in paediatric surgery with an European background and working in South Africa and an ethicist, I find it very concerning that such opinions are still published. One needs to be aware that there is a publication bias for circumcision. The data is not as clear as it is made out to be. Most professionals in the field of paediatric surgery/urology are against infant cirucmcision. It is mainly an American phenomenon, where even female infants were circumcised. And medical aid paid untill the 1960s.

There is no immediate benefit for the baby from circumcision but plenty of harm. Why would one not wait till the boy can decide for himself? What is the rush? why would parents want their newborn baby to be circumcised? It is beyond my understanding what could drive such newly parents to do such a thing.

Concerning the article about the low rate of complications, I can only comment that I would like to meet a physician who honestly publishes his/her circumcision complications. Many complications are not even reckognized, such as painful erections from too tight a skin, emotional anger in adulthood and many others.

Infant circumcision is not an easy operation. I am a professional paediatric surgeon and do know. The Egyptian paediatric association made recently a statement that infant circumcision should only be undertaken by a trained paediatric surgeon.

It is hightime to take this discussion to a higher level of conciousness. Don’t just easily believe the ideologues. Use your critical mind. Read the consensus statement of the Dutch Physicans association who are totally against infant circumcision.

Parents should not have the right to demand prophylactic or non-therapeutic surgery on the genitals of their baby boy.

Comment by Daniel — April 21, 2011 @ 10:38 am

““No adult has died from a circumcision.” — I think you’d better cite a source for that.”

There is no such thing as negative evidence–however positive evidence can exist.. so the better question is:

Can anyone cite a proven case of adult death from circumcision?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 10:38 am

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an “authority” needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem. – Samantha Gluck? It is important that you know of Jake’s conflicts of interesest before you can consider him an “authority.”

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:08 am

“no, it’s mutilation if and only if it meets the dictionary definition of “mutilation”.” – That will depend on what dictionary you refer to. “Jake Waskett’s” dictionary maybe?

“…that has nothing to do with indications for surgery.” – Oh yes it does. When it is not indicated, when it is performed on a healthy, non-consenting individual, yes it is mutilation. Not to mention charlatanism, medical fraud and abuse.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:30 am

“Something is mutilation if it meets any of the following senses: 1) “To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.” (Clearly the foreskin is not a limb, nor is it essential, so this sense doesn’t apply.)” – Correction. It may not be a limb, but it is a healthy, normal body part. And YOU may not think it is essential, but you’re entitled to your own opinion. What is not essential is cutting a normal, healthy body part off. Non-essentially cutting off normal, healthy body parts yes, is mutilation. You may not agree, but that’s OK. I’m used to the fact that circumcision advocates will simply never acknowledge that forcefully cutting off parts of a child’s genitals is by definition, child genital mutilation.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:31 am

“2) “To disfigure by damaging irreparably” (This is somewhat subjective, but studies generally indicate that the circumcised penis is more attractive, rather than less as would be the case if circumcision disfigured, so this sense doesn’t apply.)” Correction – It is beyond doubt subjective. And, again, as a pro-circ, you’ll only mention and/or acknowledge “studies” that buttress your case. Studies where circumcision is the norm indicate that, surprise, women prefer the intact penis. Studies where it is not, show quite the opposite. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of what opinion polls say, it is the natural, intact penis that is “normal,” and from a biological, scientific standpoint, yes, circumcision is permanent disfiguring and damaging irreparably. Yes, circumcised men are walking around with disfigured, irreparably damaged organs. That they acquiesence and attempt to dilute themselves with fantasy is a different matter.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:31 am

“3) “To make imperfect by excising or altering parts” (The question here is whether circumcision makes the penis imperfect? Again, it’s wholly subjective; I think many people would think that it actually makes the penis more perfect. So this sense doesn’t apply.)” Actually, no, no it’s not “subjective.” It’s only “subjective” to those who wish to keep their head in the sand and accept definitions of words that make them feel good about themselves. From a biologic, scientific standpoint, the foreskin is normal, healthy tissue. The circumcised penis is missing normal, healthy anatomy. From a biologic, scientific standpoint, the circumcised penis is rendered imperfect by excising or altering parts.

