Should circumcisions be illegal?

[Sabine Grant]

Great post and great link fta.

No it's not. It's from an anti-circumcision web site. I'll sick with the AAP. And as a parent I decide what's good for my children.

Actually, being a parent does not guarantee that such parental status equates always knowing "what's good for my children" considering the number of times parents are misinformed and end up making the wrong decision not matter how much they believe "it is good" for their children. Antivax parents also think "it is good for their children" to not be vaccinated.

Also, anything comparing circumcision to clitorodectomy us a red hering

Yes and no. Yes, when discussing medically based argumentation, there is absolutely zero health related benefits to the excision of a clitoris and or any other FGM. However, what both male and female circumcisions share in common is their origin : religion. To be noted that regarding male circumcision, I had to come to the US to hear about so much promotion about circumcising male neonates (my country of origin being France, well known for its secularized mentality). I was shocked when a pediatrician came into my room to "sell me on circumcision" after my son's birth in Nassau County, Florida. Even more shocked were members of my family in France. Needless to say that I chose to NOT have my neonate son circumcised. So far at the age of almost 23, he seems to be quite content with my decision. So are the millions of uncircumcised French males resulting from their parents not having them circumcised. Well... we are not that attached to ancient religious traditions no matter which alleged health benefits those ancient traditions are supposed to provide.

Regarding the alleged relation between increased HIV rates and non circumcised males : considering the epidemic effects of HIV contamination in Sub Sahara nations with a Muslim majority (meaning circumcised), it does not appear that being circumcised somehow contributes to being an effective preventative. I am certainly hoping that health care workers dedicated to prevention/control of an infectious disease such as HIV are not promoting male circumcision as a mode of prevention/control.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

I prefer clarity to agreement. I don't expect you to agree with me. You are presenting views of people who are anti-circumcison as neutral and they are not. Brian Earp is not neutral. Nor is the site you quote. First of all, just so we are clear. I am perfectly satisfied with my circumcised penis. I have no trouble enjoying sex as much as anyone else. I have not been mutilated . To make these claims on my behalf is well, not appreciated. We have been doing this for almost 6,000 years and it doesn't hurt you so leave us alone. I'm not asking any government or insurance company to pay for this. I'll also take whatever health benefits there are. I would never force you to circumcise yourself or your children. There is no comparison to FGM which has no health benefits and causes great harm. The equivalent would be removing the glans totally or removing the penis depending on the type of FGM performed. Are you against piercing as the ear is damaged.... Get real. Don't worry about us Jews, we'll get along just fine.....

 

[HaRaAYaH]

No it's not. It's from an anti-circumcision web site. I'll sick with the AAP. And as a parent I decide what's good for my children.

Actually, being a parent does not guarantee that such parental status equates always knowing "what's good for my children" considering the number of times parents are misinformed and end up making the wrong decision not matter how much they believe "it is good" for their children. Antivax parents also think "it is good for their children" to not be vaccinated.

Nice try. However if you don't vaccinate your children that affects me and my children. Also, it's the parents job to decide. They are so misguided that we need you know it all's to tell us what's best for our children. Thanks, but no thanks.

Also, anything comparing circumcision to clitorodectomy us a red hering Yes and no. Yes, when discussing medically based argumentation, there is absolutely zero health related benefits to the excision of a clitoris and or any other FGM. However, what both male and female circumcisions share in common is their origin : religion. To be noted that regarding male circumcision, I had to come to the US to hear about so much promotion about circumcising male neonates (my country of origin being France, well known for its secularized mentality). I was shocked when a pediatrician came into my room to "sell me on circumcision" after my son's birth in Nassau County, Florida. Even more shocked were members of my family in France. Needless to say that I chose to NOT have my neonate son circumcised. So far at the age of almost 23, he seems to be quite content with my decision. So are the millions of uncircumcised French males resulting from their parents not having them circumcised. Well... we are not that attached to ancient religious traditions no matter which alleged health benefits those ancient traditions are supposed to provide.

