Circumcision

[Stephen73]

Christopher Hitchens and other leading atheists are against infant circumcision for religious purposes. There is no need to routinely circumcise male children for religious purposes however there are medical benefits to circumcision that should not be ignored. Circumcision reduces STD and HIV infection rates by up to 8 times, women who have intercourse with circumcised men are 50% less likely to develop cervical cancer, and in circumcised men there is a reduction of the rates of kidney and penis cancer plus many uncircumcised males get painful infections. The operation is very low risk and now with a special plastic attachment circumcision is many times un-painful. Circumcision should be changed as an operation at birth to becoming an operation males can get throughout their lives as a preventative measure if they want. I think the anti-circumcision movement is unproductive and the circumcision operation should be moved from infant religious routine to a personal choice.
:)

[phrog]

Even tho my folks wern't of the faith, My Brother and I are both helmet heads. Alas, in the 50's it wasn't even an item up for consideration. People had to alert the doctors they DIDN'T want the procedure done to their newborn dick. I guess I'll never know what I'm missing.

[deltagear]

Christopher Hitchens and other leading atheists are against infant circumcision for religious purposes. There is no need to routinely circumcise male children for religious purposes however there are medical benefits to circumcision that should not be ignored. Circumcision reduces STD and HIV infection rates by up to 8 times, women who have intercourse with circumcised men are 50% less likely to develop cervical cancer, and in circumcised men there is a reduction of the rates of kidney and penis cancer plus many uncircumcised males get painful infections. The operation is very low risk and now with a special plastic attachment circumcision is many times un-painful. Circumcision should be changed as an operation at birth to becoming an operation males can get throughout their lives as a preventative measure if they want. I think the anti-circumcision movement is unproductive and the circumcision operation should be moved from infant religious routine to a personal choice.
:)

K, I was left uncut. So I have a few things to point out about your statements. STD's can effectively be reduced with he use of condoms, being an atheist you shouldn't really have a problem with that. Condoms are available for free in clinics, short of that dish out $10 for a jumbo pack. I don't know where the cervical cancer concepts springs from but, I did a quickie google search and found it stems from HPV, or herpes, this too can be reduced through the use of a condom. Unlike you implied above we do not get painful infections, we may need to clean our selves but it's pretty routine. Uncircumcised males are as clean and healthy as circumcised males, neither are immune to STD's and both should be considered a possible risk or infection. I actively convince others to not under go this treatment. Uncircumcised males also have more sensation due the abundance of nerve endings, this offsets any discomfort from wearing a condom. I hope I have educated some people and cleared up any mistakes.

Even tho my folks wern't of the faith, My Brother and I are both helmet heads. Alas, in the 50's it wasn't even an item up for consideration. People had to alert the doctors they DIDN'T want the procedure done to their newborn dick. I guess I'll never know what I'm missing.

Our health system doesn't pay for circumcisions, you actually have to ask and pay specifically to get it done in Canada.

[David]

Personally, I really don't feel like I'm missing anything by being circed.

I always find it funny that women seem to take circ much more seriously than men do. I'm like, "eh, whatever". While our family-friends (specifically, the wife) is almost irate and (can I say it?) fundamentalist about NOT circing their sons.

You'll never find a man as completely nuts about whether his daughter should or should not use tampons, etc., but, a woman will go nuts over male health issues...

I'm sure there's a good reason for it though.. Maybe...

[David]

Uncircumcised males also have more sensation due the abundance of nerve endings, this offsets any discomfort from wearing a condom.
The only way you'd know for sure would be to get circed and compare the before and after.

Besides, condoms? Yuck.. LOL One of the few real (BIG) benefits of being in a monogomous marriage with other (very good) birth control methods :D

[deltagear]

The only way you'd know for sure would be to get circed and compare the before and after.


http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2007-03-19pressrelease.pdf

I'm aware that it's sorta a conflict of interest coming from that site but it's an answer to your question.


I always find it funny that women seem to take circ much more seriously than men do. I'm like, "eh, whatever". While our family-friends (specifically, the wife) is almost irate and (can I say it?) fundamentalist about NOT circing their sons.


In canada around 50%ish of males are uncut we don't have issues with women. :cool:

[David]

This study conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men.