You can twist and re-define words to your liking Jake, but you only fool yourself.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:32 am

“what evidence do you have that this is the intent?” – Evidence of conflicts of interest on behalf of many “researchers” that churn out circumcision “studies…

“…you’ve made a new set of accusations, again without evidence, but you still haven’t answered my question.”
No, I provided the evidence. But predictably you are pretending you didn’t read it. Coming from a religious or cultural background where circumcision is a norm, or an important requirement, or having a sexual fixation with the circumcised penis or the act of circumcision itself are conflicts of interest. It means that an “authority” or an “expert” is not as objective or as impartial as he’d like to lead others to believe.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:33 am

Oftentimes, when intactivists point out conflicts of interest in people who are trying to be “authoritative” on the matter of circumcision, circumcision advocates try to dismiss this as “ad-hominem.” It must be made clear that ad-hominem is not the same as pointing out a conflict of Interest. Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an “authority” needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:36 am

@jakew “per year. Multiply that over a lifetime, and the difference is quite large (mind you, 7 in a thousand deaths due to AIDS is hardly insignificant).” — Idiot. I refuse to have an argument with someone who finds circumcision of children arousing, and who can’t do basic probabilities in math.

Comment by Willow — April 21, 2011 @ 11:39 am

I must make a correction, up on my post at 11:31 AM. In my haste, I posted “Studies where circumcision is the norm indicate that, surprise, women prefer the intact penis. Studies where it is not, show quite the opposite.” – That SHOULD have read “Studies where circumcision is the norm indicate that, surprise, women prefer the CIRCUMCISED penis. Studies where it is not show quite the opposite.” The rest of the post is OK. My bad…

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 21, 2011 @ 11:57 am

Joseph4GI,

I assume that you are referring to that Ridiculous Williamson “study” where the majority of women who never even seen a normal penis state they prefer the mutilated variety?

Also these women had just circumcised their sons and live in the area with the highest rate of circumcision in the USA. So much for an alleged OBJECTIVE study.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

Considering that the majority of medical studies (and ESPECIALLY epidemiological studies are worthless–

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

It is fruitless to throw cites of medical studies back and forth.

We should concentrate on what is left–empirical evidence, and crucial, fundamental issues:

Is infant circumcision proven to be necessary, and if not, can it be ethically and morally be justified.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

Pro-circumcision activists like Jake like to talk about “deaths due to lack of circumcision”, however they ignore the fact that there are effective, non-invasive ways to prevent and/or treat almost all of the rare medical problems that male circumcision is supposed to prevent. It is unethical and inappropriate for doctors to use surgery when there are effective, non-invasive methods available.

Comment by Stan — April 21, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

Not only do they ignore these issues, but they are unable to supply a single documented death from being intact–all they have are some speculative numbers predicated on UNPROVEN and speculated health benefits–all they have in the end is speculation.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 21, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

Not only had the great majority of the 145 Iowa women in the WIlliamsons’ study never encountered an intact penis, we have it first hand from one of them, that she was recruited to the study only AFTER she had said she would circumcise a son (she’d just had a daughter). In other words, the study was rigged.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 22, 2011 @ 6:59 am

“Not only had the great majority of the 145 Iowa women in the WIlliamsons’ study never encountered an intact penis” — actually, we don’t know that. We do know that 16.5% had *sexual experience* with both circumcised and uncircumcised males, but bear in mind that we’re discussing appearance, and we don’t know what fraction had *seen* both types of penis.

“we have it first hand from one of them, that she was recruited to the study only AFTER she had said she would circumcise a son (she’d just had a daughter). In other words, the study was rigged.” — that’s a strong allegation. What’s your evidence? How can we verify that she said this, and how can we verify that she participated in the study?

Comment by Jake — April 22, 2011 @ 7:15 am

since we know that the majority of medical studies , enough of the back and forth that goes nowhere. Let’s stick to the basics. Can you prove that infant circumcision s necessary?

If so, please provide, this proof and an ethical and moral justification for it? I do hope you understand what proof is and what is required.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 22, 2011 @ 9:16 am

Sorry, forgot “worthless” for medical studies..

Comment by Robert Samson — April 22, 2011 @ 9:18 am

This article is so biased, it comes as no surprise that the person that the author feel that the only “levelheaded” respondent coincidentally agrees with her – of course!!
@ nobody, proof has been presented over and over

Comment by amy — April 22, 2011 @ 11:30 am

Glad to see you back, Jake. So do you consider the loss of erogenous tissue acceptable? An equal trade for the benefits you cite? A sacrifice that must be made for the greater good? I’m just curious as to how that’s justified.

