Imagine if a religion compelled its members to cut off a piece of each child’s nose. That religious practice would certainly not be tolerated, and neither should circumcision.
349
The argument to circumcise a baby to prevent STDs is silly. Let the boy grow up, and before he has sex for the first time, he can decide for himself whether to be circumcised. It is, after all, his penis.
195
We, as a society, have to decide which right is more important:
1. A person’s right to circumcise a son
2. A person’s right to keep his whole penis
I think #2 outweighs #1.
1. A person’s right to circumcise a son
2. A person’s right to keep his whole penis
I think #2 outweighs #1.
357
I was non-religiously circumcised as a baby and have a very healthy, well-rounded middle class life, great children, terrific wife and solid marriage. Ergo, was I mutilated? Was i brutalized? Was my psyche damaged, scarred with years upon years of therapy because of this male genitalia barbarism? Am I having foreskin separation anxiety? Er, no.
In fact, I can't remember a single thing about it -- it happened 57 years ago, when I was one day old. I don't remember much about those first days -- do you?
So, four years ago, when we had a son and he was one day old, I said "circumcise him." No complications, no discomfort, healed within four days. Now, he's a happy, bubbly, a normal four years old with a normal wanker. Mutilated? Barbaric torture? Emotional scarred basket case for life??
As if. Circumcision: the sound and fury over nothing signifying nothing.
In fact, I can't remember a single thing about it -- it happened 57 years ago, when I was one day old. I don't remember much about those first days -- do you?
So, four years ago, when we had a son and he was one day old, I said "circumcise him." No complications, no discomfort, healed within four days. Now, he's a happy, bubbly, a normal four years old with a normal wanker. Mutilated? Barbaric torture? Emotional scarred basket case for life??
As if. Circumcision: the sound and fury over nothing signifying nothing.
501
Simple life rule: if you don't have a strong reason to mutilate a child's genitals, don't do it.
626
Thank you for such a sensible presentation. As the parent of a son who was not circumcised, I also have had to deal with the prejudice that our decision was some hippy-dippy, ill-considered form of semi-neglect. Nothing could have been further from the truth. He was born in Canada and like most boys around the world who do not have a religious requirement for circumcision, he is uncircumcised. He has had no adverse health conditions, as in zero. The hysteria and pretentions on either side are just plain silly.
369
I would like to share with you the considered words of George Wald, Jewish-American scientist, educator and Nobel laureate.
"It is with the greatest hesitation, since I have no right and know so little, that I should like to suggest to my fellow Jews that perhaps the time has come to redeem the foreskin itself, rather than sacrifice it. Surely some substitute might be found for this rite, perhaps even involving a token drawing of blood from an older child, that would be preferable to this assault upon and mutilation of a newborn infant."
And...
"For it is a barbarous thing to meet a newly born infant with the knife, with a deliberate mutilation. And the part that is removed is not negligible; it has clear and valuable functions to perform. Not circumcising a boy will not only spare him a brutal violence as he enters life; it will promise him a richer existence. And that not only because the possession of a foreskin will increase his genital sensitivity and make possible more satisfactory and pleasurable sexual activity, but also because of the consideration with which this essay began: that the foreskin is the female element in the male."
George Wald (1906-1997)
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/12/what-jewish-nobelist-george-wald-ha...
"It is with the greatest hesitation, since I have no right and know so little, that I should like to suggest to my fellow Jews that perhaps the time has come to redeem the foreskin itself, rather than sacrifice it. Surely some substitute might be found for this rite, perhaps even involving a token drawing of blood from an older child, that would be preferable to this assault upon and mutilation of a newborn infant."
And...
"For it is a barbarous thing to meet a newly born infant with the knife, with a deliberate mutilation. And the part that is removed is not negligible; it has clear and valuable functions to perform. Not circumcising a boy will not only spare him a brutal violence as he enters life; it will promise him a richer existence. And that not only because the possession of a foreskin will increase his genital sensitivity and make possible more satisfactory and pleasurable sexual activity, but also because of the consideration with which this essay began: that the foreskin is the female element in the male."
George Wald (1906-1997)
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/12/what-jewish-nobelist-george-wald-ha...
214
The author really should update this article in light of Dr Andrew Freedman's admission in the current (May) issue of Pediatrics, where he finally conceded his taskforce's 'benefits outweigh the risk' assessment was only applicable when the parents religion or culture was taken into account. Galling, but true.
And the CDC? It issued a terribly unscientific draft paper in 2014 and has remained silent ever since.
Fact is, claims of health benefits associated with partly amputating the most private parts of normal, healthy children exist solely as a justification to allow a profoundly unethical (and if the law was properly applied, illegal) practice. It is also the case that such claims exist entirely within 'studies' and never in the real world. This is easily verifiable.
Most troubling to me, is the arrogant sense of entitlement to irreversibly alter and diminish another person's body. So what if the author and his wife 'considered' this! So what!
And the CDC? It issued a terribly unscientific draft paper in 2014 and has remained silent ever since.
Fact is, claims of health benefits associated with partly amputating the most private parts of normal, healthy children exist solely as a justification to allow a profoundly unethical (and if the law was properly applied, illegal) practice. It is also the case that such claims exist entirely within 'studies' and never in the real world. This is easily verifiable.
Most troubling to me, is the arrogant sense of entitlement to irreversibly alter and diminish another person's body. So what if the author and his wife 'considered' this! So what!
413
It's cosmetic surgery performed on newborns.
242
1. Jewish men are frequently smarter than non-Jewish men. This is widely believed by many people besides Jewish men and their mothers.
2. I don't know. The Old Testament rabbis got it right about the Ten Commandments, tattoos, kosher is healthy, resting on the Sabbath and a lot other things. Bucking them on this one could turn out to be risky.
2. I don't know. The Old Testament rabbis got it right about the Ten Commandments, tattoos, kosher is healthy, resting on the Sabbath and a lot other things. Bucking them on this one could turn out to be risky.
76
the majority of the ten commandments are of no use to anybody who doesn't believe in YHWH. there's nothing wrong with tattoos as long as they are consensual.
67
Another health benefit of circumcision is that penile cancer is less common in circumcised men, and cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partner of circumcised men. An although cancer of the penis is rare, any procedure than can reduce its risk is worth it.
64
Then go to a doctor and ask to be castrated and emasculated. Much less cancer that way.
35
Then offer the Guardisil vaccine to boys and girls- HPV is the predominant cause of penile and cervical cancer. And it leaves infants' penises alone.
181
This is false. The American Cancer Society refutes it. The myth was started in 1932 by circumcision promoter Abraham L. Wolbarst, M.D. and is based on the hypothesis that smegma is carcinogenice. Men and women have smegma, both circumcised and intact. Now the new theorized justification is HPV, which is also being disproven based on the partners having different strains of the virus in studies. This is a common theme in genital cutting history. Circumcision is a cure in search of a disease.
121
Why don't you just let people make their own decision about whether they want the most personal of their organs cut. That goes of members of the Jewish religion as well. If their sons want to have a bar mitzvah and make the choice at 13 to be circumcised, more power to them. If women want to have part of their clitoris cut off, they can choose to do so as teens or adults.
Something tells me, however, most men and women, will choose not to.
Something tells me, however, most men and women, will choose not to.
289
I don't like that accompanying photograph. Ouch.
60
The medical community has never studied the long-term adverse outcomes from infant circumcision to boys and the men they become. In recents decades, increasing numbers of men have stepped forward to reveal the harm caused to them by an invasive childhood surgery they did not want or need. See: A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x/pdf as well as the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm http://www.CircumcisionHarm.org
73
Seems to me circumcision is an extension of the Clitorectomy, the "ritual" mutilation of females, long since acknowledged for what it is. Mutilation! Time for circumcision to go the same route. If you are so sure of its benefits let the child decide later on. Somehow I don't think he will allow it.
What a way to enter the world. Religious ritual, once again. By the way, you should be able to tell something is very wrong, if the baby child cries. Or is it SCREAMS !
What a way to enter the world. Religious ritual, once again. By the way, you should be able to tell something is very wrong, if the baby child cries. Or is it SCREAMS !
