[Something_Awesome]

Is the foreskin a mistake made by mother nature?

[Motorguy]

Is the foreskin a mistake made by mother nature?

We will never know will we. But human bodies have parts we really don't need.So it looks like foreskin is one of them.

[Stillness]

If female circumcision was shown to have benefits, low risk, and no impact on sexual function, I'd accept the double standard argument. I looked for studies and didn't see the ones demonstrating it.

No one said that circumcision should be routine for everyone, so I don't know who that argument is with. The "establishment?"

[Little]

Motorguy, we aren't going to have good, solid knowledge on the function of the foreskin when cultures seem to have an all-or-nothing approach to whether male infants should undergo surgery after birth. We already know the foreskin isn't doing "nothing." It provides lubrication, protects the sensitive glans from the environment (especially prior to becoming retractible; the glans is supposed to be completely covered during the first few years of life.) It sounds like you just want this discussion to end - that's too bad; it's not going to, not here or anywhere though this thread will inevitably die off at some point, but just because people can't agree doesn't mean we don't continue discussion.

Stillness, you may not be specifically suggesting that we're talking about Routine Infant Circumcision, but you didn't object to me using that phrase in the first few pages of the thread ... and RIC is one of many practices we're talking about when we discuss whether circumcision is "good" or "bad." If an infant is circumcised within days of birth with no indication of a medical problem to correct, that's RIC. And it is routine. So routine that I had to practically beat away doctors begging to circumcise my son with sticks (seriously, like 5 separate healthcare workers asking me when to schedule it, GO AWAY) and I'd have to travel 2+ hours to a pediatrician who has a clue about intact care.

I assume since this is an American site with an overwhelmingly American audience, and the majority of circumcised men in the US are circumcised at birth, when we talk circumcision it's generally going to be RIC. Certainly circumcision can happen at other times - and IMO with less trauma to the organ, considering the separation of the foreskin from the glans - but unless there's a medical problem or a different cultural construct (as was mentioned earlier about the Philippines,) most folks will be making the decision at birth - thus, RIC.

One of MiracleRiver's deleted posts contained a study on the sexual effects of FGM on Tanzanian women - Stallings 2005, you can read the breakdown on a very ugly (pink and neon green, really??) Powerpoint presentation if you Google - that found an inverse relationship between HIV infection and FGM. It also has some other interesting facts on FGM. In general though, I think it's unfair to expect a criminalized and stigmatized practice to have the same body of ethical, unbiased scientific work concerning it as a relatively common practice like male RIC.

[effy2014]

Every, and I mean EVERY reputable medical organization has come out against FGM. The World Health Organization states unequivocally that FGM has no medical benefit. The comparison between circumcision and FGM is a red herring -- Little is not extolling the health benefits to advocate for FGM -- rather, it is being used as an argument that somebody somewhere may argue for some health benefits and therefore we should be suspect of the health benefit claims for male circumcision.

The two procedures are not the same. The purposes are not the same. The health consequences are nowhere near the same. No country accepts it. No medical organization accepts FGM. In my opinion, you cannot divorce FGM from how it is currently performed and then compare it to circumcision (the "what if it was in sterile conditions, did not harm the girl and had medical justification"argument). Why is this even an issue in the male circumcision debate?

If this debate is about whether circumcision should be routine, I agree with Little. No doctor should pressure anyone to have their baby circumcised. But, that is only an argument against it being routine, not about the procedure itself. The AAP statement was taken out of context. The AAP found that there were health benefits just not enough to make circumcision ROUTINE. The AAP concludes "leave it up to the parents to decide". That is the proper approach.

I also take offense to the notion that religious practices do not mean anything or, since the bible is full of wars and pronouncements (meaningful at the time) that are ridiculous now, all religious practices should be thrown out. I am not a religious fanatic by any means, but circumcision is a very meaningful practice to me. Therefore, concluding that if circumcision is done in the US it must ipso facto be routine is simply false. Parents decide upon male circumcision for a child based upon a number of factors. Opponents just believe that we are either sheep, ignorant or barbaric. I assure you that I am none of the above.