I'm sorry somebody tried to "sell" you on this procedure. That is clearly wrong and I don't support that.

Regarding the alleged relation between increased HIV rates and non circumcised males : considering the epidemic effects of HIV contamination in Sub Sahara nations with a Muslim majority (meaning circumcised), it does not appear that being circumcised somehow contributes to being an effective preventative. I am certainly hoping that health care workers dedicated to prevention/control of an infectious disease such as HIV are not promoting male circumcision as a mode of prevention/control.

You obviously don't have much of a science background so I'll leave it to the World Health Organization:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Ya, what the fuck is up with reporting that doesn't validate one's predetermined biases? It's like that one time that a FOX reporter mentioned that he thought Obama did something right. Got his ass fired on the spot. CNN needs to follow that example instead of bullshit like "examining the evidence" and "reporting the facts" or whatever other un-American activities those pinkos are engaging in.

My oldest daughter is a registered nurse. One of her first assignments when she was a newly graduated nurse was on the Veteran's Administration floor of a large hospital. In those days, most of her patients were bedridden men over the age of 60. Part if her duties included sponge baths for these gentlemen. Years later, when my first grandson was born, she cited this experience as the reason for choosing to have her son circumcised. I did not ask her to clarify.

Two things which nurses may find difficult with providing personal care/hygiene to a non circumcised male :

1) Putting on a Texas catheter or "condom catheter" on a non circumcised penis. Folds of the foreskin demand a tad bit more of "manipulation" to get it to fit properly.

2) Perineal care on a non circumcised penis. There too, the nurse has to "manipulate" the said penis to be able to clean under the folds. Long term bed bound male patients usually do not care as they are used to it and neither do veteran/senior nurses. However, I can see how a newly graduate nurse or CNA or HHA might feel sheepish and shy about manipulating a penis for any extended period of time. Personally from the onset of my becoming a certified and graduate HHA 12 years ago and up to now, I have never given it a thought. Just went clinically about it. Which is usually how I handle my patients' anatomy.

I will add though that I have had a couple of comic moments when "fighting" with a non circumcised penis to make that Texas catheter not pop out right back at me! hehehehe.

 

[NobleSavage]

I had to Google Texas catheter. I guess that is a lot better than jamming a tube down your dick hole.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I had to Google Texas catheter. I guess that is a lot better than jamming a tube down your dick hole.

Yes it is! Just that it requires more frequent maintenance such as changing the condom part as urine might remain in the condom and irritate the penis.For a non ambulatory bed bound patient, it works OK. But for an ambulatory incontinent patient, as you have to attach the urine bag to the leg, a slight pull on the tube can easily dislodge the condom while they are walking. That is why they usually prefer a Foley catheter. Once inserted via the urethra, it is most practical for ambulatory incontinent patients.

That was a big aside, but I could not resist.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Actually, being a parent does not guarantee that such parental status equates always knowing "what's good for my children" considering the number of times parents are misinformed and end up making the wrong decision not matter how much they believe "it is good" for their children. Antivax parents also think "it is good for their children" to not be vaccinated.

Nice try. However if you don't vaccinate your children that affects me and my children. Also, it's the parents job to decide. They are so misguided that we need you know it all's to tell us what's best for our children. Thanks, but no thanks.

Are you having an issue with a statement reflecting the reality that the status of being a parent in no way equates the certainty that parents can only be right about what is good for their children?

If your criteria for the State to step in and prohibit a practice exercised by parents over their children is based on a hazard to public health, let me remind you that the State is 100% justified in having a set a laws protecting children from abuse and/or neglect. I am not advocating here that circumcision should be made illegal. But there is constant pressure in this nation for parents to authorize the procedure on their male neonate. One of the first post natal measure regarding male neonates is paperwork submitted to the parent to authorize the procedure. There is an expectation that it *should* be the "norm".