167
Every parent should understand that whichever decision you made, it was the wrong one—and you’ll have the rest of your life to second-guess yourself. Familiarizing yourself with this principle of parenting—from before a child’s birth—is indispensable to screwing up your child for life in one way or another.
120
The crucial principle is that you don't remove parts of your child's anatomy, drill holes in parts of your child's body, or augment your child's body unless there is an overwhelming medical imperative to do so.
Let the child make such a decision on his or her own behalf when your child has the mental capacity and maturity to do so.
Of course, for significant, severe or incapacitating anatomical defects, the parent must act for the young child. But that's not what we're discussing here in most cases of male circumcision.
Let the child make such a decision on his or her own behalf when your child has the mental capacity and maturity to do so.
Of course, for significant, severe or incapacitating anatomical defects, the parent must act for the young child. But that's not what we're discussing here in most cases of male circumcision.
158
Ahm, if science can't help, maybe math can help the author: "The actual rates of urinary tract infection were 1.1 percent versus 0.1 percent, for an absolute rate difference of 1 percent. This means that 100 boys would need to be circumcised to prevent one urinary tract infection. Other studies say the number might be higher." The difference IMHO is not 1 percen, but one percentage point. The difference between 1 percent and 2 percent is one percentage point, but 2 percent of anything is twice as much. 1.1 percent is is actually (in numbers) 11 times more. Am I wrong? So the uncircumcized would have 11 times more urinary infections than the circumcized?
36
The point is that because urinary tract infections are already uncommon in this population, the increase (while relatively large) is still quite small in absolute terms. Maybe you'd prefer it this way, "circumcised or not, your chance of contracting a urinary tract infection remains quite small." His math checks out in epidemiologic terms, don't you worry.
44
This can't be right. I, uncircumcised, have never had a urinary tract infection nor do I know anyone who has. I've lived in Europe with millions of uncircumcised men and I never heard one of them mention urinary tract infections they had or their children. It is as rare in Europe as it is here. Circumcision or no.
123
Females have 8 times the incidence of UTIs than males. No one is insisting that female genitals be cut in any way to avoid this problem. The girls are simply treated with antibiotics. Why should boys be treated any differently?
111
I left my son intact. I went into the hospital prepared to have him circumcised. I happened to read an article about a boy that bled out and died. After more research I saw it was it wasn't medically necessary and said NO. No chance of death is worth it for something not necessary. After bringing him home I also have learned aside from the fear of death, I wouldn't want another person deciding the fate of my genitals. He doesn't look like dad. .so what? David Beckham has no problems...lol he's intact.
133
Because differences in the U.S. are associated with race, religion, economics and cultural factors, comparative studies should be done with European, African and Asian men. You can find similar demographics in France, Germany, Spain or Italy to various U.S. groups. Likewise with Asians in countries where the standard of living is high. Because of the epidemic nature of AIDS in Africa, it is a little more difficult to make comparisons. But I, for one, would like to know the comparative rates of various problems between like populations in the U.S. and other countries.
26
I'm afraid there's an immense lack of information about the sexual damage of circumcision:
- Poll: 83% of circumcised men ignore little orgasms in series, 90% of intact men enjoy them!
https://www.academia.edu/5916685/Poll_83_of_circumcised_men_ignore_littl...
- An erogenous and protective-of-erogeneity lip, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is mutilation
https://www.academia.edu/2274700/An_erogenous_and_protective-of-erogenei...
- Poll: 83% of circumcised men ignore little orgasms in series, 90% of intact men enjoy them!
https://www.academia.edu/5916685/Poll_83_of_circumcised_men_ignore_littl...
- An erogenous and protective-of-erogeneity lip, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is mutilation
https://www.academia.edu/2274700/An_erogenous_and_protective-of-erogenei...
72
That is hardly science. It is simply polling and individual opinion
33
The author of this article doesn't seem to know what the word "personal" means. It's not a personal decision unless the person it affects is the one making the decision.
293
Above anything else, this is a matter of ethics. And it is absolutely immoral to perform a medically unnecessary, potentially crippling body modification on someone who has never consented to it.
286
To me it is a case of hygiene. Some men are not fastidious with their cleanliness. Why should they drag unwanted material into their partners?
43
You date men who don't shower? Your misandry does not justify mutilation of the genitals of babies.
197
You refer to it as a 'surgical procedure' . Your two Jewish boys went to an operating room where a rabbi scrubbed his hands for 3 minutes, donned a sterile gown and gloves, and proceeded to use sterile instrumentation to perform the circumcision? Or was it a bris (sp) ? In America, circumcision is done for religion, yes. I believe the only other reason is cosmetic. My son exited the womb with foreskin. Removing it would be mutilation.
136
I have a feeling that most circumcised men would agree that, if being uncircumcised means one is more easily sexually aroused, had they not been circumcised, they would have gotten even less homework done in high school, perhaps none at all.
34
About 80% of men in the world are intact. So none get their homework done?
78
Dude, that isn't how it works. Look up the website, "Sex as nature intended it," to get a better understanding.
36
Circumcision of healthy infant boys is irreversible sexual mutilation. Here are some fun facts. In Europe boys are not circumcised and only 1 in 16,667 males will ever be circumcised in their lifetime for ANY reason. In the USA we are much more cut happy, but still, only 1 in 200 males will ever be circumcised for an actual problem. Only 1 in 50 males will ever have any type of foreskin issue in their entire lifetime, usually a minor irritation that resolves on its own or with a cream for a few days. (Study Snepped and Thorup 2016). People say foreskin is just "Extra Skin", but infant its the MOST highly erogenous part of the penis. A study (Sorrells Study on Penile Sensitivity; British Journal of Urology) found that the foreskin contains the FIVE most sensitive areas of the penis, including the insanely pleasurable Frenulum and Ridged Band. Most circumcised men have no idea how pleasurable the Frenulum is, and how it causes intense orgasms when even lightly flicked with one finger. Some cut men are kinda lucky and where left with a tiny remnant that still gives pleasure, but they don't even realize they should have a lot more. So, we have an extremely pleasurable and normal part of the human penis that has a ton of important sexual functions, and never causes any type of issue in 95% of the men who own one. Why do we not leave this decision up to the boys you might ask. The answer is that Adult men essentially Never agree to cut$$
107
A friend of my husband's was not circumcised at birth. When he hit his late teens, he discovered that his foreskin didn't retract properly during sex. Intercourse was extremely painful. He was nearly 20 when he was circumcised by a doctor. Although everything went as planned, the procedure was even more painful than sex and the recovery was prolonged and miserable. I think of him every time I hear someone say "Let the kid grow up and make his own decision."
I also think of the story told by a WWI vet in an article on the subject many years ago. After a couple of weeks in the muddy trenches, with no way to cleanse his foreskin, he got an infection and eventually the tip of his penis fell off.
We do lots of things to newborns to protect them from preventable ills. If you want to clean your sons' penises for the first five years of their lives, then teach them to do it themselves (and hope to hell they do), fine. But parents who opt for circumcision are also doing as they think best for their sons. Since the evidence suggests there is very little harm in it, they do not deserve to be condemned as abusive parents. Why do some people become so militant over a tiny scrap of skin?
I also think of the story told by a WWI vet in an article on the subject many years ago. After a couple of weeks in the muddy trenches, with no way to cleanse his foreskin, he got an infection and eventually the tip of his penis fell off.
We do lots of things to newborns to protect them from preventable ills. If you want to clean your sons' penises for the first five years of their lives, then teach them to do it themselves (and hope to hell they do), fine. But parents who opt for circumcision are also doing as they think best for their sons. Since the evidence suggests there is very little harm in it, they do not deserve to be condemned as abusive parents. Why do some people become so militant over a tiny scrap of skin?
54
Most Murkin foreskin problems are iatrogenic, and virtually unheard of in Europe.
Your WW1 story doesn't "hold water." Field washing of the foreskin is as simple as pinching it off, urinating, then releasing. Anyhow, I know many intact war veterans who say their foreskins never gave them any problems at all. Furthermore, consider the lunacy of mutilating the genitals of baby boys because of someone ELSE's problems.