Comment by SteveB — April 22, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

“Glad to see you back, Jake. So do you consider the loss of erogenous tissue acceptable?” — I don’t think it’s particularly erogenous. The only study in the literature that has assessed the erogenous nature of various parts of the genitals was that of Schober et al.; their study was limited by a relatively small number of uncircumcised men in their sample, but it did indicate that, when ranked by degree of sexual pleasure, the foreskin was the least sensitive part of the penis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245445

But supposing for the sake of argument that the foreskin is erogenous, that doesn’t necessarily imply that the circumcised penis feels less sensation during sex. It’s necessary to take into account the fact that circumcision causes mechanical changes in the penis, and one of the effects of this is that the glans is exposed to more and more direct stimulation. This tends to increase sensation, counteracting any loss due to the foreskin itself. So the question is, which effect is greater; in other words, what is the net effect? To answer that, we need to look to studies of men circumcised as adults. These are somewhat inconsistent, but the larger, more reliable studies seem to indicate improvement (consider Krieger et al., cited in the article above, or Masood et al.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037710).

Comment by Jake — April 22, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

Jake, thanks for answering. To me, that’s sort of like saying that removal of the eyelids would expose the eyes to light more often, thus allowing the eyes to see more, thereby framing it as a good thing. My observation is that the foreskin remnant IS particularly erogenous, whereas the shaft skin on the other side of the scar is not. So by extension, my assessment would be that having more erogenous tissue would be a better thing. There might be an issue of quality over quantity, and that seems to be the crux of the question. There’s little doubt that it causes a difference in sex; it’s just a question of whether it is an enhancement. Possibly the inconsistent information in the studies comes down to the fact that either way causes an orgasm, and probably an orgasm is an orgasm, equal either way no matter how you get there. And therefore many guys who are studied would rate it as satisfactory, since that’s considered the ultimate goal. That’s just my guess as to why the information would be inconsistent — differences in what different guys would consider satisfactory, orgasm or other sensations. But when it comes down to it … to me, causing irreversible mechanical changes in the function of someone’s body parts, even if they enhance sex, without their consent is just ethically wrong. I just can’t get past that.

I wonder why would there be so little study in literature on these matters. It’s not like foreskins and penises are rare. I would hazard a guess that there’s been a higher number of scientific studies done on the Loch Ness monster than on the erogenous nature of various parts of the genitals.

Comment by SteveB — April 22, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

C’mon, Jake, let use a ltitle logic for once–IF you are postulating that the removal of the majority of the foreskin nerves has no adverse affect on sexual pleasure, you better have some evidence for some other function for those foreskin nerves.

Otherwise all of these silly speculations belong in thrash bin.

BTW, forgetting that all nerves produce the same 60mV output once their stimulus threshold is exceeded–so just HOW does one get MORE sensation from more stimulation..logic wins!

AND still waiting for your scientific rebuttal of the Sorrel’s study..

Objective evidence VS subjective opinions–OBJECTIVE wins!

Comment by Robert Samson — April 22, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

Jake, still waiting for evidence that infant circumcision is necessary.

Do you ever plan on answering this, or just continue to ignore this crucial question?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 22, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

I was circumcised as a baby and I wish my parents never did this to me. I would have really liked the choice.

Comment by Booloo21 — April 22, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

One more requirement, Jake.

Concerning that ridiculous “study” of Schober et al –does it scientifically explain just how there can be more pleasure from fewer nerves?

Do THEY have some proven OTHER function for foreskin nerves?

Having a collection of opinions certainly does not logically work or appear credible unless there is some proven causal mechanism, especially keeping in mind that most medical studies are worthless.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 22, 2011 @ 10:14 pm

To respond to SteveB:

“Jake, thanks for answering. To me, that’s sort of like saying that removal of the eyelids would expose the eyes to light more often, thus allowing the eyes to see more, thereby framing it as a good thing.” — happy to do so. I don’t think it’s helpful to think in terms of “good” or “bad” things; I think it’s better to think in terms of actual effects.

“My observation is that the foreskin remnant IS particularly erogenous, whereas the shaft skin on the other side of the scar is not.” — okay; my personal experience differs, but I’m sure you feel what you say you feel.

“So by extension, my assessment would be that having more erogenous tissue would be a better thing.” — that seems a rather simplistic argument, to my mind, for reasons that I’ve already explained. Erogenous tissue only produces pleasure if it’s stimulated (obviously), and only produces the maximum amount of sensation when sufficient stimulation of the right kinds is present to cause all of the nerves present to signal, so whether more tissue implies more sensation would depend upon how and how much the tissue was stimulated. Thus, because mechanical changes take place that affect stimulation, it is an error to assume that more tissue necessarily results in more sensation.

