[Stillness]

There's another thread about women's preference here: https://www.womens-health.com/boards...sed-penis.html. I was going to post this there, but decided not to derail Natalie's thread anymore.

There's a lot of misinformation about the procedure that don't match the facts - not from my own and many men's experience or from the science. We've had this discussion a few times since I've been around here, but there was a very recent landmark study that is the largest ever on sexual pleasure and function that's changing the thinking on this, so I thought it worth discussing again.

The study was review of 40 studies made up of 40,000+ men with about half being circumcised and half intact. It's "Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?—A Systematic Review." The results in part were:

The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration.

The conclusion:

The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.

From the Mayo Clinic:

-Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
-Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
-Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
-Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
-Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

So circumcision benefits men and the women they have sex with. From the American Academy of Pediatrics:

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

The researcher who conducted the study at the top says that the ratio of benefit to risk is over 100 to 1. He also had some interesting comments about the ancient practice:

Another compelling explanation referred to earlier involves the ritualization of circumcision's prophylactic effects, especially as many different human groups and cultures that live in desert or other hot environments have adopted it as part of their customs. Infections, initiated by the aggravation of dirt and sand under the foreskin, are not uncommon under such conditions and have even crippled whole armies, where it is difficult to achieve sanitation during prolonged battle.

He even gave an example of how in more recent times, during WWII, 150,000 uncircumcised soldiers were hospitalized because of foreskin problems leading General Patton to say that he regretted not circumcising them before shipping them overseas.

So, it's easy to criticize commands God gave to an ancient people from a different time and place. But those arguments are largely based on emotion and ignorance, not an understanding of the facts then or now. Also, Jehovah is neither human nor male, so he doesn't have a penis.

[Romy]

I would never describe myself as ignorant, I have a university degree and am a very open minded person except with it comes to the rights of children and this barbaric practise. We can all find facts to suit our own opinion. Boys are born with a foreskin therefore it's meant to be there....hmmm a woman's vagina - lets routinely mutilate her to keep her clean. Won't go on as I don't want to waste my time but there's enough evidence and research from countries where circumcision is rarely carried out and you'll find all the reasons given to circumcise are not found as being issues for the boys not done. No different to some people needing their tonsils out and others are just fine - some boys will have problems with their foreskin but MOST won't. Just thankful I don't follow the rest of the sheep and choose to make my own educated decisions. My argument will always be - let the child decide it's their body. There is even a group of Jewish people who are now refusing to circumcise their sons in America. They have a website - jewsagainstcircumcision. So it's pleasing to see that some people are catching on.

And Jen if you read this.....there is a large growing number of men very upset that they were circumcised. There are many forums on the topic and I believe there is a procedure that some men choose to resort to in order to try and stretch any remaining foreskin to look intact again but I don't know enough about it

[Stillness]

OK, what makes it barbaric?

[effy2014]

I have to disagree with Romy on this one. The "let the child decide" is, in my opinion, a specious argument. Parents make medical and other decisions for their children all of the time. Circumcision is best done on a newborn child and gets riskier (and more painful) the older the child becomesFor example, even though there may be health risks, parents decide to vaccinate their children. Very few suggest that we should wait for consent, even though there are "groups of people" on the internet who refuse to vaccinate their children. Are those of us who vaccinate children sheep as well?

The analogy between female genital mutilation and circumcision is also inapt. FGM is not about keeping a woman "clean". A recent HuffPost article quotes Doriane Coleman, a Duke University law professor whose expertise is children and the law, "This analogy can and has been rejected as specious and disingenuous, as the traditional forms of FGM are as different from male circumcision in terms of procedure, physical ramifications, and motivation as ear piercing is to a penilectomy." As Still points out, there are documented health benefits to circumcision and zero for FGM.

People are certainly entitled to their opinion on circumcision. However, labeling me a sheep or asserting that I have mutilated my children is uncalled for. I am Jewish and my children were circumcised in a Brit Melah, a Jewish ritual which has been practiced for thousands of years. I read all of the anti-circumcision literature before the Brit and was convinced that it was nothing but fear mongering. I have no psychological problems from being circumcised nor do my two boys. I don't pine away for my foreskin. I highly doubt there is a groundswell of protests . . . the internet just makes it more public.

This debate may be a waste of time for you. However, all discussions are useful and there are valid points of view on both sides. I agree that all parents should be informed before making the decision. I will respect whatever decision an informed parent makes on male circumcision.

[atskitty2]

I don't have really strong opinions on this, either way. I think we can't underestimate the cultural influences on parent's decisions here. I do think it's reasonable to wait & let a boy make that decision for himself. It is believed to be much more painful & risky for an older male, but that's a decision he can make for himself.
This isn't the greatest comparison, but I think the same of parents who pierce their daughter's ears at birth or as a toddler. Why not wait for them to make that choice for themselves?

[atskitty2]

Very funny effy - hadn't seen your post, but mentioned the same procedures.

[DreamP346]

Lets shave everybody's head. Lets even laser it so the hair will never come back. It's easier to clean and you won't get lice. I know the health benefits of shaving the head is not that great to keeping the hair, but what the heck, everybody will soon be doing it. Oh, BTW, the true reason I am advocating this (and of course in another 100 years you will complete forget this but keep doing this) is because I think it will prevent people for having premarital sex. Think about it, everyone will look too ugly to want to have sex with bald people.