Your WW1 story doesn't "hold water." Field washing of the foreskin is as simple as pinching it off, urinating, then releasing. Anyhow, I know many intact war veterans who say their foreskins never gave them any problems at all. Furthermore, consider the lunacy of mutilating the genitals of baby boys because of someone ELSE's problems.
94
Picture this: a small, naked child, restrained by adults or strapped into a device, spread-eagled, perhaps already screaming, an adult approaching the genitals with a scalpel. If you have to ask whether that child is male or female in order to agree that this is a violation of human rights, there is something wrong with you.
394
There is so much wrong with this article, it's hard to know where to start. Fortunately, many of the important points have already been addressed in previous comments.
The term "uncircumcised" is supposed to a valid word meaning someone who has escaped genital mutilation. We are all born intact, as our genitals are intact. We don't use the terms "unmastectomised" or "uncompromised" to describe people. Much like calling it a "snip", this term also serves to legitimize a brutal industry in the US.
Skipping to my last point, I have to conclude that this author has an erroneous grasp of the concept of personal choice. It is supposed to mean the right to choose what is right for oneself. At the end of the article it's used to mean the opposite; a choice made for somebody else.
The term "uncircumcised" is supposed to a valid word meaning someone who has escaped genital mutilation. We are all born intact, as our genitals are intact. We don't use the terms "unmastectomised" or "uncompromised" to describe people. Much like calling it a "snip", this term also serves to legitimize a brutal industry in the US.
Skipping to my last point, I have to conclude that this author has an erroneous grasp of the concept of personal choice. It is supposed to mean the right to choose what is right for oneself. At the end of the article it's used to mean the opposite; a choice made for somebody else.
128
If not for Paul, Christians and Jews would likely share the circumcision ritual. Jesus, His Disciples, and the early followers of Jesus were all Jews, observant Jews at that, including circumcision. Early Gentile followers of Jesus believed that, to be true followers of the Jewish Messiah, they must observe Jewish Law, including circumcision. Paul is credited with taking the faith to Gentiles; and although Paul did not believe Jesus had created a new religion (Paul believed Jesus brought the Gentiles into Jerusalem), Paul taught Gentile followers they should not observe Jewish Law, including circumcision, and warned that if they did, they would be denied grace. My view is that it's best not to eat pork anyway and that whether I observe the Sabbath doesn't really matter since the calendar is a human not divine creation. Circumcision, on the other hand, leaves little doubt: one is either circumcised or not. If it was important enough for the Messiah and His disciples to be circumcised, then I would think that a Christian male would want to be circumcised too.
13
Check John 7:21-24, where Jesus himself contrasts circumcision with healing - by implication declaring circumcision to be damaging - and states clearly that it is just a tradition without divine origin.
23
This goes right to the heart of the theological disputes between James the brother of Jesus and Paul, and to their struggle for supremacy in the early days of the Christian movement.
Paul, for all his many faults, thought big. James, who was undoubtedly a much better person that Paul on so many levels, thought small.
Big won out over small. Christianity went international. Adult males, who unlike baby boys had a choice, were not going to tolerate genital mutilation. Circumcision was therefore out. It was practical, marketing think. Thus the global business of harvesting Christian souls began.
Paul, for all his many faults, thought big. James, who was undoubtedly a much better person that Paul on so many levels, thought small.
Big won out over small. Christianity went international. Adult males, who unlike baby boys had a choice, were not going to tolerate genital mutilation. Circumcision was therefore out. It was practical, marketing think. Thus the global business of harvesting Christian souls began.
18
You speak as if the messiah and company chose circumcision for themselves for some important reason. But the fact is that they were ritually circumcised without being consulted when they were infants because they had been born Jews. At the time they were circumcised, the only importance attached to this event was in the minds of those doing the cutting. And that importance was merely cultural or religious.
Christian males would definitively not want to be circumcised and a full treatment of all the reasons why not will be found in a very comprehensive article by Laura Jezek on the subject here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130529191315/http://www.udonet.com/circumc...
Christian males would definitively not want to be circumcised and a full treatment of all the reasons why not will be found in a very comprehensive article by Laura Jezek on the subject here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130529191315/http://www.udonet.com/circumc...
17
Circumcision is male genital mutilation and should be illegal. Female genital mutilation should be illegal as well. Both practices emerged to curb sexual desire. This is barbaric. Men who are circumcised and the parents who circumcise their sons will tell themselves it is "healthier" or "cleaner", to justify this cruel practice which religion/society pressures them to endure, but this is ignorance. There is no justification for genital mutilation of boys OR girls. Men and women, stand up for your rights and end this practice now!
115
This has to be one of the shakiest positions the American Academy of Pediatrics has ever taken. My husband and I are American, living in America, but we made this decision in part by looking at what major medical associations recommended in various different developed countries.
Turns out the AAP is alone among world medical associations: Canada, Sweden, Germany, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, etc. etc., everyone but the AAP agrees that it should be done only for medical reasons.
Could it POSSIBLY be that the AAP's decision was based not on medicine or science, but on the simple cultural fact that most American men are circumcised and the AAP didn't want to risk alienating parents?
Turns out the AAP is alone among world medical associations: Canada, Sweden, Germany, Australia, the UK, the Netherlands, etc. etc., everyone but the AAP agrees that it should be done only for medical reasons.
Could it POSSIBLY be that the AAP's decision was based not on medicine or science, but on the simple cultural fact that most American men are circumcised and the AAP didn't want to risk alienating parents?
127
In response to this devastating avalanche of scientific evidence, the AAP has more or less conceded that its 2012 circumcision policy was not really concerned with the medical case for circumcision at all, but with cultural and religious issues.
In an editorial accompanying the recent publication by Sneppen and Thorup, Danish researchers who showed that the vast majority of normal (uncircumcised) boys never experience any “foreskin problems”, and that only a tiny minority of boys with a problem require circumcision to fix it, Dr. Andrew Freedman, a member of the AAP circumcision policy taskforce, makes the following amazing admission: "The risk/benefit equation the taskforce devised (“benefits outweigh risks”) is applicable and relevant only to those who have non-medical (cultural, religious, social) reasons for circumcision." And that the taskforce "did not recommend circumcision."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/04/04/peds.2016...
In an editorial accompanying the recent publication by Sneppen and Thorup, Danish researchers who showed that the vast majority of normal (uncircumcised) boys never experience any “foreskin problems”, and that only a tiny minority of boys with a problem require circumcision to fix it, Dr. Andrew Freedman, a member of the AAP circumcision policy taskforce, makes the following amazing admission: "The risk/benefit equation the taskforce devised (“benefits outweigh risks”) is applicable and relevant only to those who have non-medical (cultural, religious, social) reasons for circumcision." And that the taskforce "did not recommend circumcision."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/04/04/peds.2016...
54
I was circumcised and I consider myself to have been genitally mutilated.
100
Actually, contrary to the title, science in fact does help me to make the decision. There is no compelling evidence to circumcise. Medicine's mantra is "first do no harm." This could not be any clearer.
137
What a shame that such a well documented and thought out article should be responded to in the same old knee jerk reaction by those who don't share his very educated opinion.
Boys are not known for their fastidiousness in childhood - even as teens! I can't think it is a good idea psychologically for a mother to be harping on the cleaning and checking if it was done - far better to have the boy circumcised as an infant. To me, it is reasonable to do this. My own pediatrician told me 46 years ago, that he recommended basing this decision on whether or not his father was circumcised - boys like to look like Dad, down there. It made sense to me and I've heard no complaints.
The idea that parents should not be making decisions for their children is ludicrous. Want to eat nothing but candy and snacks? Sure, it's their choice! Don't want to go to bed? Sure! No vaccinations? Again, their choice! Don't like school? Oh - the law has something to say about this! Being a parent is about making choices for ones children on a daily basis. We know what children look like without this care - just ask any teacher in a poor neighborhood with high addiction rates. It ain't pretty...
Boys are not known for their fastidiousness in childhood - even as teens! I can't think it is a good idea psychologically for a mother to be harping on the cleaning and checking if it was done - far better to have the boy circumcised as an infant. To me, it is reasonable to do this. My own pediatrician told me 46 years ago, that he recommended basing this decision on whether or not his father was circumcised - boys like to look like Dad, down there. It made sense to me and I've heard no complaints.
