# "No Medical Benefits"?



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

I have only recently started wading into the circumcision world, and know that there is still a lot of information for me to read. At this point I am definitely planning to leave my babies intact (though I still have to convince my DH. He is on the fence and clings to the 1) like father like son arguement, and 2) that "sex is better for the woman when the man is circumcised" (he doesn't have any proof of that, he just believes it. LOL). Anyway, I do have an issue that I wanted to bring up.

I see in a lot of the posts here, and elsewhere, the statement that there are "NO medical benefits" to circumcision. From my research it seems that the more accurate statement is to say that the "slight medical benefits it provides are outweighed by the medical risks." These are very different statements to me, and, again, based on the research I have done, the second sentence seems more medically accurate (e.g. the risk of UTIs is slightly lower in circumsized children, there is a slight decrease in penile cancer risk, etc. but that those benefits, to the extent they exist, are outweighed by the risks of the surgery, including, among others, complications, pain, infection, and even dealth such that on the whole it is not medically recommended or needed.)

Sometimes I wonder if the "there is NO medical benefit" statement by anti-circ activists could potentially hurt the cause. If the slight benefits are totally ignored in the rhetoric then it seems like people either aren't aware of them or are trying to assume them away, which hurts the cause because people could say that we are exaggerating or spinning the facts.

Does this make sense at all?

edited to correct statement re: sexual pleasure (see next post)


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think the benefits are so slight it's safe to ignore them.

For example, the risk of penile cancer is something like 1 in 100,000. The risk of breast cancer is 1 in 9. Mastectomy at birth would have significant medical benefits, compared to the one penis that would be spared from cancer if 100,000 circs were performed.

Did you mean women like sex better with circed or uncirced men? It says uncirced men in your post. I suspect that all women are different, and that most would be open to both. At the risk of TMI, I'll say that with both oral sex and sexual intercourse I did not notice any difference.

BTW, they sell vibrators that are made to feel like an uncut man. Women buy them, so it must not be a bad thing after all!

As for UTI, breastfeeding offers the same protection. And about looking like dad, well, if you had a daughter, would she look like you? I have a tattoo, but that's no reason to give my baby one. I think fathers and sons generally don't spend a lot of time comparing their penises.

My dh's mind was changed when he read the Fleiss articles.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Greaseball,

thansk for the reply. oops, I did mean circumsized, not uncirc'd. I fixed it.

His sexual pleasure theory is that the distinct lip or ridge or whatever it is called (where the head meets the shaft) causes more sexual pleasure for the woman than does the smoother shape of an intact one. I doubt that is true, but can't really verify it through personal experience...

Also, forgot to add, he had a friend in school who had to be circumcised at 14, and it was very traumatic for him at that age, so he is afraid of that too...

but back to the main topic...does the "reactionary" language of "No medical benefit" lessen the credibility of anti-circ activists?


----------



## sahli29 (Jan 23, 2004)

//


----------



## house elf (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:

His sexual pleasure theory is that the distinct lip or ridge or whatever it is called (where the head meets the shaft) causes more sexual pleasure for the woman than does the smoother shape of an intact one.
He does know that the foreskin retracts, right?

I wonder if this page would be beneficial to him. I know my formerly pro-circ DH was surprised that these were intact penises.

It does have pictures of erect penises, so steet clear if that kind of thing offends you (or if you are at work!)
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html


----------



## Ackray (Feb 11, 2004)

I think that it would be best for him to do the research and try to find articles and information supporting his side of this to convince *you*. I haven't looked, but I doubt that there is very much info out there saying what a great beneficial thing it is to circ. While researching he is going to come across all of the many reasons not to do it and will hopefully change his side of the debate.

I have never bought the like father like son thing... No ones's penis looks just like another and do people really sit there and compare!?







And I have always heard the oppocite about the intercourse feeling better for both men and women topic.

Good Luck!


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

thanks all for your ideas for convincing DH. Ackray, I definetly think your point is really important...why should I have to convince him, let him try to convince me. I am definitely interestied in looking at the photos on the circumstitions page...but I will wait until I get home from work. LOL.

but, back to the main issue again...

Are we doing the cause a disservice when we deny the existence of the medical benefits that might exist, even if they are slight?


----------



## ~Jenna~ (Dec 7, 2003)

I wish I could remember where I was reading this info I found, but some newer studies are showing that circ'ing can actually _increase_ the risk of UTI's. And I've also read that studies are also showing that circ'ing doesn't protect against sexually transmitted diseases either...so I say there are NO medical benefits, not even slight ones.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

One thing to keep in mind is that the "medical benefits" have changed over time.

Get yourself a copy of the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision by Dr. Paul M. Fleiss, a practicing pediatrician in California. Chapter 8 deals with this very question.

He states that even as late as the 60s and 70s, parents were being told that circ would "cure" masturbation, convulsions, nervousness (mental illness), night terrors, and epilepsy.

Fleiss goes on to state, "The strange fact is that the promoters of infant circumcision keep changing the list of supposed 'benefits.' As soon as one 'benefit' is disproved, they invent another one to take its place. There is no other surgery in all of medicine like this. Imagine if doctors were still trying to find justifications for other common nineteenth-century surgical horrors such as bloodletting, trepanning (drilling holes in the skull), clitoridectomy, castration, etc."

He also devotes a couple of pages to disproving the UTI link. He states, "Objective scientific studies have found that UTIs are almost exclusively limited to boys with urinary tract anomalies....the foreskin has nothing to do with this."

So, both circ'd boys and intact boys can get UTI's if their plumbing isn't "structured" right.

Also, God and/or Mother Nature knows what he/she is doing. Especially in a reproductive area, natural selection would have certainly weeded out a part of the body that was medically problematic.

So, no, I don't believe (and neither does Dr. Fleiss) that any "benefits" exist, even slightly. It's just that circ promoters keep coming up with new issues with which to scare parents, for financial/cultural/egotistical/psychological reasons that Fleiss explains in detail.

Also, around these parts, we tend to say "intact" rather than "uncirc'd." Because "uncirc'd _tends_ to imply that it should have happened, but didn't. Also, I still have both breasts, but that does not make me "unmascetomized." And I still have my appendix, but that does not make me "unappendectomized." You get the point.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

PS. If I may also throw in advice concerning dealing with your dh. I think you have to simultaneously take a hard line and a gentle stance. (Yes, that is possible to do both.)

You have to let him know that you love him JUST the way he is ("no, honey, of course I don't have a problem with _your_ penis") while taking the hard-line stance that circ *will not* , absolutely will not, happen to your son. Only over your dead body. End of discussion.

Men tend to come to a crossroads when they have sons. Keeping a son intact often causes them to face their own circ (mutilation), which can be psychologically painful, while circ'ing a son allows them to continue in blissful denial that circ is what is "normal." A mama has got to be sensitive to her husband while also protecting her son from her husband's ego. It's a tough balancing act, but I know you can do it!

And many mamas say, "Well, I don't have a penis, so perhaps it shouldn't be my decision." Honey, you don't have to have literal balls to protect your son--ya' just gotta have "balls" as in courage!! No, you don't have a penis, but your helpless, defenseless, trusting son does. Go protect it. (This last paragraph is more in general than aimed at you.)


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

As for the "look like dad thing, I hope you realize that is for the father's benefit. That's so that he doesn't have what is confronting him in front of him all of the time. There is no benefit to the son.

As for sexual pleasure for his partner, the foreskin retracts during intercourse so that the coronal ridge is exposed. You can tell him that is a non-issue. However, the immoblie shaft skin of the circumcised penis can be a considerable source of irritation for his partner. How's that for turning the issue around on him?

There are all kinds of "supposed" medical benefits. It seems there is a new one coming out every week from those who support or profit from circumcision. However, for every study that says there is a benefit, there are two that say there is none and even far more risk from circumcision. For instance, It is said that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer by 1/3. However, non-circumcising European countries have a far lower rate of penile cancer than the predominately circumcised America. How do you account for that? The fact that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Urological Association as well as every other medical association in the world has been searching for a medical benefit for more than 130 years and has yet to find one has me convinced that if one is ever found, it will be very insignificant. What do you think? I don't think we are overstating our case when we say "There are no known medical benefits." Wouldn't you agree with that? I think that is a very accurate statement of the facts.

I see a lot of exaggeration on the other side. I think that comes from not researching the issue. They tend to parrott what they have heard instead of basing their statements on medical research. However, since most everyone has heard at least some of the old myths, they tend to believe them The fact is, if you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it. That is certainly the case with this one. Is it possible that you have heard the myths for so long that they are easier to believe than the medical research? I think that may be the case. However, I do see you questioning them and I think you are about to embark on a journey of discovery. Congratulations!