“There might be an issue of quality over quantity, and that seems to be the crux of the question. There’s little doubt that it causes a difference in sex; it’s just a question of whether it is an enhancement. Possibly the inconsistent information in the studies comes down to the fact that either way causes an orgasm, and probably an orgasm is an orgasm, equal either way no matter how you get there.” — that doesn’t make much sense, since many studies enquired about changes in satisfaction, and some of them asked separately about sensation.

“And therefore many guys who are studied would rate it as satisfactory, since that’s considered the ultimate goal.” — I don’t think you’re giving men much credit here. There’s a difference between achieving an orgasm and enjoying the process, and I would guess that 99% of men would agree with that statement.

Comment by Jake — April 23, 2011 @ 5:29 am

Jake, is non-therapeutic infant circumcision necessary?

What is the function of foreskin nerves?

Are you trying to claim that when having a foreskin the glans nerve are not stimulated–because this is the only logical way your speculation holds together?

And if so, you need to provide evidence for this assertion.

You can babble on about your idle speculation, but these crucial questions you are ignoring reveal that you simple have no cogent response.

And unlike your own blogs, here you cannot censor out comment you do not like or wish to ignore. You will be asked until you provide an answer.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 23, 2011 @ 9:15 am

Jake: “Erogenous tissue only produces pleasure if it’s stimulated (obviously)”

If erogenous tissue is cut off, it does not produce any pleasure! The only person who can legitimately say whether or not his foreskin have value is the man himself.

Comment by Stan — April 23, 2011 @ 8:05 pm

Stan:

“If erogenous tissue is cut off, it does not produce any pleasure!” — agreed. So the pertinent questions are a) how erogenous is the tissue of the foreskin, and b) what is the magnitude of other effects of circumcision on pleasure (such as the increased sensation at the glans, as I mentioned above),

Comment by Jake — April 24, 2011 @ 3:57 am

“how erogenous is the tissue of the foreskin, and b) what is the magnitude of other effects of circumcision on pleasure (such as the increased sensation at the glans, as I mentioned above),”

Good question, now when are you going to supply some evidence that these nerves are not erogenous–by providing some other function–this facile speculation provides none.

AGAIN, is non-therapeutic infant circumcision necessary?

Stan hint– Jake will merely dance around what you post, but never provide any evidence-based response–just keep asking foe this concrete evidence he demands from others

Comment by Robert Samson — April 24, 2011 @ 9:30 am

JAKE,

is non-therapeutic infant circumcision NECESSARY?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 24, 2011 @ 9:31 am

No Jake, the pertinent questions are (1) Is it my penis? and if the answer to the first question is no (2) Is there a compelling medical reason to cut off an normal healthy part of another person’s genitals? In the case of male circumcision of healthy infants and boys, the answer to both questions is NO.

The only person who can legitimately say whether or not his foreskin has value is the man himself.

Comment by Stan — April 24, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

No, Stan, those are not the pertinent questions; they’re totally irrelevant, because the question we’re addressing is whether circumcision reduces the amount of sexual sensation.

Comment by Jake — April 24, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

“is whether circumcision reduces the amount of sexual sensation” — It does in the foreskin and frenulum :)
Duh!

Comment by April — April 24, 2011 @ 6:31 pm

Because this article tries to justify cutting the genitals of healthy children those questions are pertinent. No one questions the fact that the part of a male’s penis that is cut off by male circumcision has a high concentration of nerves. The only person who can legitimately say whether or not the sexual sensation he receives from those nerves has value is the man himself.

Comment by Stan — April 24, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

“Because this article tries to justify cutting the genitals of healthy children those questions are pertinent.” — it’s a separate issue, Stan. One might, for example argue that circumcision does affect sensation, but it’s worth the loss, so infant circumcision is still justified. Or one might take the stance that infant circumcision violates human rights, so it isn’t justified regardless of any effect on sensation, but agree that this is an important question for adults considering the procedure. (I’m presenting both arguments as hypotheticals to illustrate the fact that the issues are distinct; I wouldn’t actually agree with either.)