The idea that parents should not be making decisions for their children is ludicrous. Want to eat nothing but candy and snacks? Sure, it's their choice! Don't want to go to bed? Sure! No vaccinations? Again, their choice! Don't like school? Oh - the law has something to say about this! Being a parent is about making choices for ones children on a daily basis. We know what children look like without this care - just ask any teacher in a poor neighborhood with high addiction rates. It ain't pretty...
38
So exactly how did/do you ensure your daughter is clean?
71
how often do your son and husband compare penises? "to look like dad" is the most ludicrous justification for surgery i've ever heard.
146
A bit unnecessary to talk about "All cards on the table," and then talk about you and your sons. Why is it that so many columnists and reporters insist on being part of the story they write? You aren't the story, and neither are your sons. P.S. Did you tell them you were going to write about them, or ask if they minded?
17
"Why is it that so many columnists and reporters insist on being part of the story they write?"
Because when they don't, readers demand to know what they would do if this was their child.
Because when they don't, readers demand to know what they would do if this was their child.
19
At least it's kind of honest: "here's why I'm seriously biased and irrational about this topic."
54
Like so many other men who were circumcised at birth, I find it most troubling that I was robbed of making such an intimate decision about my own body. I understand the social and religious mores of the 1960's, and I'm sure my parents would have felt undue pressure had they NOT had their son subjected to that medically unnecessary procedure, but I sure wish they had left it up to me to decide when I was of age. After all, what was done cannot be undone.
110
I have very personal & health reasons for advocating circumcision & had my 1st grandson circumcised & he being in the health field is very grateful for it. You can give whatever personal reason against it but science tells you that bacteria & yeast love moist, dark, warm places to thrive. With the earth in a new state of over heating most viruses, bacteria & disease growth is expedited. There is also the odor & no matter how careful you wash the smell is still on the skin. I discussed this with a friend (who is a registered nurse with hospital experience) & we both agreed that the smell can be overwhelming. We can all have our own belief systems but I vote for good medicine & science. We also have our sense of smell & mine is very strong to protect my weak lungs.
18
I have known of many women who complain of UTI's. And none of them were circumcised. I can understand how less surface area could help them, but I also know that without bacteria we would not be. This ancient cultural, religious practice should be allowed for all adults, like branding, hanging from hooks, and other forms of body modification. ADULTS ONLY please!
41
Vivid picture accompanying the article. Ouch!
10
I remember doing newborn behavioral assessments for NIH research. Not infrequently. when we arrived to observe a newborn we would find that the urologists had beat us on rounds. Often we would be reassured by the surgeons performing the circumcision, not to worry-- they would be done in a minute and the child would be "ready to go". But this was not true-- the infants were in pain, crying, difficult to console (one of the scores we looked at). Don't tell me it doesn't hurt.
106
Take a survey of neurologists who specialize in trauma and combine those findings with responses from pre and perinatal professionals. Further bias the sample with people knowledgeable about how early implicit and non-verbal memories are acquired and affect developmental neurophysiology. Then ask if science can answer the circumcision question.
26
The foreskin is there for a reason. Nature designed it for protection.
It belongs to the child. And taking it away is a criminal violation.
You'd be arrested if you decided to tattoo him. Why is robbing him of 30% of the nerve endings of his penis legal?
My two sons are intact. They are whole men. And I am so glad for them.
It belongs to the child. And taking it away is a criminal violation.
You'd be arrested if you decided to tattoo him. Why is robbing him of 30% of the nerve endings of his penis legal?
My two sons are intact. They are whole men. And I am so glad for them.
100
As a nurse, I witnessed many baby circumcisions and found them to be an obviously painful procedure and did some some poorly performed. I also as a nurse, learned how to take perform hygiene on uncircumcised males. Not really too difficult. I notice that uncircumcised male adults don't every seem too kean on getting it performed. I now correlate it with female genital mutilation, an unnecessary and worthless procedure (that costs money in our already overloaded health care system).
78
It is NOT the same as female genital mutilation. FGM, the cutting away of the clitoris and labia and the sealing of the outer lips of the vulva, is the equivalent of amputating the penis and sewing the wound shut with the urethra inside. The risk of life-threatening infections and complications is much, much higher.
I'm being a pill about this because when you lump them together, it undermines the seriousness of FGM and takes the focus off young girls and women who are in desperate need of help.
I'm being a pill about this because when you lump them together, it undermines the seriousness of FGM and takes the focus off young girls and women who are in desperate need of help.
106
and when you separate them on the basis of gender, you take the focus off young boys and men who are in the same desperate need of help.
what you described is only the most severe form of female circumcision. less severe forms -- forms that remove less genital tissue than male circumcision -- are far more common.
what you described is only the most severe form of female circumcision. less severe forms -- forms that remove less genital tissue than male circumcision -- are far more common.
37
You lost me at "Snip or don't snip?" Surely we should expect more from a Professor of Pediatrics who is writing an article about the "science" of cutting boys' healthy genitals at birth? It is not a "snip", it is a procedure disowned by the rest of the developed world because it is medically unnecessary, harmful and unethical. All the Professor can sheepishly admit is that other industrialized nations "don't advocate the procedure as we do in the United States" but omits to tell his readers why. The Professor discloses he is Jewish and circumcised but is this justification for refusing to examine the human rights issues at stake and the clear medical ethical violations that cutting boys healthy genitalia involves for the medical profession. The Professor, like most members of the US medical profession forgets that, in the absence of disease, amputating a healthy, functional part of someone else's body without their consent, is a clear breach of medical ethics and human rights. It is also an equal rights issue since girls' genitalia is protected by law - even a "ritual nick" is a Federal crime. Religious and cultural excuses for cutting girls' genitalia are not allowed. If we routinely cut off girls' labia at birth we'd reduce the risk of vulvar cancer which is far more common than penile cancer. Why isn't the Professor highlighting that on behalf of parents who feel compelled to cut their daughters' genitals in the name of culture and religion?
210
I read this paragraph and thought: what if the "circumcision" being discussed were female circumcision? Just replace "Jewish" with "Islam" and switch all the genders. Do you still feel the same way? This is a procedure (1) with spiritual weight, (2) a personal decision for the parents. (3) thoroughly considered. Just curious.
"All cards on the table: I’m Jewish, and I’m circumcised, as are both my sons. The procedure has a spiritual weight in my community. When confronted by people who use terms like mutilation, I generally recoil. Circumcising my boys was a personal decision for my wife and me, and I understand the various arguments for and against. People angry about this choice seem to imagine that we haven’t thoroughly considered it."
"All cards on the table: I’m Jewish, and I’m circumcised, as are both my sons. The procedure has a spiritual weight in my community. When confronted by people who use terms like mutilation, I generally recoil. Circumcising my boys was a personal decision for my wife and me, and I understand the various arguments for and against. People angry about this choice seem to imagine that we haven’t thoroughly considered it."
66
When you circumcise your sons, you:
- amputate the most erogenous part of their body (the foreskin),
- remove 50% of their penile skin, which may cause painful and tight erections, and prevents a natural gliding mechanism which is important for sex and masturbation;
- permanently expose their glans. It is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected by the foreskin. By being exposed to friction of clothes it becomes keratinized over time, leading to loss of sexual sensation.
The United States is the only country in the world in which infant circumcision is practiced for non-religious reasons. No medical organization in the world recommends it.
Please save future sons and grandsons of yours from genital mutilation.
http://youtu.be/SWfHO8yQaRY
- amputate the most erogenous part of their body (the foreskin),
- remove 50% of their penile skin, which may cause painful and tight erections, and prevents a natural gliding mechanism which is important for sex and masturbation;
- permanently expose their glans. It is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected by the foreskin. By being exposed to friction of clothes it becomes keratinized over time, leading to loss of sexual sensation.
The United States is the only country in the world in which infant circumcision is practiced for non-religious reasons. No medical organization in the world recommends it.