Frank


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

There's a website out there with just pictures of "mutilated" circs, from gay porn. I sat down with my husband to page through them. That's what convinced him, that all those "normal" men were still mutilated.

But then again, we are the kind of people who yell from the back room, "hey hon, some look at this freaky dick!"

If you're anti-porn, I don't think that tactic would work well at all.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Frankly Speaking_
*As for sexual pleasure for his partner, the foreskin retracts during intercourse so that the coronal ridge is exposed. You can tell him that is a non-issue.*
Very good to know, thanks. He is particularly proud of his own "Coronal ridge" and is very concerned about passing it on... (OK, he is a little obsessed with it).

OK, one maybe TMI question, if anyone knows... If the coronal ridge is exposed, does it stay that way throught intercourse, or does it get covered up by the foreskin as it is moved in and out? (Wow, this is turning into the penthouse forum or something... But this is a MAJOR issue for him, so anything I can use to help out is appreciated.)


----------



## house elf (Dec 5, 2003)

Here is another link that may answer your question (no photos here, just drawings)
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

A quote from that page:

Quote:

During intercourse the loose skin of the intact penis slides up and down the shaft of the penis, stimulating the glans and the sensitive erogenous receptors of the foreskin itself. On the outstroke the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. This is known as the `gliding mechanism.'

The gliding mechanism is Nature's intended mechanism of intercourse. As such, it contributes greatly to sexual pleasure. Also, since more of the loose skin of the penis remains inside the vagina, the woman's natural lubrication is not drawn out to evaporate to a great extent, which makes sex easier without using artificial lubricants.

The prepuce is a highly innervated and vascularized genital structure. It is entirely lined with the peripenic muscle sheet. Specialized ecoptic sebaceous glans on the inner preputial surface produce natural emollients and lubricants necessary for normal sexual function. The primary orgasmic triggers are found in the preputial orifice and frenulum. When unfolded, the prepuce is large enough to cover the length and circumference of the erect penis and acts as a natural sheath through which the shaft glides during coitus. Only the presence and functions of the prepuce allow for physiologically normal coitus to occur as designed by nature.


----------



## momto3boys (May 15, 2003)

This reminds me of my dh. He thought in order to have a ridge you had to have one cut into you. He thought that is what circ was. He had no idea that it is there, the same as a circ guy, under the foreskin.

We did not circ our boys. And he is THANKFUL, HAPPY, JEALOUS that his sons have their whole penis.

It's one of the things he thanks me for (researching) often.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

My understanding about the penile/cervical cancer is that they test was done in an area where male promiscuity is very high. And since some cancer has been linked to HPV virus, an STD, its unclear how to interpret this data considering that in the culture the study was done most men had multiple prostitue partners. Whereas in America most men don't sleep with a lot of prostitutes.

I also understand that if the penis is cleaned regularly with water alone UTIs are the same as with circed men.

So given those things I can say, there is no clear or proven medical benefit.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*Very good to know, thanks. He is particularly proud of his own "Coronal ridge" and is very concerned about passing it on... (OK, he is a little obsessed with it).*
*

Wow- that's bizarre. How will he know... does he really expect that his baby will have a [email protected]* like his? It's going to be a little itty bitty baby penis... WHAT IF he doesn't have a [email protected]* like his dad? What if he is born with a teeny tiny micropenis... small even on the infantile penis standard? Would he have some sort of implant or something done to the baby? Is he going to ask his teenage son to show him an erection so thy can compare their coronal ridge? Is he going to mock the guy if his is not as impressive as dad thinks his own is? And what will he do if it's not? Or what if his son has one that's even BETTER (whatever THAT means) Doesn't he realise that sexual nerves are sexual nerves? That your penis is your penis and it's the only one you get? That a guy with a little tiny penis enjoys his penis just as much as a guy with a great big one? That your sexual pleasure is YOURS and not someone else's to control, destroy or manipulate?

That there isn't much you can o to change it (I'm talking size and shape)- so you have to work with what you have and that for him to presume that what he has is excuse me... GODS gift to women... is totally concieted and dumb? Yes... DUMB... sure he might have an impressive coronal ridge... that's his opinion... glad he likes it- but what does that have to do with anyone else? His son DOES inherit his penis from his father's genetic contribution.. that should be enough stroking for dad's ego there... not only does he inherit the penis... but also the FORESKIN which will be a pretty close approximation of his father's own foreskin which he ONCE posessed (and still posesses in every string of his own dna) until some other dude with a KNIFE decided to sexually violate him and hold his little baby unit in his hand and draw his own arbitrary line between the family jewels and the biohazard garbage... some dude went cutting on his fabulous unit... would he let some other dude walk up today and just go cutting on it however he wanted without him getting any say so? Then why is he so adamant about defending the arbitrary work someone did back then... does he even know he guy's name who left that scar on his [email protected]*?

Seriously since when was it cool for one dude to cut another dude's penis? Since when was it cool for one DUDE to say, I know just how much penis you can get by with and if you have any more than me- I will take it from you because I don't want you to have it. You can't have more than me because I have so much insecurity about myself that I am going to project it onto everone around me... either that or I am such an immature concieted full of myself meddling dominator that I can't imagine that other men can enjoy their sex organ without ME fixing it for them.

*

*Quote:*

OK, one maybe TMI question, if anyone knows... If the coronal ridge is exposed, does it stay that way throught intercourse, or does it get covered up by the foreskin as it is moved in and out? (Wow, this is turning into the penthouse forum or something... But this is a MAJOR issue for him, so anything I can use to help out is appreciated.)
Well- this TMI question is obviously not TMI if it's information that a person who is about to permenantly apply their own crippling standard onto someone else's body needs in order to BACK OFF.

It shows for one-an IGNORANCE of the FEMALE sexual response... and anatomy...

http://health.discovery.com/centers/...ia/vagina.html
"The internal walls of the vagina itself do not have a great supply of nerve endings, thus are not very sensitive to touch. The outer one-third of the vagina, especially near the opening, contains nearly 90 percent of the vaginal nerve endings and therefore is much more sensitive to touch than the inner two-thirds of the vaginal barrel. "

Unless a couple were to conduct their intercourse in the outer third of the vagina... the coronal ridge is something that is pretty much not even being registered in female sexual perception... so the correct answer to the question is "not that it even matters" what IS being registered is the tapping of the glans on the cervix, the stretch of the muscles of the pelvic floor and the external stimulation of the clitoris.

As for your question... it all depends on how the person wants to have sex- he could have sex in a way that his glans stayed covered most of the time, or he colld do it so it was exposed most of the time... however he wants... however he likes... it's HIS perogative...

...unless his father was to barge in the room in the middle of getting down and dirty with some hottie and say, "Hey there son, I noticed that a little bit of your foreskin might be folding over your glans there on the outstroke and I don't like that one bit, no sir-eee son I don't like that at ALL- stopwhat you are doing right away or i WILL HAVE TO HOLD YOUR SHAFT SKIN TAUGHT WITH MY OWN HAND! i MUST HAVE TOTAL control over the way your penis skin moves while you have sex or I will be extremely upset! If your glans is not exposed 100% of the time while your penis is inside that girl's body I march you right down to Dr. Likestoslice and cut off half of your penis skin... YOU MUST preform exactly HOW I do... that is the DUTY of a son... It is my duty as a father to be SURE you comply- this is our family tradition!!"

Is that REALLY what your husband would be like in terms of your son's sexuality... because that's what we are talking about here.

When he puts HIS scar on his son's penis--- it's like keeping his hand there for the rest of that guy's life... a way of sexually controling that boy no matter where he is... even after his father is dead and gone- Dad will still have his grip on it- keeping that shaft skin tight.

I never used a "vaginacam" to spy on the unfurling action of a lover's foreskin when we were in the middle of intercourse... would it really matter? No... whatever it was that was happening- felt good. And I never felt like I had been rubbed raw when my lover was intact. That's because of the muscles of the vaginal floor, hugging on the base of the penis- there was still some movement there for the full length of the stroke- like nature designed it to work. Circumcision has a most definate negative effect of adding abrasive friction into the mix of other very pleasurable sensations.

Circumcision, by destroying the NORMAL sexual function of providing a movable sheath of skin which buffers the abrasion between the vagina and erectile tissue of the penis... will shift an unnaturally large responsibility of sexual comfort and function on to the FEMALE lubriation ability... you will notice that the Discovery article devoted almost half of their description of the female sex organ into a description of how females sexually malfunction by not being able to physically COMPENSATE for the unnatural immobility of the sex organ of their circumcised partrners... DUH- wake up America... it's not that women are frigid... it's that some DOCTOR- messed with a guys penis and has shifted an abnormal expectation onto a woman to compensate for American men are now sexually lacking.

