Circumcision: a Pillar of American ignorance

[kingpocky]

Reliable citation needed for anyone claiming that circumcision makes sex any less enjoyable.

5 seconds of searching on google came up with

^ "Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision". Pediatrics 103 (3): 686?93. March 1999. doi:10.1542/peds.103.3.686 . PMID 10049981 .

Boyle, Gregory J; Svoboda, J Steven; Goldman, Ronald; Fernandez, Ephrem (2002). "Male circumcision: pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae" . Bond University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Sorrells, Morriss L.; James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss, Christopher Eden, Marilyn F. Milos, Norma Wilcox and Robert S. Van Howe (March 2007). "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" (PDF). BJU International 99 (4): 864?869. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x . PMID 17378847 .

I would show more but I'm going to bed now.

To masturbate.

With my uncut penis.

U jelly?

Sure, go ahead. Although it kind of looks like you didn't really bother reading the thread, as there have been different studies saying different things since that one post I have, and even a wikipedia article summarizing the results of major studies. I would say that you should go over a thread better before responding to posts on the first page, but I guess you had more important things you needed to go get done, so I understand.

This is exactly the kind of topic on which Wikipedia can not be trusted. As it happens, there is an expert Wikipedian who patrol(l)s the circumcision entries ensuring they support his favourite operation. He's made more than 10,000 edits on the topic, and also co-authored papers with circumcision fanatics.

Really, how many studies does it need to prove that cutting a highly innervated, uniquely mobile part off the sexual organs (in an operation that began its secular incarnation with that purpose) makes sex less enjoyable?

I'm looking at the "Sexual effects of circumcision" page on Wikipedia. There's a list of several different studies which show varying results. What specifically is the problem with that section?

The results from Frisch are interesting. That and Kigozi http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07369.x/pdf seem to be some of the largest studies. The major difference is that the former is a health survey, and finds negative effects to circumcision, and the latter is a trial of adult circumcision patients, and finds no significant difference from before and after circumcision.

I'm not really certain what to make of this. I haven't paid the issue much attention before, and the anti-circumcision side seems to have some merit. However, if the foreskin were as important as they say it is, wouldn't you expect any adult man who undergoes circumcision to report a huge difference in pleasure? (They'd be the only ones who would be able to say with any certainty, as uncircumcised men or men circumcised at birth wouldn't have any idea what the opposite state feels like.) But there are studies where large numbers say it doesn't really matter, when theoretically there should be an overwhelming negative effect.

I'm kind of curious about this issue. Like I said, I agree that the minor benefits of circumcision mean it's not really necessary, and I'm questioning if it's justifiable. It's just a shame that people like Rodrigo have to muddy the water by throwing up every logical fallacy in the book and using more emotional arguments than a street preacher.

 

[SD-Fiend]

Well here's a little question (uncircumsised here, it's not very commom in the UK unless there's a religious reason behind it).

If there are so many problems and issues attached to posessing foreskin then why were we born with it?

Seriously, if it seriously caused so many complications and had so many risks attached to it (and was more attractive to the opposite sex) then surely it wouldn't have made it through our thousands and millions of years of evolution as a species?

Our ancient ancestors probably didn't have routine circumcisons done to their children and I'm sure they managed to get along and have sex just fine (we're here today after all so they can't of had too many problems with it).

not to be rude but evolution doesn't work like that

 

[sinterklaas]

Seeing as though it is irreversible it should be a choice you make when you're an adult, rather than your parents make for you when you are a newborn.

I don't see why this thread ran for nine pages after you nailed it with the sixth reply quite how any body can argue with this point of view I don't know.

Exactly. This is my opinion as well.

Why anyone would mutilate his own penis is beyond me, and why it is legal to do it to your own son is just out of this world...

 

[Iron Mal]

not to be rude but evolution doesn't work like that

I know I'm grossly oversimplifying evolution when I made my previous post but I believe the point remains valid, if there were significant issues that made having foreskin something requiring removal for medical reasons then how the hell did we manage to ignore them in nature and prior to the advent of wide-scale circumcision?

The fact that we evolved to posess it and have had it for so long (and that large populations have it today with no apparant downsides) means I'd have to say that having foreskin is at the very least harmless (and if it's harmless then why the hell do we need it removed?).

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I am going to say the same things Atheists say for believing in God. If there is no evidence either way, you don't do it. Period. Anything else is irrational, and fear based.

Arguments from ignorance is the worst argument to make. Arguments from fear are worse.

You're awfully "high and mighty." Can you honestly tell me that fear or some other such emotion never has any impact on decisions that you make?