Also, anything comparing circumcision to clitorodectomy us a red hering Yes and no. Yes, when discussing medically based argumentation, there is absolutely zero health related benefits to the excision of a clitoris and or any other FGM. However, what both male and female circumcisions share in common is their origin : religion. To be noted that regarding male circumcision, I had to come to the US to hear about so much promotion about circumcising male neonates (my country of origin being France, well known for its secularized mentality). I was shocked when a pediatrician came into my room to "sell me on circumcision" after my son's birth in Nassau County, Florida. Even more shocked were members of my family in France. Needless to say that I chose to NOT have my neonate son circumcised. So far at the age of almost 23, he seems to be quite content with my decision. So are the millions of uncircumcised French males resulting from their parents not having them circumcised. Well... we are not that attached to ancient religious traditions no matter which alleged health benefits those ancient traditions are supposed to provide.

I'm sorry somebody tried to "sell" you on this procedure. That is clearly wrong and I don't support that.

The expectation is that it *should* be the "norm" to authorize the procedure on male neonates.As a result so many neonatal care pediatricians having an assuming attitude when they approach the parent to "sell it".

Regarding the alleged relation between increased HIV rates and non circumcised males : considering the epidemic effects of HIV contamination in Sub Sahara nations with a Muslim majority (meaning circumcised), it does not appear that being circumcised somehow contributes to being an effective preventative. I am certainly hoping that health care workers dedicated to prevention/control of an infectious disease such as HIV are not promoting male circumcision as a mode of prevention/control.

You obviously don't have much of a science background so I'll leave it to the World Health Organization:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Had you paid attention to this remark and in the specific context of Sub Sahara nations :

I am certainly hoping that health care workers dedicated to prevention/control of an infectious disease such as HIV are not promoting male circumcision as a mode of prevention/control

you would have asked "why?" instead of launching in speculations on my account with " You obviously don't have much of a science background".

Even though you did not bother asking why in reply to my quoted above remark, I will explain why : as it is now the African continent has the highest rate of HIV sero positives. And that without including non identified infected individuals considering that the majority of identified ones, their identification is due to their developing symptoms signifying the acute phase or AIDS, symptoms driving them to seek medical help. The major obstacle to an effective campaign of education on HIV prevention has been and continues to be local culturally induced myths and cultural traditions. The very basics of warning sexually active individuals about the widely recognized vectors for HIV transmission, meaning unprotected sex and multiple /anonymous partners are already hitting a brick wall erected by the local cultures remaining resistant to those basics. Envisioning health care workers in those Sub Sahara nations adding now a campaign encouraging the circumcision of adult males as an "efficacious preventative" would result in a major failure while adding even more reasons and justifications for local cultures to be even more resistant to HIV prevention based education.

They need to stick to and persevere with the basics of promoting and encouraging the use of condoms and avoiding multiple and anonymous partners. Further, as part of an effort in reducing the rate of sexually transmittable contagious diseases on the African continent, and that directly addressing heterosexual rapports, equipping women with the incentive to become the choice and decision makers when it comes to their sexuality and reproductive rights. Rights which are non existent in such patriarchal societies where the role of women is still defined by men and often as they are still young girls. Meaning the right to say "no" without fearing to be outcast or chastised. The right to not be "sold" into marriage to a man engaged in polygamy. The right to not be raped any longer. The right to be treated not as sexual object but a human being who should be able to decide when and how she will have sex. The right to survive in the gutter of poverty without having to prostitute herself (one of the causes of such HIV expansion in Africa being prostitution which does not spare young girls ).

That said, I am well aware of the clinical conclusions regarding the presence of Langerhans cells in the prepuce, suspected of facilitating the transmission of HIV. I could be more specific as to how such cells are "facilitators" and expand on it in the Science Discussion Forum if you are interested.

 

[dystopian]

You are presenting views of people who are anti-circumcison as neutral and they are not.

The uncircumcised penis is the natural state of the penis, and the default state for the majority of the planet's male population; as such, the anti-circumcision position IS the neutral position, since it is addressing a position that seeks to alter the natural (neutral) state of the penis.