"I would gladly cut your baby today, and sell his wife some Avlamil tomorrow."

Ask your husband to figure out how people, FATHERS, were buying the original anti masturbation hysteria that cutting off a forskin would stop masturbation... I'm sure he thinks the whole idea is absurd, that he can't imagine that HE has been crippled or hindered in any way... but how was it these other men even BOUGHT that idea? What did they know about having a foreskin and masturbating with one- that they could even IMAGINE that cutting it off would totally ruin a guy's enjoyment of touching himself?

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/
1888"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."

John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young," Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295."


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

House Elf---

Thanks for the pics, but honestly:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Was one of the sickest things I have every seen. I am honestly about to uke

How anyone could possibly subject their child to that is beyond me.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

My understanding about the penile/cervical cancer is that they test was done in an area where male promiscuity is very high.








T
Where is it NOT high?:LOL


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Megan:

The study you are refering to did not include penile cancer but you are right about there being all of those holes in it. There were many more holes in the study than just what you mentioned.

Frank


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sarah_
*Wow- that's bizarre. How will he know... does he really expect that his baby will have a [email protected]* like his? It's going to be a little itty bitty baby penis... WHAT IF he doesn't have a [email protected]* like his dad? What if he is born with a teeny tiny micropenis... small even on the infantile penis standard? Would he have some sort of implant or something done to the baby? Is he going to ask his teenage son to show him an erection so thy can compare their coronal ridge? Is he going to mock the guy if his is not as impressive as dad thinks his own is? And what will he do if it's not?

****

That there isn't much you can o to change it (I'm talking size and shape)- so you have to work with what you have and that for him to presume that what he has is excuse me... GODS gift to women... is totally concieted and dumb? Yes... DUMB... sure he might have an impressive coronal ridge... that's his opinion... glad he likes it- but what does that have to do with anyone else?
*

Hi Sarah,

um, WOW, that was kind of an unnecessary personal attack.

I am not going to go back through it and defend my DH. It isn't really worth my time to do so here, and it matters to me not at all what you think about him. But seriously, it doesn't seem necessary to be so caustic.

Quote:

*It shows for one-an IGNORANCE of the FEMALE sexual response... and anatomy...

Unless a couple were to conduct their intercourse in the outer third of the vagina... the coronal ridge is something that is pretty much not even being registered in female sexual perception... so the correct answer to the question is "not that it even matters" what IS being registered is the tapping of the glans on the cervix, the stretch of the muscles of the pelvic floor and the external stimulation of the clitoris.*

Again, don't understand the need for the rudeness, but...as to this issue, I am aware of the female sexual response, as is my DH, and it is precisely the outer third with which this issue is directed, actually more like the outer 1/10th (the opening itself). The ridge can definitely be felt there. But it sounds like the skin can be held back to keep the ridge exposed, so it doesn't sound like that sensation will necessarily be lost.

Another, sort of related issue, is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit, since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt). Obviously this is inversely proportional to age, though, so while it may really help out a 17 year old, it will probably work against a 45 year old. And obviously this is an incredibly minor issue in making this decision.

For both myself and DH, the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. I am still doing my research on those. I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. I feel like the closer you get to the source, the better the information is. Otherwise people can selectively point to certain studies and not to others, etc.

If it turns out, based on all the research, that we would actually be doing our son a medical disservice by keeping him intact (which, at this point I very much doubt, but I won't decide until I am as knowledgeable as I can be about it) then that must be taken into account in making the decision. Right now the main medical issue for us is STDs.

(By the way, we did look through the pictures on circumstitions last night. That was interesting to see and helpful. thanks to whoever pointed me there).


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I don't know what you will need to research about pain...of course it hurts. But I can give you an example of some of the arguments you may hear.

One is that babies don't feel pain. All you would have to do is watch a baby getting a shot and then watch an adult get a shot and see who looks like they are feeling more pain.

Another is that babies often sleep through circ. What is happening is the baby is passing out from the pain. Adults often "go to sleep" after being in extreme pain, such as having a finger cut off. Some people say it didn't hurt because the baby didn't cry, but adults who get shot with guns don't usually cry.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Yeah, I figure the pain one will be easier to research. From what I have researched so far, the arguemtn that babies don't feel pain is pretty much totally unsupported. So for me there is no question at all that the only way it should ever be done is with anesthesia. So the questions I need to research with respect to pain/anesthesia are 1) what are the side effects of the anesthesia, 2) what are the lingering pain effects after the anesthesia wears off 3) what long term effect would that residual pain have? I am sure there are other questions, but these are the ones that come to mind.

edited to add a few more questions: 4) how well does the anesthesia work; 5) how can you determine that it has numbed the area (its not like you can really ask the baby)


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

The administration of anesthesia hurts. If you have ever had any dental work and had a shot of novocaine, you might know what I'm talking about. (Though I've noticed, when I have my dentist do the shot instead of the assistant, it doesn't hurt! So it might depend on the skill level of who is giving it.)

I've had some real idiots give me shots before. Some hit the wrong nerve, so instead of numbing the tooth they would numb the whole throat, while leaving all the feeling in the tooth.

What some people try and do is coat the penis with a topical anesthetic and let that take effect (can take an hour) and then give the shot. I doubt that would take away all the pain, though. Maybe it helps some.

Anesthesia swells the tissues, making an even cut difficult. The AAP recommends anesthesia if circ is being done, but not all hospitals will do it. Foreskins that have been treated with it are not eligible to be sold for use in beauty products, from what I've read on other threads here.

There are serious risks if it's not administered correctly. I think anyone wanting it done should insist on an anesthesiologist and an experienced surgeon, not an intern or a nurse.

It seems obvious that there would be some lingering pain. When teenagers want to be circed (an example are young boys who immigrate to the US and who are from countries where circ is performed on the 18th birthday) they are given general anesthesia and then have to take it easy for a while. It doesn't hurt less for babies, it's just cheaper and easier (for the adults involved) to do it that way.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*The administration of anesthesia hurts. ****

What some people try and do is coat the penis with a topical anesthetic and let that take effect (can take an hour) and then give the shot. I doubt that would take away all the pain, though. Maybe it helps some.*

Yeah, that's what I'd hope they'd do. I know my dentist uses something like that and it does take the edge off of the shot, though of course it still hurts some.

Quote:

*I've had some real idiots give me shots before. Some hit the wrong nerve, so instead of numbing the tooth they would numb the whole throat, while leaving all the feeling in the tooth..*

This is definitely a concern for me. I would definitely only consider having a very good anesthesiologist and an experienced surgeon (again, if we decide to go this route, which I doubt).

Quote:

*It seems obvious that there would be some lingering pain. When teenagers want to be circed (an example are young boys who immigrate to the US and who are from countries where circ is performed on the 18th birthday) they are given general anesthesia and then have to take it easy for a while. It doesn't hurt less for babies, it's just cheaper and easier (for the adults involved) to do it that way.*
Yeah, I am sure there is lingering pain. I just want to research to find out how much. (before anyone freaks out, saying, "why would you subject your baby to *any* pain at all", my response is, we would only choose to circumcise if we determined that it was in the best interest of the baby to do so. We would then weigh the pain (and all the other risks) against the benefits. Obviously if there is extreme pain (as there most likely is if it is done without anesthesia) that would weight much more heavily against circumcision than if there is only a small amount of pain. KWIM). As an extreme example of what I mean, If someone told me that babies felt some pain being buckled into their car seats I wouldn't choose to let them sit on the floor of the car loose... (obviously the risk/benefit analysis there is much diferent that it would be here, but you get my point).

With respect to the adult circumcision vs. infant circumcision, I would actually be surprised if the level of pain, etc. was as high in infant circumcision. ( I haven't researched this yet though, so I am just going on gut here.) There is a much larger incision for an adult (since the foreskin has obviously grown), and since clearly there would be a lot of psychological issues in the adult/teen that would be less so in an infant, and the memory issue as well, I guess.