I admit it. I was afraid that my son might need a medically necessary circumcision at an age when he would remember the pain and discomfort. I was afraid, in such a situation, that he would resent me for not having it done when he was a baby, especially when a doctor had recommended it to me in order to avoid such a situation.

If you enjoy judging me and looking down on me because I made a decision that you disagree with based on argument that you dismiss as "myths, opinions, and fallacies," fine. I hope it makes you feel real good to be a self-righteous douche.

If someone believes that circumcision is wrong for any reason, that's their business and I won't try to convince them that they're in the wrong. I only ask the same in return; I'm tired of being attacked by people like you and the OP when my decisions are only effecting my family and I am more than willing to live with them if my son grows up to resent my decision to have him circumcised.

Maybe it's too "libertarian" for you, the OP, and people of like minds to say "to each their own" and let it go, but I would ask that we just agree to disagree and I'll pretend I never commented on thread filled with ideological bigots.

 

[Pegghead]

Eh, my schmackel's clipped. While I'm not terribly concerned about it (thinking too in-depth about little-boy's penises is the first sign of a serial rapist) I'd probably rather have my son (or sons I guess, but I want to have a boy and a girl) circumcised than just leave it on. It looks a bit neater, it's a bit more common, there are pros and cons for both sides of the argument, the fact that I'm Catholic is something I'd try not to let factor into the decision.

 

[AngloDoom]

I only ask the same in return; I'm tired of being attacked by people like you and the OP when my decisions are only effecting my family and I am more than willing to live with them if my son grows up to resent my decision to have him circumcised.

The problem is, for people who aren't born in a country where circumcision = sexy, people see it as putting your child under unnecessary risk for the sake of making them fit in. Medically necessary circumcision isn't the issue, and the health benefits of circumcision are negligible, debatable, and a preventative for something very rare.

This is therefore - to such people - like me asking the doctor to add silicon implants to my daughter's chest at birth because, hey, who doesn't like girls with big boobs?

Honestly, so far when reading this topic the only arguments I've seen for having circumcision forced (and it is forced) on an infant are:

- My penis is fine, I can totally remember what sex was like before circumcision when I was fifteen minutes old.
- It looks better when you're raised in a society where you only see one and not the other.
- The father has it, but I won't mention how the dad also has tattoos, piercings...
- It's cleaner when you live in a cave and haven't heard of washing.
- It's my decision to do what I do to permanently affect another person.

If someone gave me a reasonable answer for having unnecessary surgery on an infant for almost entirely cosmetic reasons then I'd concede that it is, indeed, their choice.

However, for now I cannot help but see why it's any different to scarifying your favourite band into your child's thigh at birth.

EDIT - Whoopsie, quoted the wrong person.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Come live in England: rational thought since 1859.

 

[Trull]

Jesus, male circumcision is so eh, its barely anything, you guys are going on about it if they're making their kids have nose surgery or some shit. I'm circumcised and the only way it made my life different was I asked my parents "Mummy, Daddy, why do the kids at schools have turtle necks and mine doesn't?"

You guys are making it seem like this huge ass problem, the way you guys are going on about it I could start a thread about how breast feeding is ruining the sexuality of children because you force blah blah blah. It's circumcision, it's your identity. Your parents help make or ruin your identity for as long as you live, circumcision is part of that choice. Deal with it.


(btw, this is just male circumcision [i.e. no repercussions])

internet these days, jesus.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

I was circumcised pretty young due to an apparently genetic inherited problem where the foreskin was too small (I'd like to say I was too big, but I don't like lying) and would have become ungodly uncomfortable if left in place. And possibly horribly infected. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Make of it what you will

 

[AMMO Kid]

It's just something people do. People don't need a good reason. A friend I know from work gets drunk just because she likes how it feels. Is she a blind drunk? No, she only drinks on holidays. But getting drunk does far more damage to her body than good. Does she care? No! Because it's her body! Let her do what she wants with it! The same thing applies for circumcision.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

This is actually Remnant_Phoenix's wife - I just happened upon this thread and don't want to make my own user name just for one post.

There seems to be 3 main arguments here:
1) Uncircumcised penis = better sex.
2) (Distantly, it seems) We should not force permanent decisions on those who cannot chose for themselves.
3) It's unnecessary (with various addendum's)

As for the better sex part, science seems to waffle on that, and, circumcised guys seem to have no problems enjoying sex. My sex life with my (circumcised) husband is quite active and healthy. This seems like a weak argument to me. However, I don't have a penis, and guys seem to get a lot more up in arms about sex.

The second argument seems strongest to me, personally. I get so worried and stressed about decisions that will affect my son's life long-term. Like his name. Or that we live in a city with high cancer rates. Or what foods to feed him, so he doesn't get addicted to sweet foods. Or making sure I read to him every day so he develops language, and possibly a higher IQ. Or breastfeeding him so he is at a lower risk for illness....etc etc.