I am perfectly satisfied with my circumcised penis.

And that's fine for you; but your satisfaction in no way justifies forcing such a decision on someone who can not give consent. Not to mention the fact that just because you're satisfied with it, doesn't mean you'd be less satisfied with an uncircumcised one. In fact, it might just be the opposite. You have no way of knowing unless you were circumcised later in life.

I have no trouble enjoying sex as much as anyone else.

You actually have no way of knowing this; since you can not compare your experience to others. And while it may or may not be true that you experience the mechanical act of coitus no differently from an uncircumcised man; it is a simple medical fact that you *can not* experience the full range of sexual pleasure an uncircumcised male feels; after all, the foreskin is in fact one of the most sensitive parts of the entire male body, and while it doesn't appear to add/detract from the pleasure of penetration itself, there is most certainly a pleasurable role for the foreskin in foreplay (any uncircumcised man who has experimented with it can attest to this); something you simply can not experience.

We have been doing this for almost 6,000 years and it doesn't hurt you so leave us alone.

I will leave you alone if you promise to not force it on children who have no means of giving informed consent. It is completely irrelevant if you've been doing it for 6000 years or more; you do not have the moral right to force this on a child (regardless of whether or not it's your own).

What exactly, I ask again, is the problem with waiting until people are old enough to make their own damn decision?

The only semi-valid pro-circumcision argument we've heard is that circumcision supposedly decreases STD prevalence; but that argument doesn't conflict with the view we should wait until people can give informed consent, since children aren't having sex anyway (plus there's that whole, infants getting herpes because of weird traditional religious rituals regarding how to perform circumcision).

There is no comparison to FGM which has no health benefits and causes great harm.

It has yet to be objectively demonstrated that male circumcision has significant health benefits, as has been pointed out by multiple experts. And any time you permanently remove a part of the body that has thousands upon thousands of nerve endings, you are causing harm.

The equivalent would be removing the glans totally or removing the penis depending on the type of FGM performed.

So it's okay for us to chop off infant's pinkies because it's not the same as chopping off their arms? That's basically the same argument you're using.

Are you against piercing as the ear is damaged.... Get real.

A non-argument since when you stop wearing earrings, the earlobe will completely heal; the foreskin will never grow back.

 

[4321lynx]

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

We have been doing this for almost 6,000 years and it doesn't hurt you so leave us alone.

Why don't you just say that you are doing it for religious/tribal reasons and rationalizing it any way you can.

Incidentally, do you believe that this 6000 years is roughly equivalent to "from the beginning of the world"? The authority for holding such a view comes from the same source.

 

[Toni]

I am neutral about circumcision. I would like to mention two things:

Removal of part or all of the foreskin is not the same thing as removing a clitoris nor is it the same thing as removing external genitalia. It is removing skin, a piece of skin covering the penis. It does not affect the ability of the male to urinate, procreate, orgasm, ejaculate or enjoy sex.

It is possible to have negative medical events related to circumcision as it is possible to have negative medical events with any medical procedure.

It is also possible for a young male child to have negative medical events related to lack of circumcision and to experience some fairly uncomfortable and downright painful moments with an uncircumcised penis related to phimosis and also to an increase in UTIs. Contrary to many claims, this occurs in well educated, conscientious Western families with full access to medical care and advice, following such medical care and advice as well as full access and utilization of all the normal and customary western amenities such as clean running water. It happens. My observation is that it is quite painful and sometimes the only solution is circumcision. It is my observation that a 2 or 3 year old who is circumcised because of months of discomfort and pain related to the above also experiences more pain and discomfort after the later circumcision compared with a newborn.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

The uncircumcised penis is the natural state of the penis, and the default state for the majority of the planet's male population; as such, the anti-circumcision position IS the neutral position, since it is addressing a position that seeks to alter the natural (neutral) state of the penis..

This is silly. Cancer is also natural. So is dog poop, but I don't eat it.

I am perfectly satisfied with my circumcised penis.