*edited to add:*
A timely link posted in another thread seems to have some relevance to this issue:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...tract/92/6/791

although it is only a summary, and not the whole article, so I can't rely on it too much because I don't know the whole context. But it sems to suggest that there may be additional complications attendant to surgery performed after the neonatal period.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

When adults have elective surgery, they know what is happening and why, and they expect the pain. Babies have no idea what is going on or when it will stop; all they know is that it hurts. I think that adds to their experience of pain a great deal. I can deal with a lot of pain if I know it will be over sometime, and if I know why it's happening, but when something just hurts for no reason it's bad.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*When adults have elective surgery, they know what is happening and why, and they expect the pain. Babies have no idea what is going on or when it will stop; all they know is that it hurts. I think that adds to their experience of pain a great deal. I can deal with a lot of pain if I know it will be over sometime, and if I know why it's happening, but when something just hurts for no reason it's bad.*
Yeah, that is a good point. That may be true. On the other hand there is the whole "pulling off of a bandaid when you aren't looking" argument, or even, in a much more extreme example, the getting shot in the back of the head vs. the forehead... sorry, extreme I know, but for me the anticipation of pain is a terrible thing. When I know that something is about to happen that will hurt, the fear and axienty of the anticipatoin of the pain makes the pain itself worse. But i guess that wouldn't matter as much if general anesthesia was used, because then the most paoinful part would have occured while you were asleep....

But in any event, I think that young boys and adults identify a lot with their penises and I imagine that any pain in that region is magnified for that reason. Again, though, I'd have to check to see if there is any research available on it. And the medical complications of doing it later, if indeed there are any, would be a factor too.

(thanks for this back and forth Greaseball...its always good to get the mind's juices flowing, and nothing like a good discussion for that LOL. BTW, are we the only people on this darn board today or what...)


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

personal attack...

might be your take on it... I see it as a direct confrontation of an issue- mainly an adult man, who by your telling is obsessed with the form/function/look of his own penis head... and a little tiny baby who is about ot be born- and perhaps mutilated due to this man's self centered view of human sexuality being based off the "ideal" which is HIM. I view the mutilation of a child for that motivation as a PERSONAL ATTACK... (upon the baby)... as such- I was incensed to think that a father could not only THINK that way- but be legally ALLOWED to make such defining decisions based on egocentric and ill informed perceptions of human sensuality.

Caustic...

perhaps... have you ever had a clamp tightened onto your genital flesh until the blood supply was killed and bloodless cutting could begin? Have you ever had your teeny tiny infant sex organ ripped and torn and turned inside out to soothe the nervous adults in the room? That's caustic mom. I'll agree that my post was caustic... caustic is as caustic does.

defend your husband...

No, you don't need to do that- I know all about what his problem is... I know what these circumcised guys are up against. I know all about it... I know what is going on in their heads- you don't have to tell me. I have a pretty good idea what happens to you when you lose a substantial portion of your sex organ and you have to grow up believing that the unnatural look of your body and the scar on your sex organ was justified somehow... that you HAVE to believe that- because otherwise the other option- it's unspeakable... Yeah- they did that to my husband too... it happens to most victims of circumcisers... thats one of the problems of cutting babies- they can't get the context to frame it all in... they are just left grasping for straws...filling in their blank.

Maybe in twenty five years your own son, all puffed up on the supremacy of his own permenantly exposed coronal ridge will have a wife who sets out to find a medical justification for cutting her son too... because surely she wouldn't want to look in the mirror at herself and think that she was just mutilating their baby for purely sexual control and learned asthetic motivations... no a little bit of medical excuse goes a long way to feel better about an unnatural fixation on the PENIS of a BABY.

need for rudeness? There is none... rudeness is rudeness... like the time I was living in an apartment building and I heard the girl downstairs being strangled and I ran down the stairs with a ball bat and chased her boyfriend out of our building... that was RUDE...barging in a girls apartment and threatening her boyfriend with a weapon. I probably should have just polietly knocked and asked them to keep it down in there. Yeah, sorry I was RUDE... can I ask how you would react if someone was talking about cutting 30- 50% of a female's errogenous flesh off?

the outer 1/10? What are we talking about here? Are you talking about A. initial penetration? Or are you talking about B. a really short penis? Or are you talking about C. having sex by repetedly penetrating and repenetrating?

If the answer is A. being penetrated by an intact man is just as pleasurable as being penetrated by a circumcised man... if your husband is under the impression that the only reason he can make a woman squeak is BECAUSE someone cut his foreskin off... I'm sorry- he is giving his circumciser a lot more credit than that slicer deserves. And I will repeat- you both seem to have a lack of knowledge about male and female sexual function because the standard that you are trying to base your understanding from is one that is artificial- surgicly created.

"it sounds like the skin can be held back to keep the ridge exposed"

Would it be too much for me to ask you two to rent a porno before you thing about destroying this sexual anatomy on another person?... before you spend another hour looking for a medical reason... if you have never even seen this anatomy in action how is it that you have any idea what you are considering doing to this boy? Could you just go to an adult store and ask for something which features an actor who is not circumcised... what's it going to hurt... it's research. Could you do that?

I mean- if you can put your X on the line to authorise a sexual mutilation, I'd think you could at least get up the courage to rent a smut flick. Aren't you curious? How can you possibly be insulted by me calling the two of you out on your ignorance when you both obviously DON'T know. Bless YOU! Bless your marriage and your innocence... curse me and my whole sordid past... but I KNOW... and you are talking about cutting your BABY and you don't even know what it is you are doing to his sex organ. HOW can you frame this decision when your knowledge of the normal unmutilated male sex organ is NONE?

" is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit"

Ahah! sexual control rears it's ugly head in the name of sexual performance... It's ok to sexually control a man if it makes him last longer... just like it's ok to sexually control a woman if it makes her submissive to her husband... I see how it is... now we are talking! Women can't be true with a clitoris... men can't sexually preform with a foreskin? Is that how it goes? What do you think happens at night in France?

"since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt)."

Hmmm... interesting- you are trying to apply your abnormal model and reason it out in terms of normal anatomy. Have you considered FOR ONE SECOND... that the reason why YOU might have the idea that "MEN" suffer from "OVERSTIMULATION" is because your idea of MEN is exactly "CIRCUMCISED MEN WHO HAD THEIR INNER SEX ORGAN TURNED INSIDE OUT" that maybe MEN don't suffer from this... maybe CIRUCMSIED MEN do?... did you ever consider for a second that maybe that dreaded "penis head inside the foreskin during intercourse"... that it might be responsible for an intact guy's ability to continue to have sex without directly stimulating his glans... that might enable an intact man to continue to have sex for prolonged amounts of time without driving off the point of no return...that a circumcised guy has no option when he gets stimulated- it's all or nothing- here we go... "DING" did the light go on for you? I'm being as explicit as I think I can get away with here.

Did you ever consider that the (ehem) "extra" sensitivity that intact men have (it's not EXTRA) what if (oh my god!) that was not just more of that out of control here it comes and I can't stop it oh darn oh baseball oh no oh yes... sensitivity... what if it was made up of nerves that were the awh-yeaaaah now here we go now that's what I'm a talking about baby walk this way talk this way like this... like this... like this... nerves? Huh? Did I make the point? Why PRESUME the negative?... that those sexual feelings contained in the unique anatomy would have resulted in LESS SEXUAL CONTROL? What if your idea of oversexed men barely in control of their orgasms is based on the abnormal model of men who are MISSING the anatomy which would have ENABLED them to be connected to their nerves without routing through scars and abnormal anatomy?

Hmmm...

Sportscar.. more speed... fistfulls of breaks... fast curves... lot's of fun...

Truckdriver... "Aw no... I don't won't drive a sportscar- what would happen if you was going down a mountain pass an' your breaks went and burnt up- what then?"

See?

"the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. "

I don't buy it for a second. Why would you feel compelled to look into it at all... you think Europeans are morons (or lousy lovers for that matter?) No medical group in the WORLD recomends this.. and you think you still need to go out and scour for a medical excuse? No... it's not medical. Here- try this one:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/

" I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. "

GREAT! Would you do me a favor while you are at it... because I have yet to get the answer... Meatal stenosis- it's a circumcision complication that hits more than one in ten circumcised boys- yet that number is not reflected in the circumcision complication statistic reported by the AAP despite the fact that Meatal Stenosis is named among twenty other issues that are named as circumcision complications. If you can get the data on that- I would love to see it. See... I don't think the AAP has given us a very fair commentary on the actual studies.

Simmering down and amazingly if you can believe it... on your side...

Love Sarah


----------



## ~Jenna~ (Dec 7, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*Another, sort of related issue, is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit, since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt).*
*
*
*
Wow...I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous! I'm not even sure I know what to say about that. Intact men can control themselves MUCH better than circ'd men.

Quote:

I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. I feel like the closer you get to the source, the better the information is. Otherwise people can selectively point to certain studies and not to others, etc.
Then why did you bother to come here and ask for our commentary when it doesn't matter to you?

Quote:

Right now the main medical issue for us is STDs.
Gee I'm glad my parents didn't cut off any of my parts because they thought I'd be too stupid to use good judgement and protection







:.*


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the flurry of angry replies was only a matter of time. . . It was good while it lasted Greaseball...