So I fretted and worried over circumcision as well. I prayed about it, discussed it with family, friends, and my husband. I researched. We have friends who did not circumcise their son, and friends who are grown and uncircumcised. Two grown friends said that they wished they were circumcised. One for medical reasons (he ended up having it done in his mid-twenties) and one for personal reasons (he was not willing to go through the pain, just wished it had been done earlier). Most (well, all) men we spoke to said that they didn't care they were circumcised, or not as the case may be. Ultimately, I felt a peace about circumcising. I believe this peace came from God, from the conversations I had, and from the research I did.

As for the third, yes, it is (usually) unnecessary. I have no argument against this, except that I wanted to avoid possible future pain for my son. There's no need to berate me for having fear over my son's future. If you make this argument, you are clearly not a parent. All parents fear for their child's future.

Our decision to circumcise was a religious one, as we felt that it was the decision God wanted us to make. And it was a personal one, in that we felt most comfortable with it.

Two things I would like to add:
1) The Bible verse quoted earlier in this thread was written about new Christians who believed that they had to follow the Jewish law to follow Christ. That passage is a somewhat vehement declaration that you do not have to follow Jewish law. It goes on to say that whether you are circumcised or not doesn't matter. Jesus himself did not speak on the topic, other than in very generic terms, speaking of Jewish law in general.

2) Lets not make absurd arguments about how would I like it if someone cut off my boobs, or arm, or eye... Those arguments are completely absurd. The ONLY negative repercussions are sexual ones, the most common being moderately decreased pleasure, the most severe being severely decreased pleasure. Severe complications are rare. Whereas losing my arm or eye makes me severely handicapped, and losing my boobs makes me unable to breastfeed, which science is very firmly behind as beneficial.

That's all. Maybe people can try to be a little more open minded? Probably not, but hey, I tried.

 

[Cannibal Johnson]

I am circumcised and really, I don't care. Because well who the hell cares when machines start the revolution and we end up living as equals after a war I'm just gonna be dating a robot chick anyways. Seriously though I don't see it as a big deal I'm american it doesn't bother me, and I don't like maintenance. You know "cleaning it" and stuff like that. Wow my first post was on this.

 

[Chimichanga]

Circumcised - had it done as a baby so I don't remember the pain and don't really regret it.

But since I feel like the OP was quite belligerent in both attributing the practice of circumcision to both Americans and ignorant people in general (which in itself is a grossly ignorant assumption), I feel I must respond with some hostility as well:

I prefer not having what looks like some deformed, back-water dog dick. I get the feeling that this was just ripped out of a last-minute school debate or essay and re-posted on the internet. Your wording and sentence structure is crude and lazy.

I hope that made you self-conscious and slightly uncomfortable with yourself.

*EDIT*

In retrospect, I may have just fed the trolls - my apologies for falling for bait.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Yes, of course, because reductio ad absurdum is always the best approach when discussing medical options.

No, I'm just applying the same reasoning to a different object to show how that reasoning was absurd in the first place: it is only justified by custom, not rationality.

Lets not make absurd arguments about how would I like it if someone cut off my boobs, or arm, or eye... Those arguments are completely absurd. The ONLY negative repercussions are sexual ones, the most common being moderately decreased pleasure, the most severe being severely decreased pleasure. Severe complications are rare.

How do you decide how severe the repercussions have to be before they are worth any attention? (You seem to dismiss decreased pleasure as of little relevance, which makes me think you are nuts.) And more severe complications - total loss of sensation, castration, death - are far more common than you think. It's just that they sweep this shit under the rug and you don't hear about it.

I prefer not having what looks like some deformed, back-water dog dick.

When it comes to normal versus deformed, you got it backwards.

 

[SD-Fiend]

Yes, of course, because reductio ad absurdum is always the best approach when discussing medical options.

No, I'm just applying the same reasoning to a different object to show how that reasoning was absurd in the first place: it is only justified by custom, not rationality.

I prefer not having what looks like some deformed, back-water dog dick.

When it comes to normal versus deformed, you got it backwards.

but the ear is much more important than extra skin

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Same thing, actually. You can still hear without the outer ear, just as you can have sex without a foreskin. In both cases, it will be a distorded, inferior form of perception.

 

[romanator0]

Hmm... I have to say that from all of the links and argument that have been thrown back and forth between both groups I have learned that the only significant difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is the way it looks.

Uncircumcised penis' don't seem to deliver all that much more pleasure than circumcised penis' and the health benefits for circumcised penis' seem to be negligible.

All-in-all, it seems to me like this whole circumcised or uncircumcised penis argument is extremely moot and pointless.