[effy2014]

I find it interesting that that the three most vocal opponents are women. My belief, anecdotal as it is, would be that the vast majority of circumcised men have no complaints whatsoever and, like me, would (or have) circumcised their sons.

As for the science debate, the American Association of Pediatrics latest pronouncement was that the health benefits outweigh the risks and leaves it up to the parents to decide. The AAP states: "Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life."

Any comparison to FGM is simply inaccurate and, in my belief, done for the purpose of inflaming the debate. FGM has zero health benefits. The degree of cutting is much more extensive, often impairing a woman's sexual and reproductive functions. Women experience greater UTIs, risk infertility, have increased complications in giving birth, have a decreased libido, pain during sex and no pleasure from it. These are in addition to the risks from the procedure itself. The complication rate for male circumcision is less than .02%.

As a parent, I have no problem making medical decisions . . . or even haircut decisions . . . for my children. If parents want to keep their child's hair short so it is easier to maintain, all the power to them. Leaving a circumcision decision to when the boy is 18 -- a time where it is vastly more painful and the complication rate higher -- is a nonstarter for me. I agree with the AAP -- leave it to an informed parent.

I don't understand the rapid opposition at all.

[a_dub]

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.

There are NO health benefits for FGM.

there are several benefits for male circumcision.

[Little]

The demographic here is largely female - and it's not as though each of our vocal male minority members are in the thread For a male member opposing RIC in a much more rabid manner than anyone here, you might consider the testimony of AnonymousWhiteFemale (who is male,) in various similar threads dating to the 2007-9 era - the very threads that sent me researching and in which you can see me hemming and hawing and thinking it wasn't my decision, being that I don't have a penis. That was back when I did not have a son to protect from a practice that I find indefensible - yes, just as indefensible as FGM.

I know of at least a few men in real life (fathers of intact sons, mostly) who feel negatively about their having been cut, though like Baboy they aren't seeking out any kind of therapeutic reversal. What's the point in ruminating on a decision, likely made with the best of intentions by people you love, that cannot be undone? Especially in a society where circumcision is the norm and the sentiment is not likely to be shared.

You miss the last portion of that AAP statement, the part that Stillness quoted earlier - that the health benefits of infant circumcision are not sufficient to recommend it universally. That's a wishy-washy statement giving credence to both sides. I don't discount that a scarred tissue (the glans after RIC) would likely resist disease/infection better than an unscarred tissue - but it's not medically routine to scar any other tissues that might be susceptible. Those women who suffer from chronic UTIs, BV, or other genital infections might be very interested in such a treatment.

[Little]

A_dub, those of us who are against RIC of males find the "benefits" of it to be poorly-sourced and statistically irrelevant. But I wouldn't go around saying there are NO benefits. It's popular to say there are NO benefits of FGM - capital N-O, let's look very worldly for putting down a barbaric practice, but there are certainly purported benefits by those practicing it. They are strangely similar to the benefits of male RIC. I'm not in the practice of defending either practice, though, so I'm not exactly an expert.

[Stillness]

I don't understand the rapid opposition at all.

I think it can be traced back to a few of things: 1) The "pro-nature" (I don't really know if it has a name or how better to describe it) line of thinking that has a powerful emotional reaction against anything not "natural" (e.g. pesticides, medicine, genetically modified foods). 2) Anti-religious/anti-God sentiment. There's growing backlash against the many sins of religion. Some of the good or benign practices of it get attacked along with the bad. 3) The global awareness of female circumcision. It's allowed people with those feelings to lump male circumcision in along with this practice.

[DreamP346]

I think it can be traced back to a few of things: 1) The "pro-nature" (I don't really know if it has a name or how better to describe it) line of thinking that has a powerful emotional reaction against anything not "natural" (e.g. pesticides, medicine, genetically modified foods). 2) Anti-religious/anti-God sentiment. There's growing backlash against the many sins of religion. Some of the good or benign practices of it get attacked along with the bad. 3) The global awareness of female circumcision. It's allowed people with those feelings to lump male circumcision in along with this practice.

Stillness, I have never heard these arguments against circumcision. The reason people are so strongly opposed to it are mainly because it is a routinely done irreversible procedure with limited if not questionable benefits. The reasons you describe make those who oppose circumcision sound as godless hippies. That is far from the truth. Everybody I know who has chosen not to circumcise their son have been intelligent folks who made an informed decision based on facts. I wish I could say the same about everybody I know who did circumcise. As I said before, most people who chose to circumcise chose to do so because it was the norm.

[beethovengenius]

I think it can be traced back to a few of things: 1) The "pro-nature" (I don't really know if it has a name or how better to describe it) line of thinking that has a powerful emotional reaction against anything not "natural" (e.g. pesticides, medicine, genetically modified foods). 2) Anti-religious/anti-God sentiment. There's growing backlash against the many sins of religion. Some of the good or benign practices of it get attacked along with the bad. 3) The global awareness of female circumcision. It's allowed people with those feelings to lump male circumcision in along with this practice.

I know it is off topic but are you saying opposition to pesticides is not ok because you regard people who do oppose it as being "pro-nature" ?

[DreamP346]

BTW, before we go about touting the health benefits of circumcision, lets look at one of these diseases and put it into perspective in the US. I didn't have the time to do the same research for all the other "benefits" The following is from the CDC:

The United States has a much lower population prevalence of HIV infection (0.4%) than sub-Saharan Africa, and an epidemic that is concentrated among men who have sex with men, rather than men who have sex with women...Among men, 72% of estimated new infections occurred in the male-to-male sexual contact transmission category, while heterosexual transmission accounted for 13%

A number of important differences from sub-Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM.



Based on this, you can see how small the numbers we are talking about.

[effy2014]

Stillness, I have never heard these arguments against circumcision. The reason people are so strongly opposed to it are mainly because it is a routinely done irreversible procedure with limited if not questionable benefits. The reasons you describe make those who oppose circumcision sound as godless hippies. That is far from the truth. Everybody I know who has chosen not to circumcise their son have been intelligent folks who made an informed decision based on facts. I wish I could say the same about everybody I know who did circumcise. As I said before, most people who chose to circumcise chose to do so because it was the norm.

Again, I understand people being against circumcision. Just like people are against certain plastic surgery to fit in or conform. It is the forcefulness of the opposition that I do not understand. Why does this drive a wedge between people? It makes Little's blood boil and this is a woman who is tolerant of everybody.

Let me assume that the health benefits are weak and that parents make the choice because it is the norm or because the Dad is circumcised. So what. The procedure is incredibly safe and there are virtually zero long term effects. Like you, I am an intelligent man. I would not blindly follow a religious tradition or cultural norm that I deemed dangerous to my children. But it isn't -- not in the slightest. Why does it make you mad what I decide for my infant son?

[Little]

I feel like you're blowing mine and Dream's contributions out of proportion. Nobody's blood is boiling, and nobody is mad at you for your decision.