Anyway, to respond:

Jenna--

Quote:

*Intact men can control themselves MUCH better than circ'd men.*

If that's true, that would be great! I'll obvioulsy have to do research on that to find out.

Quote:

*Then why did you bother to come here and ask for our commentary when it doesn't matter to you?*

I think it is good to get ideas from as many sources as possible, and I think that *productive dialog* about issues is one of the very best ways to flesh out opinions and thoughts.

that said, I still think that judgements should be made by getting the best information as possible. If I wanted to find out about the outcome of a certain study, obviously the best place to do so is to read the study itself. I hope to god that people aren't making important medical decisions based only on information they get based on other people's commentary (though sadly I think some do). I am sure we have all seen many instances where the things people say are just flat out wrong.

Sarah--
I can't really respond to most of your arguments since it mostly seems just like anger and emotion. I think its great that people feel strongly about things, and I commend them for their passion. But no matter what, I will never ever make any decision that affects my child based upon the passions, anger, or opinions of other people, or, even worse, my own attempt to fit in with what other people think is the "right" way to parent. And just because somebody says that one study is a bunch of hooey and another is a shrine to the scientific method in its most perfect form, I will not believe them without doing my own independent evalution.

I will address one specific comment though:

Quote:

*"the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. " I don't buy it for a second. Why would you feel compelled to look into it at all... you think Europeans are morons (or lousy lovers for that matter?) No medical group in the WORLD recomends this.. and you think you still need to go out and scour for a medical excuse? No... it's not medical.*

Well, frankly I don't really care if you "buy it" or not, but in any case, that is our overriding concern. (The sexual stuff came up as a side remark, but one that people seemed to be interested in talking about. I brought up the sexual issues we have thought about because that was the topic at hand, not because it is what we will base our decision on.)

I will go down every avenue, and every path of research, and every mode of discussion to try to get the best information possible to make this important decision.

The thing I think that happens a lot in these kinds of situations is "confirmation bias". It means that if people start out with a particular bias, they will tend to seek out information that confirms that bias, and inflate its importance, while they tend to avoid searching for, ignore, or minimize information that challenges that bias. Everyone does it to a certain degree, and it is a difficult thing to fight against. but I am trying to do so. If anything I have a bias toward thinking that circumcision is "bad". But I am not going to let that blind me or my research. I will look at every angle, and try to find every arguement for why it *should* be done in addition to every reason why it *shouldn't* be done. I believe that is the only real way to make such an important decision and that any other kind of evaluation does a disservice to our children. I will never choose to do something to my child if it will harm him just to make a political statement. If I find out that all the best evidence says that it is in his best interest to have him circumsized, I will do so. If I find otherwise, I will not. Its that simple.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

I forgot what I wanted to say about Medical groups. Although you state that *no medical group in the world* states that circumcision should be done, I wonder if that might be an exaggeration. (I haven't done a comprehensive study of the worlds medical groups, so I have no way to know if that statemetn is factually true.)

In any event, I am sure that you can admit that there are certainly studies that suggest that there are medical benefits to having circumcision done. You don't have to agree with those studies, if based upon your investigation their are flaws in the studies, but you can't deny that there are scientists who state that there are benefits. In fact the AAP and the AAFP both state that there *are medical benefits*, but that they are either not weighty enough to recommend having circumcision done as a matter of course, or that they should be weighed against the inherent risks in the operation before any decision to perform the surgery should be made. Also accepting the fact/admitting that there may be some slight benefits does not mean that you are embracing circumcision. I am perfectly capable of seeing both sides and weighing them in a rational manner. It doesn't seem necessary to try to excuse away every study that shows that there might be a correlation between a certain disease and being intact. In fact, the anti-circ community seems to cite certain studies a lot (like the ones that show a correlation between being circ'd and an increase in genital warts. Nobody seems to challenge the methodology of that study because it supports their postion. Suggest that there may be a link between syphillis and being intact though, and watch out!)


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

SaveTheWild, please pick up the Fleiss book I mentioned. Your research just won't be complete without having read it. He discusses the STD issue, as well. Another very informative book I'm reading now is Ron Goldman's Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

re: the Fleiss book. Yeah, he seems to be the person people around this board rely on a lot. I will read the book to get his perspective, but again, I won't rely on it unduly. I imagine the "goal" of his book is to "prove" that circumcision is bad. That's fine for him to do, and it will likely be a good way to get a challending perspective on the issue, but I certainly won't rely on it without doing a lot of challenging of his theories.

On the sexual issue, I wanted to say somethign else. I re-read my first post and it does make it sound like the sexual issue is a bigger deal to my DH than it really is. I made it sound like those were the things that made the difference to him, so I can understand why people focused on that, even though I was trying to make it a secondary issue, and trying to focus on the issue about "medical benefits." So I guess I brought it on myself. 
But I am glad I did, because I think a lot of interesting information came out of it; revelaing to me anyway.

Anyway, rest assured, if it matters to you, that that is just one of many many factors that will be taken into account, and one with not much weight (it was just a fun one to bring up, and one that we do talk about just because talking about "the ridge" is much more fun than talking about chlamydia....) LOL.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
1) like father like son arguement,
And what if Daddy was missing a finger or toe, or had red hair and the child had brown? Will Daddy also shave his pubic hair to match his son, or will he use something to make his son grow hair? When it comes down to it the father like son argument makes no sense at all.

Quote:

and 2) that "sex is better for the woman when the man is circumcised" (he doesn't have any proof of that, he just believes it. LOL).
Having been with both circed and intact I can say that intact is far better, for several reasons. With the circed guys it always was just thrusting. The intact guys can do a lot more and still feel good. A circed guy can't so much because of the loss of sensation. With a circed guy there's a problem of being too dry. Didn't happen with the intact guys. Overall it's just better with an intact guy.

Quote:

Anyway, I do have an issue that I wanted to bring up.

I see in a lot of the posts here, and elsewhere, the statement that there are "NO medical benefits" to circumcision. From my research it seems that the more accurate statement is to say that the "slight medical benefits it provides are outweighed by the medical risks."
Would you say the same about female circ? After all, there would be less chance of infection because if the tissue is removed then they can't have problems with that tissue right? You could say there are benefits of having any body part removed then. The benefits of removing the fingernails is you won't get hangnails or nail infections, plus it's cleaner and you won't have to cut them. See what I mean?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit
I've read books like Romberg's "Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma" that do cover people who were circed as adults, and almost all of them say it ruined their sex life because of the desensitization. An adult who was circed as a baby will claim that he is not desensitized, that "it works fine" because he doesn't know what he is missing. I think there was one man who thought it was a good thing, since he had always suffered from premature ejaculation.

If you don't have it done and he suffers from premature ejaculation as an adult, he can always have it done then. It's not like you miss the boat.

I wouldn't think STDs should be an issue. I would not feel safe having unprotected sex with a bunch of circed men, nor would I feel unsafe having protected sex with one uncirced man.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*
If it turns out, based on all the research, that we would actually be doing our son a medical disservice by keeping him intact (which, at this point I very much doubt, but I won't decide until I am as knowledgeable as I can be about it) then that must be taken into account in making the decision.

*
*
*
*

I just don't get this at all. How could something that ALL males are both with be bad? All mammals are born with one for that matter! Do we really have that much of a superiority complex that we think we know better than God/nature?

Quote:


Right now the main medical issue for us is STDs.
Would you cut part of your daughter's genitals off for the same reason? How about teaching safe sex instead of surgery?*


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*
With respect to the adult circumcision vs. infant circumcision, I would actually be surprised if the level of pain, etc. was as high in infant circumcision. ( I haven't researched this yet though, so I am just going on gut here.) There is a much larger incision for an adult (since the foreskin has obviously grown), and since clearly there would be a lot of psychological issues in the adult/teen that would be less so in an infant, and the memory issue as well, I guess.*
*
*
*
If you compare the bodies the area that's being cut is the same. Men get put under and don't feel anything. They also get pain meds after. Babies don't. In most cases their foreskin already retracts. In babies it has to be torn from the glans. Babies "remember" circ. You really need to read these:

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/*


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AnnMarie_
*Having been with both circed and intact I can say that intact is far better, for several reasons. With the circed guys it always was just thrusting. The intact guys can do a lot more and still feel good. A circed guy can't so much because of the loss of sensation. With a circed guy there's a problem of being too dry. Didn't happen with the intact guys. Overall it's just better with an intact guy.*

Cool, thanks for that info. Personal experience is always one of the best sources of info! Since there is no chance of my having sex with an intact man I can only rely on the experience of others.

