[ChristinaHedge]

I think, bad. I also think that an adult male will have had absolutely no choice in whether they were circumcised or not so that is not something they personally ought to be judged on.
Can women or gay male lovers have a preference? Sure.
Is it morally good or bad? I am not even going there. I will say that the procedure is both painful and unnecessary though.

[Little]

Facts don't exist in a vacuum. We have to have feelings about them. When somebody "refuses to believe" something it's generally because they don't see the logic in it. That phrase often replaces a potential long list of reasons why a person doesn't believe an assertion.

A study may conclude X, but we have to decide whether X is significant in light of a whole alphabet of confounding factors, especially when it seems like there is a study to conclude just about anything.

It's hard to have a conversation about anybody's religion without someone feeling that they have been belittled or slighted (consider many popular Western religions and denominations thereof assert themselves as the ONLY truth, the ONLY way.) How can anyone disagree without discounting?

The studies listed by the CDC show adult circumcision complication rates at 2-8% and non-neonate child circumcision complication rates at 2-14% (That's significantly higher than the 0.2% for RIC.) Without looking in-depth at these studies, I immediately wonder if any surgery on a newborn would have a lower complication rate due to their general immobility, lack of coordination to touch/manipulate the incision site, and intensity of parental care during the first weeks after birth. The jump in complications in older children could suggest that more patients are being operated on from a non-healthy state such as phimosis, as well as the relative difficulty of incision care in an active older child vs. a newborn or a self-sufficient adult. And lastly, would an adult (or even an older child able to vocalize their complaints) be more likely to report a complication, specifically poor visual results? Someone circumcised as an infant will effectively have had those visual results for his whole life and likely not know another "look" was possible.

Certainly if we tear apart the results of every scientific study like that, we wouldn't come to many useful conclusions. At the same time, it's not sound science if it can't survive some thoughtful criticism. I have to feel that the confounding factors make adult circumcision a viable option if a man denied circumcision at birth wants it; a study can't conclude that for me. You can frame it as a fact - "circumcision of infants at or shortly after birth has an exponentially smaller complication rate than later surgery," but you have to make a qualitative analysis of the facts presented to decide that one is "less/more dangerous than" another.

[effy2014]

I am actually surprised by your post. You don't think that people can disagree in a respectful way? The fact that there is no allowance for the validity of another view point is incredibly rude and disrespectful (by the standards you set in other threads), especially where, at least in the US, the anti-circumcision movement is a very minority view. Apparently, I am just too stupid to understand. And you don't think that is rude?

Facts don't exist in a vacuum. We have to have feelings about them. When somebody "refuses to believe" something it's generally because they don't see the logic in it. That phrase often replaces a potential long list of reasons why a person doesn't believe an assertion.

In this case, there are studies on both sides of the issue, done by very reputable scientists. You have every right to question and believe the facts as you see them. Just as can review those same studies and concur in the result.

hard to have a conversation about anybody's religion without someone feeling that they have been belittled or slighted (consider many popular Western religions and denominations thereof assert themselves as the ONLY truth, the ONLY way.) How can anyone disagree without discounting?

Actually, it is not difficult at all. I never stated that my religion is the only truth . . . in fact, it is a vastly minority religion. Rather than discounting the validity a person's belief system or religion in general, one could simply disagree that a biblical command should not be blindly followed where it could prove to be harmful. We could then debate the harm. But to ridicule that religion could be the basis of ones actions is, again, rude and disrespectful.

studies listed by the CDC show adult circumcision complication rates at 2-8% and non-neonate child circumcision complication rates at 2-14% (That's significantly higher than the 0.2% for RIC.) Without looking in-depth at these studies, I immediately wonder if any surgery on a newborn would have a lower complication rate due to their general immobility, lack of coordination to touch/manipulate the incision site, and intensity of parental care during the first weeks after birth. The jump in complications in older children could suggest that more patients are being operated on from a non-healthy state such as phimosis, as well as the relative difficulty of incision care in an active older child vs. a newborn or a self-sufficient adult. And lastly, would an adult (or even an older child able to vocalize their complaints) be more likely to report a complication, specifically poor visual results? Someone circumcised as an infant will effectively have had those visual results for his whole life and likely not know another "look" was possible.

Certainly if we tear apart the results of every scientific study like that, we wouldn't come to many useful conclusions. At the same time, it's not sound science if it can't survive some thoughtful criticism. I have to feel that the confounding factors make adult circumcision a viable option if a man denied circumcision at birth wants it; a study can't conclude that for me. You can frame it as a fact - "circumcision of infants at or shortly after birth has an exponentially smaller complication rate than later surgery," but you have to make a qualitative analysis of the facts presented to decide that one is "less/more dangerous than" another.