And that's fine for you; but your satisfaction in no way justifies forcing such a decision on someone who can not give consent. Not to mention the fact that just because you're satisfied with it, doesn't mean you'd be less satisfied with an uncircumcised one. In fact, it might just be the opposite. You have no way of knowing unless you were circumcised later in life..

As a parent I will be forced to make many decisions on behalf of my children. You don't wait until adulthood to make these decisions. That's what being a parent means. You make the decisions for your children.

I have no trouble enjoying sex as much as anyone else.

You actually have no way of knowing this; since you can not compare your experience to others. And while it may or may not be true that you experience the mechanical act of coitus no differently from an uncircumcised man; it is a simple medical fact that you *can not* experience the full range of sexual pleasure an uncircumcised male feels; after all, the foreskin is in fact one of the most sensitive parts of the entire male body, and while it doesn't appear to add/detract from the pleasure of penetration itself, there is most certainly a pleasurable role for the foreskin in foreplay (any uncircumcised man who has experimented with it can attest to this); something you simply can not experience.

There is no problem with any sexual functioning in circumcised men, except in your imagination.

We have been doing this for almost 6,000 years and it doesn't hurt you so leave us alone.

I will leave you alone if you promise to not force it on children who have no means of giving informed consent. It is completely irrelevant if you've been doing it for 6000 years or more; you do not have the moral right to force this on a child (regardless of whether or not it's your own). What exactly, I ask again, is the problem with waiting until people are old enough to make their own damn decision?

Because that's what parents do all of the time. That's why. You don't get their consent to get medical care like vaccinations, or go to school or anything else. They do what you tell them.

There is no comparison to FGM which has no health benefits and causes great harm.

It has yet to be objectively demonstrated that male circumcision has significant health benefits, as has been pointed out by multiple experts. And any time you permanently remove a part of the body that has thousands upon thousands of nerve endings, you are causing harm..

Significant is a weasel word. Who gets to decide that. It does have health benefits. I think the benefits outweigh the risks. But If you don't want to be circumcised or have the procedire performed on your child, I have no problem with that. I have never here or anyone else advocated forcing people to be circumcised.

The equivalent would be removing the glans totally or removing the penis depending on the type of FGM performed.

So it's okay for us to chop off infant's pinkies because it's not the same as chopping off their arms? That's basically the same argument you're using.

No it's not. The relationship of the foreskin to the penis in functionality is not the same as removing a finger which does change the functionality of the hand. A person who is circumcised can still urinate, get an erection and perform all of the functions of a penis with a foreskin. This is called a straw man.

 

[fta]

The only semi-valid pro-circumcision argument we've heard is that circumcision supposedly decreases STD prevalence

Naturally the experts can't agree over that either.

Dr. Robert Van Howe: Circumcision doesn't reduce the risk of STDs
Prof. Brian Morris & Co: Oh yes it does, Van Howe is all wrong.

There is no comparison to FGM which has no health benefits and causes great harm.

As mentioned previously, some studies have found that FGM may reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS. Here is an Islamic scholar and a highly educated African woman extolling the virtues of FGM.

The equivalent would be removing the glans totally or removing the penis depending on the type of FGM performed.

Here is another interesting piece by Oxford research fellow Brian Earp about male vs. female circumcision. Sorry if you think he's not "neutral" enough.

 

[4321lynx]

I am neutral about circumcision. I would like to mention two things:

Removal of part or all of the foreskin is not the same thing as removing a clitoris nor is it the same thing as removing external genitalia. It is removing skin, a piece of skin covering the penis. It does not affect the ability of the male to urinate, procreate, orgasm, ejaculate or enjoy sex.

It is possible to have negative medical events related to circumcision as it is possible to have negative medical events with any medical procedure.