Quote:

*"From my research it seems that the more accurate statement is to say that the "slight medical benefits it provides are outweighed by the medical risks." Would you say the same about female circ? After all, there would be less chance of infection because if the tissue is removed then they can't have problems with that tissue right? You could say there are benefits of having any body part removed then. The benefits of removing the fingernails is you won't get hangnails or nail infections, plus it's cleaner and you won't have to cut them. See what I mean?*
Of course I would, because that would be the most honest and correct thing to say. I would say "here are the benefits" and "here are the risks" and one outweighs the other. Obviously in those examples the costs *grossly* outweigh the benefits, so you don't do it. Simple as that.

Removing breasts is a great example. There are definitely benefits with removing brests, with respect to reduction of the chance of breast cancer. That seems to be a pretty clear fact. There is no reason to deny it. But likewise, that doesn't mean that the breasts should be removed, because you have to weigh it against the risks and other costs associated with it. Including psychological, physiological, etc. Pretending that there aren't benefits, however, is just dishonest.

And, just like with everything, the cost/benefit analysis is going to be different for everyone. For a woman who is at particularly high risk for breast cancer (e.g. mom, all maternal aunts, all sisters have had it and she had a DNA test that said she will likely get it). Her cost/benefit analysis is going to be skewed very differently that someone with little risk. For someone to say "no parent should ever decide to have their child's breasts removed" is ignoring the fact that that cost/benefit analysis might be drastically different for different people.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by ~Jenna~_
*Wow...I'm sorry but that is absolutely ridiculous! I'm not even sure I know what to say about that. Intact men can control themselves MUCH better than circ'd men.*
ITA!! About 50% of the circed guys I have been with have had a problem with lasting. Another one had a crooked penis from his circ being so tight. The intact men I have been with didn't have a problem with either. Even if they did have a "problem" with it, it doesn't matter. That means that's how nature designed it to be.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Jenna and AnnMarie --

again, thanks for the insight from experience. Always helpful. (though I assume neither of you had sample sizes large enough to really call it a scientific study. LOL)


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

At the risk of making the OP even more defensive....

.....are you really going to review ALL the studies on circumcision? Over the past 150 years? Even the ones that "show" that circumcision cures epilepsy? And other diseases that we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that circumcision has nothing to do with? But really, how are you going to distinguish between legitimate studies and illegitimate ones?

And speaking of confirmation bias, how are you going to determine whether and how the pre-existing biases of circumcision researchers affected the study design and outcomes of the studies? Look at the history of circumcision research - it's all about confirmation bias and the search for a rationale for this surgery. In fact, I strongly recommend you read David Gollaher's book on the history of circumcision, paying special attention to the history of circumcision and circumcision research in this country.

And which other body parts are you going to conduct this cost-benefit analysis for to determine whether they should be removed? I'm serious. What makes the foreskin so unique in its superfluousness that it, and it alone, is worthy of consideration for amputation?

And are you going to conduct a similar analysis for your daughter about the benefits of removing the hood of her clitoris and labia? Those are the analogous parts on a woman. Would you want to have your clitoral hood and labia removed? Without your consent?

Speaking of research, you will be interested to read what is lost in circumcision (with references, of course):

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

http://research.cirp.org/

http://research.cirp.org/links1.html

Finally, I submit you have another area for research. You need to research the ethical aspects of cutting off a necessary and important part of your son's body when no immediate medical reason presents itself. Why do you have the right to make this decision about your son's body? What other body parts do you have the right to cut off? Where does your son's right to bodily integrity begin, if not with his genitals? Obviously my questions could be termed biased, but I believe you need to think about your fundamental premise that you have the ethical right to decide whether to cut your son's genitals.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*Jenna and AnnMarie --

again, thanks for the insight from experience. Always helpful. (though I assume neither of you had sample sizes large enough to really call it a scientific study. LOL)*
LOL Not that many, but enough to know what's best.

BTW, you and your husband can know a little of what it's like to have sex with an intact man/being intact. He could restore his foreskin. But for a quicker way, there is a thing that he can wear that's like a sock that keeps the glans protected so it's softer and it helps with sensitivity a little. It's not the same thing, but it can give him an idea of what was lost when he was circed.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
Of course I would, because that would be the most honest and correct thing to say. I would say "here are the benefits" and "here are the risks" and one outweighs the other. Obviously in those examples the costs *grossly* outweigh the benefits, so you don't do it. Simple as that.
I think it should be obvious that when you cut off part of the penis the risks grossly outweigh any possible benefits. I think that's true of any healthy body part.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Quirky_
*At the risk of making the OP even more defensive....

.....are you really going to review ALL the studies on circumcision? Over the past 150 years? Even the ones that "show" that circumcision cures epilepsy? And other diseases that we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that circumcision has nothing to do with? But really, how are you going to distinguish between legitimate studies and illegitimate ones?*

I am actually not feeling that defensive, so no need to worry about that.

nope I certainly am not going to review all the medical studies over the past 150 years. couldn't do it, and, as you point out, medical science has progressed, and other studies have shown the earlier studies to be wrong. I will do what I can to get as broad a perspective as possible. I certainly don't think that anyone should avoid doing independent research simply because they wouldn't be able to look at everything. There is obviously a balance that has to be made.

Quote:

*And speaking of confirmation bias, how are you going to determine whether and how the pre-existing biases of circumcision researchers affected the study design and outcomes of the studies? Look at the history of circumcision research - it's all about confirmation bias and the search for a rationale for this surgery.*

Yup, that is always the rub! It's really hard to know, so I will do what I can. Obviously gettin insight from people about what the strengths and weaknesses of a particular study are is helpful, then I can use those opinions to go back and look at the study and make my own determination as to whether they apply. Of couse it is a flawed system, but everything is. I sincerely believe it is better than placing the decision in the hands of someone else which is what would happen if I relied too heavily on the opinion of one "expert."

Quote:

*And which other body parts are you going to conduct this cost-benefit analysis for to determine whether they should be removed? I'm serious. What makes the foreskin so unique in its superfluousness that it, and it alone, is worthy of consideration for amputation?*

I guess my only honest answer here is that I would do an analysis on anything that was brought to my attention, if there was reason to believe that there may truely be a benefit that would outweigh the respective costs.
I think a lot of people see "cost/benefit analysis" as a bad thing. It isn't. It should be considered a good way to make important decisions. The key is to make sure you take into account as many factors as you can. If you did a cost benefit analysis on only the medical issues and left out the psycological, or sexual or ethical, you would only be getting part of the picture.

Quote:

*I submit you have another area for research. You need to research the ethical aspects of cutting off a necessary and important part of your son's body when no immediate medical reason presents itself.*
Yep, of course that is a factor that will play heavily into the decision. To do otherwise would be dishonest.


----------



## shelbean91 (May 11, 2002)

If you research the frequency of UTIs in circ'd vs intact males- from what I remember (and I'm definitely the keeper of the facts and links here, I'll leave that to the others) the circ'd males DO have a SLIGHTLY lower risk of UTIs, but even with the higher risk of intact boys, girls still have a MUCH, MUCH higher rates of UTIs. (I'm sorry, I don't have stats, don't remember where I saw that, but you said you're researching, so something to check.) I've had several UTIs throughout my life, dd has had 2 and she's only 3, ds has had none, he's almost 2 and intact.

Also, when researching the pain after, someone mentioned adults get pain meds and babies don't, which is true. Another major difference btw adults and infants is adults are potty trained and don't have an open would sitting in urine and feces for extended periods of time. (This was one of the major things that turned me off to circ- in addition to seeing the video. After the video, any medical 'benefits' are really out the window.) I couldn't imagine #1- having an open wound in urine (every time I peed after I had an episiotomy, I cried for a week- it hurt that much, even with advil for pain) and #2-having to wipe poop off that same open wound.

I've also read (someone else can back me up with links, if needed) that circing a baby takes about 1/3 of the penis off. That's a lot of skin, not just a little 'snip'. I've seen 2 circ'd baby penis' and about 3 intact penis' (including ds) since ds was born and the circ'd babies do look a lot smaller. Now, for me to see ds intact wasn't strange b/c before he was born, I had never seen a baby penis at all.

When I was in the hospital after dd was born, they had a 'caring for your newborn' channel where they showed how to care for a circ. I saw how awful that wound looked and knew I couldn't do it.

Now, what you've said of there being NO medical benefits may be true, but the risks are much greater, IMO and the medical 'benefits' are just grasping at straws. Again, if circ'd men are lowering the risk of penile cancer, we should do mastectomies on all girls b/c breast cancer is a much more common form of cancer.