Comment by Jake — April 25, 2011 @ 3:52 am

– Jake, you stated that circumcision changes the mechanics of the penis and how sex is experienced. If you hold that it’s within the parents’ rights to choose circumcision, would you also say that it’s within the parents’ rights to forever determine how their offspring, once he is an adult, experiences sex, which types of intercourse and/or stimulation he practices, and which parts of the penis are “sanctioned” for sex — essentially in absentia standing guard over his bed? This seems to be a net effect of circumcision, as I see it.
– Let’s say for the sake of argument that circumcision does, as you state, lead to enhanced sexual stimulation. I consider it vile to imagine a parent justifying surgery on a newborn on grounds that it will enhance his sexual experience once he is an adult. In fact, it’s a more repulsive thought than the opposite: that a parent would choose the surgery believing that it would diminish sexual pleasure or not knowing whether it would diminish sexual pleasure.
– It’s not a question to me whether inner foreskin tissue is erogenous. The fraction of inner foreskin that I have left is highly erogenous; logic would hold that at least part of the rest of it that was removed was also erogenous. I consider it unethical for healthy erogenous tissue to be removed. Furthermore, if there’s any question that it MIGHT be erogenous, it’s unethical. Since it’s been erogeous tissue for at least one person (me), logic holds that it might have been for any number of guys who have lost that tissue to circumcisers who weren’t as sloppy and careless as mine; he or she apparently left me with a little more of a foreskin remnant than most of my peers got away with.

Comment by SteveB — April 25, 2011 @ 5:40 am

SteveB:

“would you also say that it’s within the parents’ rights to forever determine how their offspring, once he is an adult, experiences sex, which types of intercourse and/or stimulation he practices, and which parts of the penis are “sanctioned” for sex — essentially in absentia standing guard over his bed? This seems to be a net effect of circumcision, as I see it.” — I’m struggling to see how it can be seen as such, I’m afraid.

“Let’s say for the sake of argument that circumcision does, as you state, lead to enhanced sexual stimulation.” — that’s not quite what I’ve said. The net effect may be an increase (as the better studies appear to indicate), or it may be neutral.

“I consider it vile to imagine a parent justifying surgery on a newborn on grounds that it will enhance his sexual experience once he is an adult.” — that’s not what we’re discussing, though, so it’s a moot point. There’s a difference, is there not, between choosing circumcision for other reasons which happens to result in enhanced sexual pleasure, and choosing circumcision for the purpose of enhancing sexual pleasure?

“It’s not a question to me whether inner foreskin tissue is erogenous.” — I’m not suggesting that it has no erogenous qualities at all; I think a more important question is *how* erogenous. You’ve described it as “highly erogenous”; I’d have said “only a little”.

“I consider it unethical for healthy erogenous tissue to be removed” — you’re obviously sincere and unwavering in that belief, so I suggest that we agree to disagree.

Comment by Jake — April 25, 2011 @ 7:31 am

Jake, unless you get around to addressing the fundamental problems with you speculation that I have provided, do you honestly think anyone here finds it, or you credible?

And now this silly notion that circumcision is somehow worth the loss of sexual sensation–if you are asserting theis, then please provide an objective reason (with evidence) for this silly assertions.

BTW, is infant circumcision NECESSARY?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 25, 2011 @ 9:21 am

Jake:
– ” I’m not suggesting that it has no erogenous qualities at all …” if you say the inner foreskin is “only a little” erogenous, then what magnitude of erogeneity would be acceptable to remove from someone without their consent, and at what magnitude does it become unethical? If you could quantify it, would would that number or magnitude be, as far as you are concerned?
– “I’m struggling to see how it can be seen as such, I’m afraid …” Certainly, there’s a range of areas of the penis that can be stimulated, and a range of what’s preferred by guys, which can vary by day of the week (for variety). If circumcision removes or reduces one of these areas, then it reduces the range of options. You state that circumcision provides more direct stimulation of the glans. Then by choosing circumcision, parents are stating that stimulation of the glans is the acceptable form and goal of intercourse, and it seems to me that this should be a matter of personal and not parental choice.

Comment by SteveB — April 25, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

“if you say the inner foreskin is “only a little” erogenous, then what magnitude of erogeneity would be acceptable to remove from someone without their consent, and at what magnitude does it become unethical? If you could quantify it, would would that number or magnitude be, as far as you are concerned?” — I don’t think your question can be answered, because I don’t think the quantity of erogenous tissue matters by itself; it only matters if sexual pleasure is affected.

“Certainly, there’s a range of areas of the penis that can be stimulated, and a range of what’s preferred by guys, which can vary by day of the week (for variety). If circumcision removes or reduces one of these areas, then it reduces the range of options.” — I think it’s more accurate to say that it opens some doors while closing others.