It is also possible for a young male child to have negative medical events related to lack of circumcision and to experience some fairly uncomfortable and downright painful moments with an uncircumcised penis related to phimosis and also to an increase in UTIs. Contrary to many claims, this occurs in well educated, conscientious Western families with full access to medical care and advice, following such medical care and advice as well as full access and utilization of all the normal and customary western amenities such as clean running water. It happens. My observation is that it is quite painful and sometimes the only solution is circumcision. It is my observation that a 2 or 3 year old who is circumcised because of months of discomfort and pain related to the above also experiences more pain and discomfort after the later circumcision compared with a newborn.

sometimes the only solution is circumcision.

Not true. There is a procedure called "the dorsal slit", which enlarges the opening in the prepuce (foreskin) and relieves the symptoms and the cause of the problem. Furthermore, the prepuce is not normally retractable at birth and sometimes for some years after birth and the misguided efforts of the parents to "pull it back" are the cause of much of the suffering and most of the so-called phimosis problems.
One does not excise the eyelids to prevent conjunctivitis. Leave the poor little bastard's cock alone!

And HaRaAYaH please answer my comments and question in post # 69.

And may I take this opportunity to exclaim: "Vive le soixante-noeuf"!!!.

 

[dystopian]

This is silly. Cancer is also natural. So is dog poop, but I don't eat it.

A nonsensical argument. The point isn't "it's natural and natural = good", the point is, it is the DEFAULT state of the penis; and nobody has presented sufficient reason for us to say that the default state is bad or we need to change it.

As a parent I will be forced to make many decisions on behalf of my children. You don't wait until adulthood to make these decisions. That's what being a parent means. You make the decisions for your children.

If that's what you think being a parent means then you don't deserve to be a parent. Being a parent doesn't mean making the decisions for your children, it means making sure your children are properly taken care of, are in the best situation they can be, and receive the best preparation for the future they can be given. They are not your puppets to be controlled, you have a responsibility to be better than that. Parents making decisions for their children entailing things like; "You go to school, you're going to eat healthy, you're going to the doctor for your check-up."; that's fine. It does NOT mean "We're going to cut parts off your body because our stone-age religion demands it."; that's child abuse.

There is no problem with any sexual functioning in circumcised men, except in your imagination.

It seems you failed to read what I posted. Yes, in most (but certainly not all, as research shows) cases, circumcision does not affect the experience of penetrative sex. You will not have a problem enjoying this. You WILL however find yourself experiencing problems using the foreskin in foreplay; since you know, you don't actually *have* a foreskin. As a circumcised man you simply do not have the ability to understand the value the foreskin can have in foreplay; it is an experience you will never have, and since foreplay is an integral part of sex, you can *not* objectively claim to have no trouble enjoying sex as much as the rest of us. Your claim is only objectively true in your imagination.

Because that's what parents do all of the time. That's why.

1) No, they don't.
2) Even if they did, it's a non-argument. Whether or not people do [x] all the time has zero bearing on the validity, moral or otherwise, of [x]

You don't get their consent to get medical care like vaccinations, or go to school or anything else.

*Neccessary* medical procedures, not superfluous ones like circumcision. As for going to school (much as with those medical procedures, incidentally), this is in fact not even up to the parents since it is the STATE that dictates by law that children must receive formal education. It is NOT the parent's decision whether or not kids go to school, just where (and not even that, depending on where you live). When a parent chooses to not have their kids go to school, that parent is in fact committing an act of child abuse and will be prosecuted accordingly.

They do what you tell them.

Your entire justification seems to rest on "Circumcision is okay, because kids are supposed to do what their parents tell them."; anybody who thinks about that argument for more than 5 seconds can tell you what's wrong with it: your argument means that parents are free to make ANY decision for their kids, and that this is okay 'because that's what parents do'. I won't even bother with the fact that this is circular reasoning; I'll just point out if we accept that argument, the concept of 'child abuse' stops existing.

Significant is a weasel word. Who gets to decide that.

The medical consensus. Not you, and not a handful of culturally biased doctors.

It does have health benefits.