I don't know.. I really don't have any issues in this department. However, I wonder if there's stats available for the % of men who have trouble with (ahem) early ejaculation that are intact (more sensitive) vs. those who are circed? I'm just looking for the silver lining here.. LOL

[deltagear]

I don't know.. I really don't have any issues in this department. However, I wonder if there's stats available for the % of men who have trouble with (ahem) early ejaculation that are intact (more sensitive) vs. those who are circed? I'm just looking for the silver lining here.. LOL


Personal experience, at first it's a lil difficult to "control" but we get used to it and learn how to make it last. It's just mind over matter, easy stuff. IMHO there's no real silver lining to getting cut, you lose something you can't get back. Truth be told your foreskin probably ended up in a face cream or some such cosmetic product.

[lorryfach]

IMHO there's no real silver lining to getting cut, you lose something you can't get back.
Exactly. I don't like the idea of a parent making this kind of decision about their child. I feel the same way about, say, piercing an infant's ears. Making permanant changes to someone else's body before they are old enough to consent does not sit well with me at all. If you want to get yourself circed at 18, by all means, go mutilate yourself.

I'm glad my husband is intact.

As for not being able to find a man who cares if his daughter wears tampons, that's untrue. Men who are educated about the problems associated with various forms of menstrual hygiene products do have opinions on this. Granted, there are a lot fewer man who care enough to investigate these matters than there are women who care enough to investigate what doctors want to do to their son's penis. Doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to figure out why.

[stan2reason]

K, I was left uncut. So I have a few things to point out about your statements. STD's can effectively be reduced with he use of condoms, being an atheist you shouldn't really have a problem with that. Condoms are available for free in clinics, short of that dish out $10 for a jumbo pack. I don't know where the cervical cancer concepts springs from but, I did a quickie google search and found it stems from HPV, or herpes, this too can be reduced through the use of a condom. Unlike you implied above we do not get painful infections, we may need to clean our selves but it's pretty routine. Uncircumcised males are as clean and healthy as circumcised males, neither are immune to STD's and both should be considered a possible risk or infection. I actively convince others to not under go this treatment. Uncircumcised males also have more sensation due the abundance of nerve endings, this offsets any discomfort from wearing a condom. I hope I have educated some people and cleared up any mistakes.



Our health system doesn't pay for circumcisions, you actually have to ask and pay specifically to get it done in Canada.

Hi deltagear,

I'd just like to clarify something here--you're not opposed to consenting adults having the procedure are you? The data on sensitivity does not seem to show a significant difference between the two groups. There have been several well controlled articles published in the last 12 months on this subject. Turns out, the presence of a certain sensitivity between the ears is a more important factor in achieving sexual enjoyment.

In the developing world, circumcision may play a large role in reducing the spread of HIV. Seems like we ought not ignore the data here even if we oppose the procedure in baby boys.

I'm with you on balanitis, though, it's very rare in men of normal health.

Best,
S2R

[minorwork]

First grade teacher noticed Dirty Ernie wasn't paying attention. Sitting in the back of class. Squirming, fidgeting, and scratching his crotch. Teacher went back and inquired, "Earnst! What's wrong with you today?" "Aw teach," replied Earnie, "I got circumcised 5 days ago and it's really starting to itch BAD." Shocked, the teacher exclaimed, "Go to the principal's office and call your mom and see what to do." When Earnie returned a big commotion arose in the back of the class. The teacher reluctantly went back, and there sat Earnie with his wheezer hanging out. "Doggone it Earnie did you call your mom?" He said, "Sure did. She said if I could stick it out 'till noon, she'd come pick me up"

Sorry all. Just too tempting.

[home8896]

And I'm sure those with this "evidence" can get Ben Stein to do a nice little movie for them, too. It disturbs me that people ignore the US when they look at these issues (adult males here are mostly circumcised here, and yet we have the highest HIV rates of the industrial world, some benefit) and ignore the other factors that were present and that the "benefits" were also found in circumcised girls, and geez... that one study that was cut short when the evidence started to evaporate... No, I didn't chop up my kids' genitals and wouldn't consider this excuse as a reason to bypass educating my kids about the virus and real methods of prevention.