“Then by choosing circumcision, parents are stating that stimulation of the glans is the acceptable form and goal of intercourse, and it seems to me that this should be a matter of personal and not parental choice.” — That seems a rather tortured analysis to me. I doubt that parents “state” any such thing. They probably haven’t considered it, and if they have then I doubt their reason for circumcision is to impose such a thing. I suspect that most people would view the differences in the methods of manipulating the two types of penis to be relatively minor and unimportant. With respect, I think you’re making a mistake here, which is to assume that other people on the other side of a debate feel as strongly about a particular point as you do.

Comment by Jake — April 25, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

Still dancing, I see, but not dancing towards the points that debunk you idle speculation.

“I think it’s more accurate to say that it opens some doors while closing others.”

I want to hear about your empty beliefs and get some evidence for you open door policy..LOL

Suspicions and speculation are what a computer programmer might believe valid, but not scientists…

IS non-therapeutic infant circumcision NECESSARY????

Comment by Robert Samson — April 25, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

“That seems a rather tortured analysis to me.”

Seeing how tortured your logic seems to be most of the time, I can easily belief that this might appear so to you..

As difficult as it may be to you, could you try using basic logic that the rest of the world uses and answer this basic and fundamental question:

IS non-therapeutic infant circumcision NECESSARY???

Comment by Robert Samson — April 25, 2011 @ 6:48 pm

Jake: “because I don’t think the quantity of erogenous tissue matters by itself; it only matters if sexual pleasure is affected.”
The only person who can legitimately say whether or not the quantity of erogenous tissue matters to a man is the man himself. That is why the decision to cut off a normal part of a male’s penis rightfully belongs to the man himself once his is an adult.

Comment by Stan — April 25, 2011 @ 9:41 pm

“The only person who can legitimately say whether or not the quantity of erogenous tissue matters to a man is the man himself. That is why the decision to cut off a normal part of a male’s penis rightfully belongs to the man himself once his is an adult.” — so you keep saying, Stan. However, many other people, including myself, consider parental choice to be a perfectly legitimate choice.

Comment by Jake — April 26, 2011 @ 4:25 am

Jake:
– “I doubt that parents ‘state’ any such thing. They probably haven’t considered it … With respect, I think you’re making a mistake here, which is to assume that other people on the other side of a debate feel as strongly about a particular point as you do.” … Jake, I think you just helped me make my point. You’re right: Parents don’t think about it or consider it. And yet their decision can have effects far beyond what they have thought about. Just because they don’t think about it doesn’t mean that the issue doesn’t exist. But they’d bloody well better think about it. If they are going to have a piece of their son’s penis cut off, they ought to think about every aspect — certain consequences as well as potential consequences — and, yes, agonize over that decision. I’m not assuming people on the other side of the debate care about that aspect one bit. Frankly, I think it hardly ever crosses their mind. But “hardly ever” is progress from 10 or 15 years ago, when it NEVER crossed anyone’s mind. But then that’s also when doctors would state with 100 percent certainty that babies didn’t feel pain. Tells you what those experts knew about nerves and perception.

Comment by SteveB — April 26, 2011 @ 6:38 am

“Stan. However, many other people, including myself, consider parental choice to be a perfectly legitimate choice.”

Since when is the idiotic BELIEFS of yourself and ignorant parents justify an unnecessary and harmful procedure on an infants genitals.

So, can you now provide a rational and ethically justifiable reason WHY this SHOULD be a legitimate choice simply because one is the parent?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 27, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

Having read the article in question, I feel obligated to provide my informed perspective. Uncircumcised for 22 years and circumcised for 23 years ( a preferential choice ). I strongly recommend this procedure . As for this fallacy about losing sensation, RIDICULOUS . If anything the reverse is true . Those type of comments are sheer conjecture I assure you, and need to be put to rest. Thank You !

Comment by Josh — May 4, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

Josh, glad you had the CHOICE.

Comment by SteveB — May 6, 2011 @ 7:02 am

The question that I have is WHAT motivated you to get circumcised? What mental issues and hangup, or baggage prompted you to mutilate your penis?

How can you explain how the removal of the majority of penile nerves, nearly all of the specialized nerves NOT result in a loss of sensation and sensitivity? –a preferential choice)?

Sorry, you are not credible, you have lost up to 3/4 of your sensation and sensitivity:

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007

Comment by Robert Samson — May 6, 2011 @ 9:29 am