Please save future sons and grandsons of yours from genital mutilation.
http://youtu.be/SWfHO8yQaRY
274
"It is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected by the foreskin."
Maybe in the case of ancient hunter gatherers who run through briars, etc.
Maybe in the case of ancient hunter gatherers who run through briars, etc.
7
Ah yes, those ancient hunter gatherers who ran through briers and crashed through the brambles and invented loin cloths and moccasins, a bright bunch they were.
14
in the case of all placental mammals. mucosal tissue needs protection from the fabric of our clothes to prevent a thick layer of keratin from building up and desensitizing the organ.
15
The human body has many non life-essential structures such as ears, fingernails and toes. It would be possible to take any one of these body parts and link it to any plethora of possible health hazards such as infections, cancer scares, etc. These possibilities could be easily wrapped up in medical jargon creating a seemingly valid argument for routine amputation during infancy as supposed "preventative medicine." We could then continue on an endless spiral of "pros and cons", defense of the practice and protests.
The fact that we readily dismiss such proposals as "routine ear amputation" or "toe amputation" for infants/children as ludicrous if not horrific proves that some disconnect in our reasoning, a "mystical irrationality" clouds our minds when the same thinking is applied to foreskins and routine circumcision.
The medical profession is supposed to be based on scientific reasoning and logic (in addition to care and empathy for human rights and freedom.) Therefore the medical profession is challenged to view circumcision in terms of logic and rationality, respect for the rights of all human beings of every age and respect for the human body in its naturally occurring state. - Rosemary Romberg
The fact that we readily dismiss such proposals as "routine ear amputation" or "toe amputation" for infants/children as ludicrous if not horrific proves that some disconnect in our reasoning, a "mystical irrationality" clouds our minds when the same thinking is applied to foreskins and routine circumcision.
The medical profession is supposed to be based on scientific reasoning and logic (in addition to care and empathy for human rights and freedom.) Therefore the medical profession is challenged to view circumcision in terms of logic and rationality, respect for the rights of all human beings of every age and respect for the human body in its naturally occurring state. - Rosemary Romberg
105
I'm no scientist, but from what I learned from Darwin... didn't 'science' or genetics already decide for us by providing males with foreskin?
247
One shouldn't have to worry about the issue that circumcision is the parents', not the child's, choice.
A family is not a democracy.
Never has, never will be.
On this, or a million other issues.
A family is not a democracy.
Never has, never will be.
On this, or a million other issues.
11
That doesn't even make any sense. Why should the parents make permanent choices about the child's body, when eventually the child will grow up (assuming they reach adulthood)? The child isn't luggage, or an animal; when he grows up, are his parents going to hand him his foreskin and let him decide, as an adult, whether to replace it or not?
23
Your authoritarian stance disturbs me.
In her 85th year, my mother told me "A man should have a say on how that part of his body looks and functions."
That go for you too, Dr Carroll.
In her 85th year, my mother told me "A man should have a say on how that part of his body looks and functions."
That go for you too, Dr Carroll.
43
not your body, not your choice. parents have no business amputating healthy, normal, functional parts of their children's bodies.
64
Female circumcision is a "personal decision" too. Not personal to the person it is being inflicted upon but "personal" to their religiously driven parents or their God, a kind of Mark of Cain, if you will.
If we are created in God's image, why do we mutilate His creation by circumcision? Well, because He told us to do it. But if you are not a Jew, or a Muslim, who but You is telling you to do it. Simply put, it is barbaric. And unnecessary, and let's believe the facts here in the article: it is useless.
If we are created in God's image, why do we mutilate His creation by circumcision? Well, because He told us to do it. But if you are not a Jew, or a Muslim, who but You is telling you to do it. Simply put, it is barbaric. And unnecessary, and let's believe the facts here in the article: it is useless.
70
The vast majority of routine infant circumcisions in the USA, are performed on boys whose parents are Christians of one persuasion or other. Christians have no valid religious reason to circumcise at any time in their lives.
36
God does not tell us to do anything. God does not want us to do anything. God is not an oracle, lurking in the Tabernacle or in the Black Stone set in the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba.
Men create gods in their own image. Then men and women and children pretend that the evil they do is in God's name because it is God's will.
Each must find their own path to God. The organised religions are not pathways to God; they are merely the highways of Man's endless vanity and folly.
Men create gods in their own image. Then men and women and children pretend that the evil they do is in God's name because it is God's will.
Each must find their own path to God. The organised religions are not pathways to God; they are merely the highways of Man's endless vanity and folly.
22
In the tropical war-zone environment of South Vietnam, we young soldiers often went without a change of clothes or even a body wash-down for up to ten days during military operations. One of the lads in our section had to be replaced as he suffered a penis infection that rendered him incapable of performing his duties. We learned later that, being uncircumcised, he was, as other soldiers, much more vulnerable to infection than circumcised soldiers.His foreskin was removed and after several weeks rejoined us on ops. Perhaps foreskins and appendixes and tonsils share a common place in human biology. They play no practical role and should be removed at the first sign of trouble.
20
Hygiene is an issue, but not generally. It seems that the writer suggests that parents should chose circumcision to make their sons better suited to be soldiers, or at least soldiers the jungle.. A faustian bargain, indeed.
Franksly, if their son had just used a little of his drinking water daily to wash that part, I doubt if he would have had the problem.
Removal of tonsils is, I believe, not generally recommended. Certainly we do not remove apendices as a prevention, either, and in fact do so only when other treatment fails. Do not be hasty with the knife.
Franksly, if their son had just used a little of his drinking water daily to wash that part, I doubt if he would have had the problem.
Removal of tonsils is, I believe, not generally recommended. Certainly we do not remove apendices as a prevention, either, and in fact do so only when other treatment fails. Do not be hasty with the knife.
33
Unless he developed gangrene, there was no reason to remove his foreskin. Appendixes and tonsils. along with foreskins, all serve purposes, actually. They are now starting to treat acute appendicitis with antibiotics, because it's been shown that the appendix serves as a reservoir for gut flora. Tonsils, too, are no longer routinely removed, because they are a part of the immune system (as is the foreskin). You need to update your knowledge of human biology.
48
What an excellent argument for circumcision: So we can send more young men into harm's way in wars to save the world from Communism.
25
I CANNOT IMAGINE not having my hood, as nature intended
52
The author's reasoning for circumcising his sons would seem exactly right to justify female genital mutilation. Not acceptable.
131
Except that with female genital mutilation, the cons are immense, and there are no documented pros beyond cultural preferences. Not equivalent in the slightest.
35
There are actually supposed benefits to female circumcision, including lower STD rates. Regardless, the father is not choosing to cut his sons for the supposed medical benefits, but for social reasons, which are the real reason girls are cut in places that cut girls (those places all cut boys, too, often in the same unsterile settings, by the way). There are also many cons to cutting boys, and complications, just as there are for cutting girls. In both cases, adults are forcing their vision of the correct genital shape onto the children. In both cases, pain is involved, and in both cases permanent damage is done to genitals. In both cases, adults who were cut continue to justify it and force it on the next generation.
44
I detect in some of these comments the same "sensitivity" about circumcision vs non-circumcision that many men have when discussing neutering male pets, passing kidney stones or having vasectomies themselves. As the Upshot article indicates, the science may be silent or incomplete as a guide to circumcision, but the emotions from men are not: While even politicians are willing to discuss the size of body parts, few are willing to discuss even minor surgery.
As someone who worked with a cat rescue organization which neutered all male kittens and cats adopted through us, I have heard all the arguments men make against the statistical evidence that neutered cats live longer lives, experience fewer cancers and are less likely to be returned as unacceptable house companions. As the spouse of someone unfortunate enough to have his kidney stones captured by a basket threaded through guess which body part, I have heard the gasps from his friends in hospital rooms all too often. Simply put few men are rational when discussing this body part.
I don't mean to make a broad comparison between neutered cats and circumcised men or non-circumcised men, simply to say in my many years of experience in discussing the research studies with cats, men seemed less likely than women to accept statistical evidence about male reproductive equipment.
Research needs to be done in this field and studies need to be designed to capture evidence and not to confirm biases.