You may "wonder about" or "feel" that all of those conjectures are valid. In the absence of proof that any of the variables you cite contradict the results of the studies, that is all that that it is -- conjecture (intelligent conjecture). I could, with equal "feeling", retort with the belief that the mothers of newborns are super sensitive to any complications and are more apt to report even the slightest issue, including the look (after all, it is most likely that her husband is circumcised, so she know what it should look like). Mothers take care of the wound on a daily basis. Further, the reasons for the lower complication rate are largely irrelevant if, in fact, the rate is lower (as it appears to be by a significant factor).

It could be, though I would find it doubtful that a study design would ignore things so obvious as the ones you mention, that there are factors which may lower the overall risk rate in a healthy adult male. But you miss the point. I don't care if you completely discount the study because it does not meet with your belief system or that you make the qualitative analysis that adult circumcision does not pose more risk. Your reasons to discount the study's conclusions may well be valid. But to denounce my decision making abilities for relying on such a study are also valid. That is what I do not understand and the point that Stillness made so well. Why is it that the anti-circumcision crowd can't say that I have a valid argument in support of circumcision, even though that is not what they would do based upon their own analysis. Why can't it be said that there are some intelligent people in the majority of US parents that circumcise their male infants (and in my demographic of white Americans the rate is 90%) -- are we really all just dumb sheep and you crusaders are just smarter?

Yes, this is an emotionally charged issue and, whatever you may think, there is no "right" answer. Just an answer that is right for you.

[CHANDLERS WISH]

Yes, this is an emotionally charged issue and, whatever you may think, there is no "right" answer. Just an answer that is right for you.

Yes, Effy for you, for me, for her, for him... Isn't that normal of any discussion?

Then in my opinion, as stated for years here by both Little and myself and sometimes we even remind each other of this.

If it is TOO emotional, too raw to your heart, soul. Do NOT go on a thread.

I am not being rude Effy because I think the world of you and you know that, I don't know you but I do.

Yet, I read what you wrote the page before when Romy decided to look up Australia, yes I am in this conversation and so is she, it's not all about America it's an open Forum and she found that it really doesn't happen here and that's right. I wanted to thank her for including me, looking it up as it was America/America/America, yet an open discussion but you seemed to be so upset that I let it go and left the thread. Then Romy came and gave her heart thereafter. Her thoughts her honest pure thoughts. But I felt you got upset over that, as you then referred any comment contrary to you, were from women.

I'm sorry but the question has nothing to do with one Country, women or men, rather everywhere, everyone and how they feel on the said subject and we are going to have our opinions and rightly so.

Yet we as women got shot down as " it seems to only be women" that disagree. I already pointed out that "someone" who was a male was upset of the fact that he was.

I always said I'm on the fence, that I believe though what you are born with, the way you are born has to stand for something before man decided to interfere.. My own fiancé has had the cut, he is ok with it apparently so are his mates so I am satisfied that "some" are ok with it. But, I think I'm also entitled to feel that man has made this decision. Aren't I?



I think this is way to close to you I think your constant bombarding of your beliefs and critic over other's comments are because this is too close to you and I'd like to think you are man enough to realise that some agree some don't and a debate is exactly that, done in a peaceful manner of discussion not with anger.

I'd ask that you not reply to this thread any further because I think this subject is too close to you..and I know you are a better person who can get that.

[Stillness]

Well, I appreciated the discussion. I didn't find either side rude, for what it's worth. I wish it could have been more focused on facts instead of feelings. Maybe this has to do with the way men view the world versus how women view it?

When we discussed this a year ago I came across some interesting information on pheromones in the foreskin. I've seen stuff out there on changes in the brain when a child is cut. Emotions are important, but I wish that logic and facts would have had a greater role.

[Little]

You may "wonder about" or "feel" that all of those conjectures are valid. In the absence of proof that any of the variables you cite contradict the results of the studies, that is all that that it is -- conjecture (intelligent conjecture). I could, with equal "feeling", retort with the belief that the mothers of newborns are super sensitive to any complications and are more apt to report even the slightest issue, including the look (after all, it is most likely that her husband is circumcised, so she know what it should look like). Mothers take care of the wound on a daily basis. Further, the reasons for the lower complication rate are largely irrelevant if, in fact, the rate is lower (as it appears to be by a significant factor).