[stan2reason]

And I'm sure those with this "evidence" can get Ben Stein to do a nice little movie for them, too. It disturbs me that people ignore the US when they look at these issues (adult males here are mostly circumcised here, and yet we have the highest HIV rates of the industrial world, some benefit) and ignore the other factors that were present and that the "benefits" were also found in circumcised girls, and geez... that one study that was cut short when the evidence started to evaporate... No, I didn't chop up my kids' genitals and wouldn't consider this excuse as a reason to bypass educating my kids about the virus and real methods of prevention.

There certainly are some passionate views and I think that's great. This was a good post Stephen73! I'm not sure if Home is addressing my post or Stephen73's original post or both but I'll talk to some of it. First I guess I should state that I'm a daddy too and my wife and I did not circumcise our son even though I was circumcised at birth. That should tell you something about my thoughts here.

I don't think anyone is ignoring the United States in this argument. Increasing male circumcision rates in this country would not likely result in reduced transmission of HIV. The studies out of Africa are addressing their population which is fundamentally different from the US. In Africa virtually all HIV transmission occurs with male-female vaginal sex. In the United States the primary mode of transmission is male-male anal sex. Admittedly though, women are making up a larger percentage of infected individuals in the US these days. No one is arguing that mass male circumcision would have a statistically significant impact on HIV disease here. Heterosexual vaginal sex is a relatively safe act with respect to HIV and when compared to anal sex. In Africa the numbers are high because of sheer numbers, the absence of appropriate protection and education, and worker migration practices. The question then arises. What if male circumcision might be a protective factor for consenting adults? Again, I'm not suggesting mandated circumcision or an abandonment of education or condom distribution. What if this could save lives? What do we do with medical literature that shows this and the data has been replicated and validated. Certainly there must be ethical limits--I'm guessing that removal of the penis altogether would dramatically reduce infection rates too. I'd like to go on record and say that I'm against that!

This brings the discussion to scientific literature. Scientists and the general public are both guilty of crimes here. None of us should be convinced that our position is correct simply because one study supports it in the face of another that doesn't. The literature must be evaluated for design--was it adequately randomized, was it blinded, is the study group the same as the control in every way except the studied intervention, in short did they do a good job of designing this study? Then we must ask if it can be replicated and validated. If the contradicting studies both pass scrutiny then the scientist must realize that they've missed something or asked the wrong or incomplete questions. Another study must be designed to figure out that missing factor.

I've not been able to find the study about female circumcision. Are you able to supply the reference? The only study I found (Yount and Abraham) was retrospective and indicated that FGC had a mixed impact (e.g. cut women were more likely to have older partners which is a risk factor for HIV infection in Africa but they were also less likely to have multiple partners which, of course, is protective)

I think we all have very passionate ideas here. I think that we must stay focused on the fact that as atheists, science is our friend not our enemy. It may not always tell us what we want to hear but it is our friend. We can embrace this process or we can fear it because it might contradict a personal dogma. The creationists fear it for that reason. We shouldn't.

I look forward to hearing some thoughts on this matter.
S2R

[deltagear]

Stan has a good train of logic. In Africa there isn't exactly a sexual safety clinic available to everyone, especially with missionaries telling people it's a sin to wear a condom. Circumcision may be of benefit to the people there, however here in north America we have free condoms everywhere, no real excuse for people not to slap a rubber on. Unless your a monogamist, with a healthy partner, in which case go wild.

My fear is that theists will utilize the Africa study as a basis for replacing proper STD and birth control methods, like condoms, with circumcision claiming it will keep them safer than said condoms.

My personal basis for not getting it done is that I don't want to lose something that won't grow back. It's not a finger nail or hair, it has a huge amount of nerve endings in it.

[stan2reason]

My fear is that theists will utilize the Africa study as a basis for replacing proper STD and birth control methods, like condoms, with circumcision claiming it will keep them safer than said condoms.

My personal basis for not getting it done is that I don't want to lose something that won't grow back. It's not a finger nail or hair, it has a huge amount of nerve endings in it.

You're absolutely right. This could indeed be horribly misused by those opposed to more effective measures. Good point.