Not to mention, lots of men in our generation are circ'd, even if their own dads aren't- b/c the babies were taken and circ'd without consent. (My brother wasn't going to be circ'd, but they did it first- got 'consent' later after convincing my mom how much better it was-maybe to cover their own butts; my uncle (who is in his 40s) was circ'd when he got his tonsils out- again, without consent.)

On the sexual issue- someone here had a link showing the countries with the highes circ rate also has the highest rate of Viagra use, intact countries have a very low rate of Viagra use. Something else to think about and research.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*re: the Fleiss book. Yeah, he seems to be the person people around this board rely on a lot. I will read the book to get his perspective, but again, I won't rely on it unduly. I imagine the "goal" of his book is to "prove" that circumcision is bad. That's fine for him to do, and it will likely be a good way to get a challending perspective on the issue, but I certainly won't rely on it without doing a lot of challenging of his theories.

*
I'm glad you'll be reading it with a critical mind. But, mostly, I'm just glad you'll be reading it. He started out performing circs himself. But the situation mattered to him, so he did a lot of research. He ends the book with nearly 50 pages of source notes, so it's certainly not just his opinion.

BTW, I can't put the Goldman book down (_Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma_ . It explores the psychological issues (of infants, parents, doctors, society) surrounding circ. He quotes a lot of research, as well.

For me, it boiled down to genital integrity--my son deserved to keep his body the way he was born. He didn't need to go through surgery merely for being born male. If a reproductive area (like the penis) were so problematic, I think natural selection would have killed us off long ago!

Sometimes our discussions around here get kind of tense. I find that unfortunate. I sense that the tension has put you on the defensive, understandably.

A previous poster (Quirky, I think) brought up a good point -- why would circ be any more of a legitimate "cure" for AIDS and UTIs than for masturbation, epilepsy, and mental illness? Perhaps our current fears drive the equation more than anything else? (Which is something that Goldman explores in depth.)

Here's another thought--you don't have to circ on day 1. You can wait six months, or longer. You can take as much time as you need/want to research this issue and feel confident about your decision. After all, if you circ, it can't be undone.

Kind of off-topic: Goldman mentions that Blue Shield insurance covered the procedure of female genital mutilation until 1977!! Yikes!


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Shelbean91-

thanks. those are all very interesting issues to think about, and are exactly in line with the stuff I have found so far say. Yeah, and the pain stuff makes sense with respect to the diaper situation. (though I still need to look into the issue of post-infancy circumcision to see what the complication are -- though again this would only be an issue if I determined that it "should be" done, at that point my next question would be "when"?)

Somemama --
thanks to you too. I think "genital integrity" is definitely an important factor as well.

Quote:

*Sometimes our discussions around here get kind of tense. I find that unfortunate. I sense that the tension has put you on the defensive, understandably.*

With respect to the "defensiveness" issue... I am really not a particularly sensitive person, and I quite enjoy healthy robust debates and discussions... I do get turned off by people who approach a situation in high attack mode, and come out swining with person attacks. I think it ends up stunting healthy debate more often than anything else, and resulting in a loss of information flow (e.g. I think its natural to be more receptive of a point when the person is making it calmly and logically rather than when they are "yelling" it at you and making angry personal comments.) It doesn't really upset me personally (well sometimes it does LOL) ... mostly it just disappoints me. a wasted opportunity for meaningful discussion.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Kind of off-topic: Goldman mentions that Blue Shield insurance covered the procedure of female genital mutilation until 1977!! Yikes!
I thought the last FGM in the US was done in 1948! (According to Eve Ensler, Vagina Monologues).

I hear it's traditional in catholic families in Mexico to make an incision on the clitoris in the shape of a cross. Illegal in the US now, but maybe that's what was done in the 70s?

Now that I think about it, the one in 1948 was a complete removal of the clitoris, on a 5-year-old girl.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I thought the last FGM in the US was done in 1948! (According to Eve Ensler, Vagina Monologues).

*
Nope, wrong. In 1991, 8 FGM's were performed.

Also another thought to SaveTheWild-- I'm not sure exactly what you have against Fleiss?


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Women still have this done in this country, but voluntarily. Many believe it increases sensation.

uke circlist: http://www.circlist.com/femalecirc/anatfemale.html

"Labiaplasty

Below is the text of an article, New hot cosmetic surgery for women, from the Toronto Globe and Mail, Tuesday, 10 November 1998 by Krista Foss, Health Reporter

At Dr. Robert Stubbs's office, they call it the Toronto Trim.

For the past 12 years, women have come to him from all over North America to have their labia minora -- the flaps of skin that form the lips of a woman's genitalia and surround the clitoris and vaginal opening -- reduced.

It's not a cosmetic alteration that ranks up there in popularity with breast augmentation, but recently Dr. Stubbs has been performing the surgery more than ever -- as often as once a month."

Be warned there is a before and after picture on the bottom of the page.

Here's another link: http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/se...hancement.html


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I did read of a procedure a few years ago for women that was really close to a circ. The hood of the clitoris was removed, and the reasoning was that it would make the clitoris more accessible for easier orgasm.

It made the clitoris so sensitive that it could not be touched, and then after it was no longer painful it lost sensation. It must be what happens to penises.

I think I read this in Cosmopolitan, though...


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I did read of a procedure a few years ago for women that was really close to a circ. The hood of the clitoris was removed, and the reasoning was that it would make the clitoris more accessible for easier orgasm.

It made the clitoris so sensitive that it could not be touched, and then after it was no longer painful it lost sensation. It must be what happens to penises.

I think I read this in Cosmopolitan, though...*
Yup, it's true. Check out the second link in my last post.

uke Go to yahoo and do a search for "Dr. Pamela Loftus photos."


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by somemama_
*Also another thought to SaveTheWild-- I'm not sure exactly what you have against Fleiss?*
Nothing at all. I would be treating any expert the same way -- with critical thought and not swallowing their opiniion as fact without doing my own research. I am sure he has a lot of good things to say.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

After the stress of single or multiple childbirth, vaginal tissues tend to lose their tone, often resulting in an increase in the width of the vaginal canal. During sexual intercourse, this added width can result in less friction, and decreased pleasure for both partners. Even with regular exercise, including Kegal exercise, vaginal tone may not improve.
Why can't the man just have surgery to make his penis bigger?!

OK, there is something seriously wrong with this woman:

Quote:

My GYN was hesitant to do it and I had to tell her several times how much trouble I was having reaching orgasm during intercourse because I had such a long hood. Finally I said I would do it myself if she refused.

Quote:

As far as the hypersensitivity issue, it's more a matter of getting used to the feeling and mentally putting it out of your mind until you have sex.
Why should any part of your body have to "be put out of your mind"?









And this one:

Quote:

I think that all women should consider have their hoods removed as it would aid in cleanliness of the area and grreatly improving orgasm!
No thanks!


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Wild... Two things...

I agree with much of what you have said about research- to go to the source.. good. Now- what I want to know is how you are trying to do this without any firsthand knowledge of normal unaltered male anatomy- how are you going to factor that into your research? You are not in a position to be objective if you are trying to compare facts about the known to the unknown.

Next- circling all the way back to the original post and the question of BENEFITS.... sure there is some medical evidence that has (through criminally assaulting babies without their consent, pain relief, or the standards of scientific study) been gathered over time which have bolstered some theories that what had been done to those children might be thought of as "beneficial"

(Would you support cutting the genitals of hundreds of thousands of females to study the differences between them and the uncut females? Would a scientist be allowed to do that to a girl? Could they conduct studies on her pain experience of the non-beneficial cutting? Measure her blood cortisol levels and the pitch of her screams?)

Lets just grab ONE of these "benefits" let's think about UTI in the first year of life. Maybe circumcision does reduce the incidence of UTI in circumcised boys during the first year. (I'm not entirely convinced that the medical evidence is sound- I think the study was done with very poor controls and I think the protective effects of breastfeeding must ALSO be controled for...) but... let's just say this is a known benefit.

#1- it's a statisical benefit... not a personal one... the LOSS... that's personal. If circumcisd boys have a lower incidence and intact boys hardly get it- you have 99 boys who lost some really nice sexual anatomy in order to weed out the one boy who would have gotten a UTI because he was not circumcised. on the other hand in the intact group.. you have all of the boys keeping their sexual anatomy and one of them getting a UTI...