Anybody think my argument sounds ridiculous? It is the same arguments made for circumcision.

Cleanliness: Permanently changing a body part by performing unnecessary surgery on an infant so they will be cleaner!!! How about we just teach better hygiene. We live in a much more civilized society where taking daily showers is the norm. This argument seems the most ridiculous. For us in the US, we don't live in sandy deserts.

STI prevention: This one I understand. I can see where people may think circumcision is the better option. If I lived in one of the African nations with extremely high HIV rates and access to condoms is not just walking/driving 5 minutes to the local convenience store, I definitely think it's a valid choice. But remember, the benefits are minute. HIV is still a rare disease in the US and teaching a boy safer sex habits has much better health benefits than circumcision. For my children (and most) who live in the US and have access to knowledge, condoms, the benefits are minuscule. Comparing to vaccine is not the same. That doesn't cause irreversible changes to the body. Although I am a big follower of research, this is one area I am skeptical in because every few years a new study comes our touting the benefits or harm of circumcision. Even the scientific community can't decide. To me that is a sign I don't want to do something that can't be changed back.

Locker room: First, the locker room is such a small part of a person's life and really, do you want to make such grave decisions based on a few years of their lives. How about being more vigilant in their lives and working towards bullying prevention. And boys get teased about so many other things in the locker room like size and uncontrolled erections. This is just one of them.

Cultural/religious: As long as a parent has really researched both sides and made a decision based on what they believe is right for them, I don't have a problem. What we do for culture and religious often doesn't follow science and logic. This is another example of that. However, too often, I see circumcision because... No good reason to follow that statement. They just follow the herd. And most times I have seen this was not even religious. They just did because they didn't know any better.

The history of circumcision in the US was to prevent masturbation. That is really a problem for me. Now people are coming up with all these benefits for it, but the reality is, for non-Jewish and Muslin people, it was done to prevent masturbation and just became the norm. Each parent can make their own decision as long as it's a well informed decision. I will advocate against it, but I also understand that it is not my decision and there are more complex reasons besides science behind those decisions. The biggest problem I have is many folks think of it as the norm. Circumcision should not be the norm. It should be a choice.

[Little]

I have incredibly strong opinions on this that agree completely with Romy. Most people who have an opinion on Routine Infant Circumcision have rabid ones. This thread could go ugly quick, so try to keep it kosher, folks. Anytime you're talking about someone's parenting choices, it's rough riding.

The one fact that flipped the table for me concerning RIC - the foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and for some time (in some cases, years.) Like a fingernail to the nail bed. To circumcise an infant, the foreskin must be ripped off the glans - an extra step not necessary in the circumcision of a healthy teen or adult man.

I'm not against circumcision. I DO think that many of the studies supporting it are best applied in their areas of origin - 3rd world nations where AIDS has run so rampant that ANY reduction of risk of infection is seriously considered. If you go Googling for benefits of female circumcision (and yes, you'll have to Google with those semantics instead of using the term FGM) you will find a similar list of benefits, I assume also supported by scientific research, though the criminalization of FGM would likely make that research look poorly sourced (being that I never desired to defend FGM, I didn't look into the claims as hard as I did for RIC.) I fail to understand what makes RIC acceptable in the same culture where FGM is reviled - even a ritual pinprick of female genitals is illegal in the US. If FGM occurred under the care of licensed doctors in a sterile operating room with a similar ratio of flesh removal as RIC, would it be acceptable?

When it comes to other parents I have to interact with in real life, I ignore their decisions about their children's genitals. Maybe they have reasons I don't - a family history of penile cancer or chronic UTIs, or even just religious reasons - that make a very legitimate medical decision out of what would simply amount to plastic surgery on my child. When our children exit the age of diaper changes, it probably won't ever come up again, and I will be glad.

[Stillness]

try to keep it kosher

Ba-dum-ching!

I did some searching - just regular google and google scholar. I couldn't find any studies on health benefits for female circumcision.

I don't know that I'd compare lice to debilitating diseases, cancers, and infections for which circumcision reduces the chances.

[Baboy]

I was snipped as an infant, without so much as a by your leave. While I have not brooded or ruminated deeply over the matter in adulthood, there's a part of me (perhaps a part I still have, that was not thatched into a foreskin handbag) that wishes I had been left intact. But I am not going to seek surgical restoration.

Overall, I lean toward the leave it alone camp, except in those few cases, if any, where it is seen as medically necessary or beneficial early on.

As for cultural/religious considerations, I would never suggest to effy or anyone else of the Jewish faith that they should not have their sons cut. As effy points out, that is something that for them is steeped in ancient tradition and I cannot see it as wrong. If Jewish parents were to "spare" their son circumcision, I would expect him to remonstrate against them in adulthood for denying him that rite.

In the Philippines, boys usually are circumcised at around age 10 in what appears to have become a cultural practice. The kids want it done. It's often a group thing and done under rather primitive conditions sometimes, but no one seems to suffer much as a result, although I am sure there are a few exceptions. Again, that's the culture and I'll not speak against it.