As someone who worked with a cat rescue organization which neutered all male kittens and cats adopted through us, I have heard all the arguments men make against the statistical evidence that neutered cats live longer lives, experience fewer cancers and are less likely to be returned as unacceptable house companions. As the spouse of someone unfortunate enough to have his kidney stones captured by a basket threaded through guess which body part, I have heard the gasps from his friends in hospital rooms all too often. Simply put few men are rational when discussing this body part.
I don't mean to make a broad comparison between neutered cats and circumcised men or non-circumcised men, simply to say in my many years of experience in discussing the research studies with cats, men seemed less likely than women to accept statistical evidence about male reproductive equipment.
Research needs to be done in this field and studies need to be designed to capture evidence and not to confirm biases.
15
why? why should we research cutting parts off of a child's genitals before the child should consent? it's an issue of ethics, not of science.
remember, the person you're cutting the body part off of will grow into a man some day, so it absolutely should have an emotional component for men. his body, his choice.
remember, the person you're cutting the body part off of will grow into a man some day, so it absolutely should have an emotional component for men. his body, his choice.
33
Funny, we actually passed a law to prevent people from cutting girls' parts - is that bias too? Why should we be dispassionate about choices made for children, anyway? Are you saying we should neuter humans to extend their lives?
22
It is possible that studies would also have mixed results in case studies of infants who had a cigarette stubbed out on their butt. (Preferable to many?)
10
I would have preferred a simple burn scar on my butt to the removal of valuable erogenous tissue that was so violently removed.
31
Well I'm one of the rare guys in my late sixties who is not cicumcised. Teased once in junior high, but who isn't? I've never had any infection of my penis. Things work just fine, and it takes just a second or two for daily maintenance. I did learn about age 5 to keep the hood out of pant zippers, which is the only hazzard encountered.
84
Personal anecdotes, sample size of 1, are irrelevant to this discussion.
Yes, but it was 100% of his sample!
7
I notice you chose an anecdote that favored leaving a child intact to point this out. Why didn't you make this notation to the ones saying they or someone they knew eventually required a circumcision, or observed no pain on the part of their child?
6
My daughter is two years older than my son. After reading both the pros and cons to circumcision, my wife and I decided to have the procedure performed in the hospital shortly after my son was born. After having read all the anti-circumcision literature, I was fully expecting to see my son visibly agitated when he urinated, and generally ill at ease the first week or so after the procedure. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. My daughter, in fact, had been much more agitated. My son was the most mellow baby you can imagine. So, please, don't believe the propaganda about how your circumcised baby will be uncomfortable and in pain. Based on my observations of my son's experience, your child will be just fine.
27
When you circumcise your sons, you:
- amputate the most erogenous part of their body (the foreskin),
- remove 50% of their penile skin, which may cause painful and tight erections, and prevents a natural gliding mechanism which is important for sex and masturbation;
- permanently expose their glans. It is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected by the foreskin. By being exposed to friction of clothes it becomes keratinized over time, leading to loss of sexual sensation.
The United States is the only country in the world in which infant circumcision is practiced for non-religious reasons. No medical organization in the world recommends it.
Please save future sons and grandsons of yours from genital mutilation.
http://youtu.be/SWfHO8yQaRY
- amputate the most erogenous part of their body (the foreskin),
- remove 50% of their penile skin, which may cause painful and tight erections, and prevents a natural gliding mechanism which is important for sex and masturbation;
- permanently expose their glans. It is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected by the foreskin. By being exposed to friction of clothes it becomes keratinized over time, leading to loss of sexual sensation.
The United States is the only country in the world in which infant circumcision is practiced for non-religious reasons. No medical organization in the world recommends it.
Please save future sons and grandsons of yours from genital mutilation.
http://youtu.be/SWfHO8yQaRY
37
You don't have to keep repeating it.
13
Even if the foreskin had been removed with magic fairy dust, you would still be violating your child's bodily autonomy for social reasons. Would you cut your daughters' vulvas to lower the risk of vulvar cancer and vulvar vestibulitis? No? Why cut your son then?
32
Putting aside the question whether "to cut or not to cut", my comment concerns the ingenious Alvaro Dominguez illustration accompanying the article. My first reaction was to wince at the pencil shaving analogy (ouch!) but
this changed to admiration for the resulting blushing pink color of the flesh petals. What a picture this conjures.
this changed to admiration for the resulting blushing pink color of the flesh petals. What a picture this conjures.
6
Moslem and Jewish male babies have been circumcised for thousands of years and their descendants are here and flourishing and enjoying life.
If a parent wants to have this or not for their male children, let it be. Why is this of such overriding concern to those who don't do this? it seems so out of proportion to the issue. Who even thinks about this?
If a parent wants to have this or not for their male children, let it be. Why is this of such overriding concern to those who don't do this? it seems so out of proportion to the issue. Who even thinks about this?
28
muslim women have also been circumcised for thousands of years, and their descendants are here and flourishing and enjoying life. yet most still recognize that as a human rights violation and fight to end it. why the double standard?
did it ever occur to you that the child (male or female) of a parent who wants to circumcise might grow up and want those body parts back? did it occur to you that they have a very legitimate reason to think about this?
did it ever occur to you that the child (male or female) of a parent who wants to circumcise might grow up and want those body parts back? did it occur to you that they have a very legitimate reason to think about this?
57
Both religions simply coopted an existing tribal ritual. In both cases, the cutting has been made more severe over the years, and uses pseudoscience to back it up.
34
And what about the outstanding novel The cider house rules by John Irving,and about the reasons for circumcision [page 1]set as a rule by a non religious man as Wilbur Larch.
2
As an elective procedure it should not be covered by insurance.
69
Obviously you don't decide for someone else. That's unfair. He decides for himself when he grows up. It's his body, not yours.
78
Parents decide things for their children all the time. That's how life works.
13
Good parents treat their children like human beings, not objects.
36
This topic brings out some serious weirdos. Just watch.
40
You mean serious weirdos who say cutting off part of a child's anatomy in the name of god, culture, and "fitting in" is OK? Or do you just mean the serious weirdoes who say cutting part off part of a boy's anatomy for these reasons is OK but not a girl's?
42
I have not been circumcised. I do believe that my personal sexual pleasure has been enhanced because of this. I have never been bullied because of this in school or the military. However, I am now 84 years old and having difficulties cleaning the glans under the foreskin. The foreskin has shrunken in diameter and is very difficult to retract over the glans for cleaning. This causes me great concern that as I get older and perhaps cannot care for myself, that the persons caring for me will not struggle with this cleaning procedure that is needed daily. If it is neglected even a few days the foreskin begins to grow together with the glans and that is of great concern. My urologist is very reluctant to do a circumcision or even a simple cut allowing the foreskin to move freely over the glans for cleaning.
My opinion, based only on my own problems in this area, I would suggest that circumcision is important to do at birth for long term health benefits for those lucky enough to live a long life.
My opinion, based only on my own problems in this area, I would suggest that circumcision is important to do at birth for long term health benefits for those lucky enough to live a long life.
55
What the author avoided saying is as important, or more, than what he actually said.
When mentioning HIV, he doesn't mention that this "protective effect" applies only to heterosexual transmission from female to male, which is one of the less important forms of transmission in the United States.
When mentioning the recent study from the Journal of Urology on penile sensitivity, he doesn't mention that the data and discussion of the study contradicts the conclusions, making this study deeply flawed.
It is true that science can't help decide, because no matter what, circumcising a child violates his physical integrity and right to bodily autonomy. This is an ethical problem on a society that values individual freedom. Without bodily autonomy there is no individual freedom.
When mentioning HIV, he doesn't mention that this "protective effect" applies only to heterosexual transmission from female to male, which is one of the less important forms of transmission in the United States.
When mentioning the recent study from the Journal of Urology on penile sensitivity, he doesn't mention that the data and discussion of the study contradicts the conclusions, making this study deeply flawed.
It is true that science can't help decide, because no matter what, circumcising a child violates his physical integrity and right to bodily autonomy. This is an ethical problem on a society that values individual freedom. Without bodily autonomy there is no individual freedom.