My reaction to this is, Hey, that's good thinking. We can't have absolute proof of any of these "why"s - "why"s don't always do quantitative data. So they're left to qualitative decisions described as "feeling." When you get out of the realm of the quantitative, things aren't black and white. There are a lot of shades of gray that are equally valid (in that they're all probably at least partly invalid.) I have gathered as many facts as possible to forge my feelings (you can see in my post history how my feelings have changed, and radically, in the last decade.) I doubt it has much to do, in my case at least, with the way men vs. women view the world - a man was the catalyst for my change of heart/mind and my (intact, if it matters) husband agreed prior to our meeting.

I only meant the subject of religion when I said people can't really disagree without discounting. To oversimplify, to be a Christian you (usually?) have to accept Jesus as the messiah - if you're not, you probably don't, which isn't something you go around telling people (religion being sacred and all) but if you're asked "Don't you think that's true?" you have to say "no, sorry, I don't" if you're going to be truthful. You don't go ****ting on people's sacred cows. It simply isn't done. But you don't have to believe their cows are sacred to not **** on them.

[Stillness]

I have gathered as many facts as possible to forge my feelings

Do you mind sharing a few?

[effy2014]

My reaction to this is, Hey, that's good thinking. We can't have absolute proof of any of these "why"s - "why"s don't always do quantitative data. So they're left to qualitative decisions described as "feeling." When you get out of the realm of the quantitative, things aren't black and white. There are a lot of shades of gray that are equally valid (in that they're all probably at least partly invalid.)

Over the last several days, I could not comprehend why it was so difficult for people to write what is quoted above. CW feels that the subject is too emotional for me, which is simply untrue; what became irritating was the unfolding realization that, with respect to a subject that has "a lot of shades of grey" and where opinions (the qualitative approach you describe) about the data are important, intelligent adults could not agree that both sides have a valid point of view. I never had an issue with your or any other parent's "leave intact" decision nor did I hope to convince anyone to change positions.

As for being exclusionary, my point in using US statistics was to support my position that there has to be some validity to the decision to circumcise if 60-70% of people in the US have their baby circumcised. I never meant to imply that the points raised by my Aussie friends are not just as valid as mine. I do know that the circumcision statistics in Australia are going down. Upon reading and reflecting, I think the statistics in both countries are reflective of two major issues (which are intertwined): (1) the Australian Medical Society does not recommend circumcision vs. the US AAP which is largely supportive (though not on a routine basis but leaves the decision to parents); and (2) the cost of the procedure is not covered in Australia and it is in the US. Not surprising that people rely on their pocket books and the recommendations of medical professionals.

[Little]

That's what I've been doing

The adhesion of the foreskin to the the glans at birth and for years after certainly makes up the majority of my objection to infant circumcision. (To repeat, I don't object to circumcision on adults and only object a little in retractible children under the age of consent.) The studies concerning the benefits of circumcision don't require it happen during infancy. So if circumcision can be vindicated by its medical benefits above and beyond the prevention of phimosis, it can wait until it's a less damaging procedure. My concerns about the documented jump in complications in non-neonates are already stated.

In that case of phimosis, supposing it is properly diagnosed by medical personnel who understand the care of the intact penis, circumcision is a last resort. Most cases of phimosis can be fixed with the use of a steroid cream (reports vary from 33-95% can be resolved this way.) Those cases that don't respond favorably to steroid creams can be fixed by alternative surgeries like preputioplasty (essentially cutting a slit in the foreskin to loosen it rather than remove it.)

There are certainly moral objections but they are feelings, not facts. The comparisons to FGM help illustrate these since most people object strenuously to FGM the same way I object to RIC. I do consider them part of what forged my opinion but they're not what you asked for. There are also religious reasons FOR infant circumcision, but they don't apply to me.

When it comes to the straight facts, it's more about a lack of vindication for infant circumcision than any pool of evidence in favor of it. So if infant circumcision is a more invasive procedure than is necessary for the benefits, and circumcision at any age is a more invasive surgery than is necessary to treat its intended disease, what else is there? If infants are not circumcised, they lose none of the possible benefits of the foreskin and at the same time don't lose out on any of the potential studied benefits of circumcision.

EDIT: Objections to circumcision based in feelings rather than facts, such as moral objections, are not less important but much more likely to preclude leaving it up to parental choice.

[Motorguy]

Oh thank god I had daughters instead of sons. I really think it's really no big deal.This procedure has not change me in anyway I am not less a man for having it done I had no choice I was very young. My sex life has not suffer for it in anyway. I never had a women say you are cut no won't have sex with you that's never happen with me.There is scientific proof that not having it done it could lead to mean having penile cancer the rates go's up when there not been circumcised.