Its 'health benefits' are in the same vein as the health benefits of pre-emptively cutting off women's breasts so they won't get cancer. If you don't think it's okay to cut off women's breasts to prevent cancer without their consent, then you have no right to claim infant circumcision to prevent STD's is somehow okay.

I have never here or anyone else advocated forcing people to be circumcised.

Yes, you have. Do you not remember the whole 'As a parent *I'll* decide?' thing? You are clearly advocating/forcing people to be circumcised... oh wait, you don't think your children's opinions actually matter, so I suppose you don't see them as people either.

he relationship of the foreskin to the penis in functionality is not the same as removing a finger which does change the functionality of the hand. A person who is circumcised can still urinate, get an erection and perform all of the functions of a penis with a foreskin. This is called a straw man.

Except they can't, as I've already pointed out. The foreskin is not without function, either in sex or otherwise. But even conceding your point, then instead of removing a finger, it'd be akin to removing the tip of one's pinky instead; a person who'se lost the tip of their pinky can still manipulate objects the same way as someone with an unmarred set of digits.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is a circumcision-HIV link, but it is only in a very special case and is not a universally applicable correlation.

In Africa, some prostitutes specialize in something called "dry sex" where they use various treatments to make themselves "dry". Down there.

I don't know why, but some men seem to really prefer the act of dry sex. Unfortunately for the people involved, it creates more abrasions than other forms of sex, both for the women AND the men.

With a foreskin, someone engaging in dry sex has greater surface area for abrasions. Therefore he has greater surface area to acquire the HIV virus.

So if you plan on having unprotected dry sex with an HIV positive African prostitute, then being circumcised does reduce (but not eliminate) your risk of contracting HIV. Otherwise there is no connection and people should not use STDs as an excuse to mutilate infants.

 

[Sabine Grant]

There is a circumcision-HIV link, but it is only in a very special case and is not a universally applicable correlation.

The circumcision and HIV-1 connection is related to the suspicion that Langerhans Cells (present in the mucous membranes of the prepuce) might facilitate the absorbing of HIV-1 via those membranes to then also facilitate the virus access to lymph nodes (such as the inguinal nodes).

In Africa, some prostitutes specialize in something called "dry sex" where they use various treatments to make themselves "dry". Down there.

I don't know why, but some men seem to really prefer the act of dry sex. Unfortunately for the people involved, it creates more abrasions than other forms of sex, both for the women AND the men.

With a foreskin, someone engaging in dry sex has greater surface area for abrasions. Therefore he has greater surface area to acquire the HIV virus.

Actually, the risk of abrasions is for the female not the male. "Dry sex" easily causing lesions, cracks in the vaginal wall.

So if you plan on having unprotected dry sex with an HIV positive African prostitute, then being circumcised does reduce (but not eliminate) your risk of contracting HIV.

I will stop you right there :unprotected sex with an HIV sero positive partner falls under the main vector for an extreme risk of contamination. Promoting the belief that circumcision would still reduce the risk of contamination in that circumstance would be totally irresponsible. In no way does it reduce the main vector. Protected sex remains the main and indispensable reducer.

Otherwise there is no connection and people should not use STDs as an excuse to mutilate infants.

As I mentioned before there is some sort of expectation that it should be the "norm" that parents authorize the circumcision of their male neonate. I am not sure all parents in the US who authorize it as a post natal measure applied to male neonates have in fact made that decision based on informing themselves as to conclusions drawn from medical articles, journals etc...reflecting the pros and cons of target research regarding the factors which may facilitate HIV-1 contamination.

 

[Sabine Grant]

By HaRaAYaH :Cancer is also natural.

I cannot let such misinformed comment remain unchallenged. Current target research focuses on gene and DNA mutations triggering dysfunctions within cellular metabolism. Cancer is NOT natural. Take it from a cancer survivor who has done and continues to do her home work regarding cancer research and its most current findings. If you wish to argue my correction, we will take it to the SD Forum. No differently than my previous mention in my reply to you ( regarding Langerhans cells and their suspected role in facilitating HIV-1 infection) where I offered to take it to SD.