[DreamP346]

Even thought there are reliable studies that show significant benefits for circumcision, minimal risk, and an enjoyable sex life, certain people are not content to make the decision not to circumcise for themselves and their own. They become fanatical about attacking people who circumcise their own babies. Why do you think that is?

You can say the same for people who are for it. Read Little's experience. To stand up for what we believe, we HAVE to be what you consider fanatical as we are often criticized and ridiculed. We have to stand our ground in a sea of opposition.

[effy2014]

You can say the same for people who are for it. Read Little's experience. To stand up for what we believe, we HAVE to be what you consider fanatical as we are often criticized and ridiculed. We have to stand our ground in a sea of opposition.

There is a difference between firm and fanatical as well as between supporting your views and using pejorative terms to attack those who have the opposite view. I have also had negative experiences with medical professionals who insist on doing things with little or no medical justification . . . three surgical interns were scheduling my ex for surgery to take out her gallbladder when they couldn't diagnose her medical issue (what the heck, it could be her gallbladder). I kept saying no and it didn't happen.

I am equally outraged by Little's experience and anyone being ridiculed for not circumcising their child. But shouldn't that experience make one more inclined to support parental choice no matter the decision?

[Little]

If you find something morally wrong, it's hard not to object to others doing it. I find it unsavory that others practice RIC; the practice of not condemning those that do is a matter of being polite and kind to other people presumably acting to their best ability, a concession to the humanity of others that come to wildly different conclusions than I do with the same data. I compare RIC to FGM due to my conclusions that they are effectively the same practice.

Saying that leaving the decision up to each parent is "proper" is a funny thing - it's certainly polite, it's kind, so it's that kind of proper, but if you believe each person has the right to genital integrity and allowing infant circumcision is universally "wrong," then you can't agree to each parent making their own decision to be "right." Especially when female genital integrity is legally protected but that of men isn't.

There are really two arguments going on here - a moral one concerning the right to intact genitals and a medical one concerning the right to have the best medical care available to avoid very serious problems in the future. One doesn't necessarily affect the other.

[JonDoe]

No Double Standards

Most parents are NOT thinking about potential health benefits when they decide to have their son circumcised. It is mostly performed for religious and cultural beliefs, and because doctors practically force it on new parents who display any hesitation to accept the status quo. Do doctors strongly encourage it because of significant health benefits or because it puts several hundred dollars in their pockets for each procedure?

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT judging parents who decide to have their son circumcised. Again, I was circumcised at birth and I am a fully functional sexual adult male who holds no disfavor for his parents decision. However, .....

If it is legal to make Jimmy look like Daddy, then it should be legal to make Jenny look like Mommy.

Conversely, if it is illegal to make Jenny look like Mommy, then it should be illegal to make Jimmy look like Daddy.

[effy2014]

If you find something morally wrong, it's hard not to object to others doing it. I find it unsavory that others practice RIC

**********************

There are really two arguments going on here - a moral one concerning the right to intact genitals and a medical one concerning the right to have the best medical care available to avoid very serious problems in the future. One doesn't necessarily affect the other.

I have never heard of the moral right of intact genitals nor do I believe there is one. What gives rise to this moral code?

Regardless, what right does anyone have to inflict their morality on me? If this were an abortion debate do you have the right to say to a person who had one that she is immoral and a baby killer? Imposing one's moral code on another (or looking down on those that don't practice your form of morality) is a very slippery slope since we all have vastly different moral codes. That's why most countries banned abortion, why some countries have the death penalty for homosexuality and why others find it acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation. All to enforce their conceptions of morality.

You don't want others to question your decision not to circumcise you son; yet, you feel comfortable questioning the moral code of others that do. Allowing others the space to make these decisions is not being kind .... It's acknowledging that any one person is not the arbiter of "universal" morality.