54
I was present at the hospital-based circumcisions of both my sons. I held both after the work was completed, one performed by a very skilled female physician. Both boys whimpered a bit, then settled. Healing was straight-forward with no complications and no clear indication that pain was a factor of discomfort. In my case, in my view, pain was a non-factor. Both boys are now thriving adults.
24
The author is biased because he has already in the past chosen to preform the surgery on his children.
It would be nice to hear a similarly thought out argument from a non biased source.
It would be nice to hear a similarly thought out argument from a non biased source.
45
All other arguments aside, religious loading of this decision seems to me to be the weakest basis for this unnecessary 'improvement' on nature. Tradition!?
It seems to me that it is essentially cosmetic surgery, and therefore ought to be approached with skepticism. The kid can always have the foreskin removed later if he chooses, but it's well nigh impossible to put one back.
It seems to me that it is essentially cosmetic surgery, and therefore ought to be approached with skepticism. The kid can always have the foreskin removed later if he chooses, but it's well nigh impossible to put one back.
94
Excellent arguments. If most are circumcised, wouldn't want to be different from the rest. This might prevent an excuse for bullying from peers especially during childhood. Thanks for an enlightening article.
Most boys are no longer circumcised in the US.
The CDC let the cat out of the bag at an AIDS conference in Vienna, in 2012.
The percentage who are circumcised, in 2012, was 32.5%
That weak excuse that the kid might feel different, is now gone, and the ratio has tipped the other way.
What are you going to say to the kid? "I had a part cut off, because I thought you would fit in. Sorry."
The CDC let the cat out of the bag at an AIDS conference in Vienna, in 2012.
The percentage who are circumcised, in 2012, was 32.5%
That weak excuse that the kid might feel different, is now gone, and the ratio has tipped the other way.
What are you going to say to the kid? "I had a part cut off, because I thought you would fit in. Sorry."
12
If the reasoning here is to maybe, perhaps, someday prevent the possibility of a boy being bullied because he is uncircumcised by hypothetical peers in a hypothetical locker room....
then said reasoning needs some examination. It's a weak argument. People will be bullied for whatever the bullies choose, and some foreskin is not going to make or break their intentions. The notion that "Well...we want him to look like the other boys/his father is similarly weak. How much time do you think men spend looking at each other's penises in normal circumstances?
then said reasoning needs some examination. It's a weak argument. People will be bullied for whatever the bullies choose, and some foreskin is not going to make or break their intentions. The notion that "Well...we want him to look like the other boys/his father is similarly weak. How much time do you think men spend looking at each other's penises in normal circumstances?
25
We should do *surgery* on children in order to give bullies one less reason to pick on them?! That's horrifying. Surely there are better ways to reduce bullying.
35
One unfortunate consequence of my father's dementia meant some of the most intimate decisions of his health care were made by me. Just as parents make decisions for their children who are unable to give informed consent, it became necessary for me to deal with consenting to treatment plans for the constant urinary tract infections and skin wounds that fragile incontinent adults--men and women-- wearing diapers are prone to have.
I never expected to need to know whether my father was circumcised or not, however, until he developed a blockage only non-circumcised men get. While this issue is not a prominent consideration in the minds of non-Jewish parents choosing not to circumcise, more studies on elderly non-circumcised men who have significant complications and what protects those who don't need to be done.
An embarrassing aspect for me at least was explaining to the care aides who changed my father's diapers and washed him, that additional care needed to be taken to prevent infection as well as regular inspection of lumps which occur only in non-circumcised men (according to my father's urologist) and lead to blockages.
Research shouldn't end with studies about cancer, HIV and sensitivity. old age has some surprises in store too. Decisions made in infancy and childhood do have consquences.
I never expected to need to know whether my father was circumcised or not, however, until he developed a blockage only non-circumcised men get. While this issue is not a prominent consideration in the minds of non-Jewish parents choosing not to circumcise, more studies on elderly non-circumcised men who have significant complications and what protects those who don't need to be done.
An embarrassing aspect for me at least was explaining to the care aides who changed my father's diapers and washed him, that additional care needed to be taken to prevent infection as well as regular inspection of lumps which occur only in non-circumcised men (according to my father's urologist) and lead to blockages.
Research shouldn't end with studies about cancer, HIV and sensitivity. old age has some surprises in store too. Decisions made in infancy and childhood do have consquences.
60
That is no reason to cut a child, and rob them of the protection that a foreskin affords. It is a reason to talk with the nursing home staff.
They don't circumcise in old age for convenience in Europe, they simply wash the person.
They don't circumcise in old age for convenience in Europe, they simply wash the person.
73
Only in the US does an elderly man get circumcised because his carers are too ignorant to know proper intact care. As 75% of the world's men have a foreskin, and the cutting rate in Europe is less than 10% you would think that the healthcare systems of Europe must be collapsing under the weight of having to cope with all that foreskin. There is no epidemic of elderly circumcisions and there is no "additional care" involved, there is just "care of normal, male anatomy." Elderly women can end up in diapers too with UTIs. Should we ask our mothers to consider some labiaplasty in case they end up in a nursing home with carers who don't wash them properly? America needs to wake up and stop treating foreskin like a birth defect.
51
That's what you get with decent universal health care.
14
Mr. Carroll - Thank you for bringing up one of the last remaining taboo discussions in this country. The sooner we all become educated - the better. Your opening line unfortunately perpetuates the myths most of us have grown up with. Amputation of the foreskin is NOT a snip! We "snip" hair, nails, cuticles - all dead tissue, which grows back and contains no nerve endings. Not so the foreskin, which is the most sensitive tissue on the male body and has many important functions, of which most Americans are not aware. However, that is finally changing. How about 20,000 fine touch nerve endings, protection of the glans from drying out and becoming desensitized, lubrication, for both the male and his partner, etc. Most people are not aware that at birth, the foreskin is adhered to the glans, offering the infant a "sterile package." Circumcision actually involves the tearing of the connective tissue and then slicing off the foreskin. It is a violent and excruciating process - for what reason - religion? Culture? Foreskin is not a genetic defect, it is not redundant tissue - when we genitally cut our baby boys we are NOT snipping.
The CDC floated the idea of doctors recommending circumcision to all intact sexually boys and men in December 2014. There was a huge public outcry - see their website. It never became a recommendation.
We do not own our children - they have the human right to an open future and control of their bodies unless truly medically necessary.
The CDC floated the idea of doctors recommending circumcision to all intact sexually boys and men in December 2014. There was a huge public outcry - see their website. It never became a recommendation.
We do not own our children - they have the human right to an open future and control of their bodies unless truly medically necessary.
221
I am somewhat sympathetic to Carroll's argument that parents should be allowed to factor their religious/cultural views into the equation, especially if we remember that a boy who looks different from his classmates/friends might suffer some psychological harm. On the other hand, I wonder what other religious obligations Carroll and his wife fulfill? Do they keep kosher? Celebrate the sabbath? Affiliate with a synagogue? If not, I question why inflicting pain and irreversible surgical alteration on their newborn is the _one_ religious obligation they keep.
39
Agreed. If my religious beliefs involved female circumcision, should I not be protected in practicing it? What about earlobe removal? Male nipples? The appeal to tradition fallacy is alive and well in this debate.
31
For those who wish to uphold tradition and welcome their newborn into the world, have a Brit Shalom, a peaceful welcoming ceremony that an increasing number of Jewish families are choosing. Cut the bagels, not the baby!
51
You are neither God, nor their Rabbi, ergo, which commandments they keep and don't keep is none of your business. Nobody gets to decide whether they are worthy enough for a religious circumcision.
8
Let's start with this - a female has approximately a 1-8 chance of getting breast cancer. A male has about a 1-100,000 chance of getting penile cancer. Can someone provide a logical reason why anyone would advocate circumcision for all boys to prevent this extremely rare disease, when naturally no one is suggesting mass mastectomies for otherwise healthy females?
Similarly, urinary tract infections are treated in girls with a round of antibiotics. Why should boys (who get far fewer UTIs) be prophylactically treated for a rare, simple, infection with a major surgery?