 

[dystopian]

By HaRaAYaH :Cancer is also natural.

I cannot let such misinformed comment remain unchallenged. Current target research focuses on gene and DNA mutations triggering dysfunctions within cellular metabolism. Cancer is NOT natural.

Well, it's *not* 'natural' in the sense that cancer is a subversion/corruption of the base (ie; natural) state of the cells; it *is* natural in the sense that it exists and occurs in nature as a result of natural processes; which I'm assuming is along the lines of what he meant. Not that this has anything to do with how he was incorrectly assuming that my argument was "uncircumcised penises are natural, and natural = good, therefore blah blah".

 

[4321lynx]

Otherwise there is no connection and people should not use STDs as an excuse to mutilate infants.

As I mentioned before there is some sort of expectation that it should be the "norm" that parents authorize the circumcision of their male neonate. I am not sure all parents in the US who authorize it as a post natal measure applied to male neonates have in fact made that decision based on informing themselves as to conclusions drawn from medical articles, journals etc...reflecting the pros and cons of target research regarding the factors which may facilitate HIV-1 contamination.

They not only authorize, they DEMAND circumcisions, on the flimsiest grounds.

"His dad was 'done', so he should be 'done'"
"Everybody I know has been done"
"My friends say he should be done."
and "All the men I've been with have been done"

IMHO it all dates back to the Reformation in England, when the English got the idea that THEY were the "Chosen People". You know the hymn "And we will build a New Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land"...
and the idea, as one of their parliamentarians said their government even in the 1930's thought that "God is an Englishman and the Passage to India must be defended" was the only basis for their foreign policy.

This certainty of being the New Chosen led them, I think, to circumcise their unfortunate male offspring, as ordered in the Bible. As far as I know England, or Britain but I'm not sure of Wales and Scotland, is the only Protestant country where this particular delusion was carried to that extent. Even in their public schools (These being private, mainly residential, schools whimsically named public for historical reasons) the uncircumcised were called by their peers, Cavaliers, and the circumcised, Roundheads - an apt anatomical desription of appearance of the penis, wittily hinting at the headgear of the two sides in the English Civil War, and I am guessing, at the Catholic/Anglican High Church views of the "gentlemanly" Cavaliers (?with uncircumcised penises and male children) as opposed to the radically Protestant, Puritan fundamentalists of Cromwell's (?circumcised) middle class fanatic Roundhead New Army. And of course that delusion and the accompanying mania for circumcision, came across the Atlantic along with so much else, and stayed, in the USA and Canada.

Anyone got figures to back up or destroy my musings? Figures for circumcisions in England, before and after the Reformation or the Civil War?

 

[HaRaAYaH]

I cannot let such misinformed comment remain unchallenged. Current target research focuses on gene and DNA mutations triggering dysfunctions within cellular metabolism. Cancer is NOT natural.

Well, it's *not* 'natural' in the sense that cancer is a subversion/corruption of the base (ie; natural) state of the cells; it *is* natural in the sense that it exists and occurs in nature as a result of natural processes; which I'm assuming is along the lines of what he meant. Not that this has anything to do with how he was incorrectly assuming that my argument was "uncircumcised penises are natural, and natural = good, therefore blah blah".

Being naked is natural. I don't see you advocating nudity. And cancer is natural. 100% natural. There are mutations every 10 ti the 6th cell divisions. This is the natural state of the universe and the entire basis for evolution. Some of these mutations are good and some are not. From a biologic standpoint once you have reproduced you are worthless. Viruses and bacteria are also 100% natural, I just prefer to kill the the pathogenic variety when they are out of place. E-Coli, is fine in your large intestine and we kill them in the bladder. Natural is a stupid argument. Many bad things are natural. A congenital heart defect is natural and many children are born with them. So we fix them. I'm not comparing an uncircumcised penis with a heart defect. I'm just saying just because that is the way you are born does not require you to stay that way forever. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that this argument is based solely on folly.