I could go on about the reasons why circumcision became popular (hint: it's rooted in our puritanical history) or complications (which no one has really studied in the long term) and loss or not of sexual pleasure (which is, naturally, a squishy science.) There are only two "rational" arguments for circumcision: Religion and the "ick" or "look like Dad" factor. (Both of which are not, by the way, rational.)
Circumcise your child if you wish, but there is no medical reason to do so, and plenty of potential harm.
Similarly, urinary tract infections are treated in girls with a round of antibiotics. Why should boys (who get far fewer UTIs) be prophylactically treated for a rare, simple, infection with a major surgery?
I could go on about the reasons why circumcision became popular (hint: it's rooted in our puritanical history) or complications (which no one has really studied in the long term) and loss or not of sexual pleasure (which is, naturally, a squishy science.) There are only two "rational" arguments for circumcision: Religion and the "ick" or "look like Dad" factor. (Both of which are not, by the way, rational.)
Circumcise your child if you wish, but there is no medical reason to do so, and plenty of potential harm.
389
Of course science is not going to be able to decide this issue. It is ideological (and religion is a form of ideology).
Despite the lack of evidence, those in favor of it are going to insist that circumcision is harmless, and those opposed will preach that it is mutilation. And, as with all ideologies, they will proselytize.
Despite the lack of evidence, those in favor of it are going to insist that circumcision is harmless, and those opposed will preach that it is mutilation. And, as with all ideologies, they will proselytize.
20
I don't believe advocating against circumcising infants is ideological, anymore than advocating against hypothetical infant earlobe removal or male nipple removal would be. The only reason it exists at all is because of tradition and religion, not because of hard science.
35
I note the referenced study showed that circumcised men had lower rates of HIV. Did this distinguish the population by religion? I can imagine an argument that the circumcised are mostly Moslem, while the uncircumcised are not. Given the penalties for adultery in Islam perhaps the men are more chaste.
Nothing in this article suggests that parents should not have the right to circumcise their daughters. Why are the two cases different in the author's mind?
Nothing in this article suggests that parents should not have the right to circumcise their daughters. Why are the two cases different in the author's mind?
32
Because "female circumcision" is not the equivalent of male circumcision. It is the equivalent of penile amputation. The clitoris and inner lips of the vulva are cut away--with a sterile knife if the girl is lucky, and with a dirty knife, piece of broken glass or sharp rock if she isn't. The outer lips are sewn together--again, with sterile needle and sutures for the lucky ones, and with whatever is lying around for the rest--leaving a small opening for urine and menstrual blood to pass through. Sometimes the hole closes up. The risk of post-"surgical" infection is enormous, as are the risks for fistulas, complications of childbirth and other long-term diseases.
It is NOT the same thing. Don't even try to compare it.
It is NOT the same thing. Don't even try to compare it.
42
The best HIV evidence (as mentioned in the article) comes from randomized controlled trials, not cross-sections. So religion would not explain the results.
3
Before saying "it is NOT the same thing" why don't you go and look up the various types of FGM? Did you know the most common form of FGM is a "ritual nick" of the clitoral hood or clitoris? Did you know that in 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that this form of FGM could be legalized because it is analogous to male circumcision? There was such international condemnation that they revised their statement within a month. If you didn't know this, you have no business talking FGM. Go educate yourself first. Not all FGM is infibulation. Genital cutting of children is genital cutting of children. It is all human rights abuse whatever the sex.
30
I almost has my son circumcised -- for the no-good (and untrue) reason that "everyone does it" -- but when I really thought outside the box and asked myself, "Can I send this helpless little being off to have the tip of his penis sliced off?", the answer was "hell no!" A nurse told me that babies were "quiet" for a day or so after the procedure (aka traumatized, in shock, I'm sure). This is a cosmetic, medically unnecessary procedure that isn't covered by insurance. It is grounded in "tradition" and religion -- and I don't make decisions regarding the well-being of my children based on such things. Sometimes I worry about how my son will feel about me NOT doing it -- but I still could not order it done to such a sweet, vulnerable being, and I will tell him why I couldn't order it done and hope he understands.
190
He will thank you.
9
I can only speak from experience as a 34 year old male, whose mother made the same decision for me on similar basis, not to circumcise shortly after birth. It remains one of her biggest regrets, as the first 7 years of my life were hellish on the back of repeated urinary tract infections. My first few years of school at kindergarten were particularly bad, no matter what preventative measures were taken. And I can tell you the memories of having the procedure done at 7 years of age are crystal clear (I cant imagine what the experience would have been like as a teenager or a young adult, you know, with raging hormones etc and the stitches).
The upside of the procedure: I've never had an infection since.
Obviously, everyone's circumstances are going to be different, and I truly hope your son's experience is the opposite to mine. However, I would say that if your son's circumstances start replicate mine as a young lad, then I'd recommend following the medical advice and having the procedure done earlier rather than later. It will save a lot of anxiety that lingered well into adulthood for me.
The upside of the procedure: I've never had an infection since.
Obviously, everyone's circumstances are going to be different, and I truly hope your son's experience is the opposite to mine. However, I would say that if your son's circumstances start replicate mine as a young lad, then I'd recommend following the medical advice and having the procedure done earlier rather than later. It will save a lot of anxiety that lingered well into adulthood for me.
21
Most likely she was given improper care instructions. Doctors would insist that the foreskin be retracted well before it should have been which causes damage and will lead to increased infections. They also advised the use of soap to clean which would also further irritate he damaged tissue and wash away the protective good bacteria. Sorry it didn't go well for you, but most of the men in the world are uncut and don't experience any problems.
18
My boyfriend from the Caribbean is not circumcised, and intercourse feels much more nuanced and more detailed with him and it hit the same sort of notes with another ex partner, also from the Caribbean who was not circumcised. Neither of these highly educated men has ever experienced any health complications from it. I have also had boyfriends who have been circumcised, and I would fervently argue that from this (black) female's standpoint, uncircumcised simply feels better. Since science hasn't been able to figure it out, I say, let heterosexual women weigh in. Where is the article including research from the standpoint of the female partner? Based on my experience, I would never have my son circumcised. Wouldn't want him to cut him out of what, in my experience, is a precious, uniquely pleasurable experience.
175
Something not mentioned was the cultural environment in which the male was raised. My husband was born in 1950s USA, when the vast majority of boys were circumcised soon after birth. He told me how the occasional uncircumcised boys were taunted in the locker room during gym class in adolescence. Your Caribbean mates were in the opposite environment.
I can also attest that circumcision, in my experience with non-circumcised Portuguese men and with my circumcised American husband, seems to make no difference in the pleasure I experience. Perhaps it is a case of knowing what to do with whatever you have.
I can also attest that circumcision, in my experience with non-circumcised Portuguese men and with my circumcised American husband, seems to make no difference in the pleasure I experience. Perhaps it is a case of knowing what to do with whatever you have.
11
I was raised in an environment where the vast majority were circumcised, and I was not.
Never once was it mentioned. Never once was I teased.
The US is a different, more tolerant place these years.
Plus, the circumcision rate has dropped like a stone.
This should never even be a consideration, when someone is deciding for someone else which healthy body parts to keep.
Never once was it mentioned. Never once was I teased.
The US is a different, more tolerant place these years.
Plus, the circumcision rate has dropped like a stone.
This should never even be a consideration, when someone is deciding for someone else which healthy body parts to keep.
24
"My husband was born in 1950s USA, when the vast majority of boys were circumcised soon after birth. He told me how the occasional uncircumcised boys were taunted in the locker room during gym class in adolescence."
As an uncircumcised male growing up in the 1950s I don't recall a single example of taunting.
As an uncircumcised male growing up in the 1950s I don't recall a single example of taunting.
29
Completely missing is a comparison between uncircumcized boys and men who are taught propering cleaning of the penis and those who aren't against others. Until that it is, comparisons suggesting this mutilation are meaningless. Proper cleaning of the penis should be taught just as tooth brushing for the teeth.
Do we ever consider removing the teeth to prevent cavities?
Do we ever consider removing the teeth to prevent cavities?
237
Thank you for your brilliant comment. I agree. I am going to make an appointment with my dentist to get all of my teeth removed!
13