Not all the boys get that benefit... only the ONE who would have gotten the UTI... and we will never know who he is will we? so you are gambling against your child- and it is going to cost him... win or loose in that benefit lottery- they all lose a substantial portion of sex organ. In fact- come to think of it- you can leave your kid intact and 99 out of 100 times- he will not have been the one who was going to get the UTI anyway- so he can still benefit in a public health standpoint from the UTI boy being circumcised - yet all the while retaining his own anatomy. The benefit to the UTI boy is not dependent on 99 other boys being circumcised... only on UTI boy being circumcised. That's what I did with my son- I didn't play that lottery with his sex organ and that other kid either did or didn't get that UTI regardless. LOL (don't bother)

It's not that ALL circumcised boys have better urinary tract health... in fact- if we step beyond that neonatal period and advance a few years to the potty training time- we will discover that a very large portion of the circumcised boys will be having urinary problems due to the fact thy were circumcised. As well as the fact that the whole UTI incidence balances and the intact and circumcised boys are equally likely to get one.

Now- when the AAP weighs the risk vs benefit... they think- we circumcise 100 and one of them is benefited by the fact that he does not get a uti that year... but we also have some complication in that group of 100... maybe a botch, a revision, a bleeding incident... - overall- the benefit dos not outweigh the risk- we can't recomend it because the risk/benefit is so balanced...

They don't give any weight to the value of the anatomy lost do they?

But you can't see that can you?- because- back to my first point- you have a imbedded bias toward not acknowledging the value of this anatomy because to you it is the unknown. I's like an antiques dealer who knows how to read the marks on a vase... without the knowledge- you simply can't begin to know the value. If you don't have the anatomy- you can't be alert to pinpoint the imbedded bias. Regardless of your lofty ideas about your research ability... you are still just guessing when it comes to male anatomy.

The only RISK they (american medical societies) calculate is if you start bleeding uncontrollably while they cut your valueable sexual anatomy off... they don't count the anatomy do they?

They can't can they?

They can't turn around after years of violating men as babies and say- "you should remember to consider the important errogenous value and sexual function of this anatomy when looking at these potential benefits of cutting it off... (oooh ummm awkward moment huh?) oh...ahhh yess... I forgot- you can't do that can you?... because we cut it off you a few decades ago... ummm well yeah, sorry about that...we are turning over a new leaf and we hope you will too- no hard feelings eh bud... it's all water under the bridge!

as for a study- here's one- a risk benefit analysis of the UTI benefit--- and without giving the foreskin ANY value- (yes- this scientist also fell into that blank) they still can't see that circucmsion would be worth cuting into the genital flesh of hundreds of thousands of boys to potentially avoid UTI.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/chessare/

Love Sarah


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Excellent post Sarah! You should save that one and bring it back out from time to time.


----------



## Breathless Wonder (Jan 25, 2004)

Quote:

There are definitely benefits with removing brests,
But do you think there are benefits to removing breasts in INFANCY on the CHANCE that an individual MIGHT develop breast cancer?

Would you advocate for the removal of the breasts of an infant from a family with high cancer "risk", knowing that even high RISK is not a GUARANTEE of developing breast cancer?


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Just an aside- although I adore him... I don't like Paul Fleiss' book all that much- when I read a book on circumcision I try to read it as if I don't know anything about intactivism and male anatomy.

I read the book as if I am a pregnant girl from Ohio who has a kooky hippy friend who gave her a book.

Fleiss' book, regardless of how true or how much I agree with him, reads like unsubstiantiated (regardless if it actually is proven) propaganda and fear tactics.

Tring to put myself in the shoes of Savethewild... that book would do nothing for me. Its feels like snake oil.

The book I recomend is the Gollaher Book because it helps to frame the modern decision in the historical context... help us to understand our bias, our inability to be subjective... looks at us human like bugs under a microscope... "let's look at those human beings... see them mutilate the sex organ of their babies... I wonder why they - across history... across cultural divides... always return to their genitals with knives..."

Love Sarah


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sarah_
*
The book I recomend is the Gollaher Book*
What's the name of it? Is it a book that someone that's unlikely to read anything about parenting (Maybe anything at all for that matter.) might read? Is it something you could give for a baby shower gift?


----------



## Tanibani (Nov 8, 2002)

Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Contraversial Surgery

Though it's interesting one of the the Amazon reviewers found it too "fringe"







:


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Thanks!


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Sarah,

Again, I admire your passion about this issue, but your animosity is misdirected. I am not the enemy here. I am not saying that I am going to circumcise my son. In fact, what I have been saying all along is that I am inherently biased toward leaving him intact, that that is my plan unless the evidence leads me to the conclusion that it is not in his best interests to leave him intact.

The whole point of this "discussion" was just that I think that people should make decisions with as much information as possible. I am going to find out everything I can about the medical issues, *and* about the ethical, sexual, psychological, etc. issues before I decide what to do.

People seem to be freaking out over this, like I am saying that I am going to have the circumcision done because I read one study that says that UTIs are higher. Or that I will ignore all other issues and blindly go that way because of some small benefit. Come on you guys, seriously...if you read my posts is that even anything like what I am saying? I am a smart woman, perfect capable of seeing all sides of the issue and perfectly capable of coming to a well educated position.

It shouldn't concern any you that I would circ anyway, because the whole basis for my argument is that I will make the decision that is the right one based on all of the evidence and weighing *all of the factors*. Assuming that you are all "right" then I will obviously come to the same conclusion that you all have and leave him intact. The only reason you should be nervous is if your position is wrong.

As to being incapable of making the decision because I have not had sex with an intact male. Well, I just totally have to disagree with that one. There are other ways of finding out information other than by first hand experience (though that is best). And that is a slippery slope of an arguemtn to make, Sarah, because the real issue at that point is what do you, or any of us who are *women* know about having a penis. If your logic is correct this issue should be one that the fathers of the babies make on their own, because they are the only ones who know what its like to have a penis. I am obviously not saying that I believe that reasoning, but it follows directly from your logic.

And finally, to the person who asked about cutting off the breasts if there was a high risk that the person would get cancer, or rather whetther I would just let them gamble the odds. Again, I'd have to look at all the factors, but yes, of course, if the odds of her getting it was above a certain threshold it might make perfect sense to do it. Meaning if in one person's individual circumstances the pain of the surgery and the psychological damage of having them removed, and all the other risks were greatly outweighed by the risks of breast cancer and the inherent pain and agony and psychological damage of chemotheraphy, radiation, and death... yeah, of course I would do it. And if it was known that removing them at infancy was the best way to protect against that risk, rather than waiting until they were an adult, I would do it then. To do otherwise would be selfish and cruel. Its our jobs to protect our children and make decisions for them if they can't make them themselves. If every measurable thing says that by failing to do something you are going to subject your child to a high chance of a horrible, life altering, deadly disease, youd better damn right do what you can to prevent it.


----------



## sahli29 (Jan 23, 2004)

//


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*.

The whole point of this "discussion" was just that I think that people should make decisions with as much information as possible. I am going to find out everything I can about the medical issues, and about the ethical, sexual, psychological, etc. issues before I decide what to do.

People seem to be freaking out over this, like I am saying that I am going to have the circumcision done because I read one study that says that UTIs are higher. Or that I will ignore all other issues and blindly go that way because of some small benefit. Come on you guys, seriously...if you read my posts is that even anything like what I am saying? I am a smart woman, perfect capable of seeing all sides of the issue and perfectly capable of coming to a well educated position.

It shouldn't concern any you that I would circ anyway, because the whole basis for my argument is that I will make the decision that is the right one based on all of the evidence and weighing all of the factors.*

People get so worked up about it because it shouldn't be a decision that parents make. Why would you research cutting off your son's normal foreskin? What other body parts are you doing to be doing that kind of research on? Every body part? Probably not, so why is the foreskin any different? Will you research female circ if/when you have a daughter?


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

AnnMarie,

I have to respectfully disagree. I absolutely think it is parents' responsibility to take responsibility for their infants well being in every sense of the word. And I am sure in other contexts you would agree. It is our job to make the decisions that they cannot, and to do so we have to take time to educate ourselves as thoroughly as possible and make the decisio that is in their best interests. Of course the fact that it is a permanent decision that will have life long effects and one that the child has no say in is a large factor that weighs against doing it, but that is a factor that has to be weighed in with everything else.

I am not going to argue the female circumcision point any more. In the four pages of this thread it has been asked about 20 times and I have answered it many times. I am not trying to be difficult, I just think that there isn't much point in us rehashing it over and over.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*AnnMarie,

I have to respectfully disagree. I absolutely think it is parents' responsibility to take responsibility for their infants well being in every sense of the word.*
So don't I, and cutting off HEALTHY tissue NEVER falls under that category. The USA is the ONLY country that does it to so many boys for non-religious reasons. The rest of the world isn't falling over dead because they have a foreskin. It's a decision that simply does NOT have to be made and should be left up to the owner, like any other unnecessary surgeries. And yes, the female circ argument is valid. If you wouldn't research it for your daughter, why your son? You think it's your responsibility to research all options, so why not that one? Others say there are benefits.


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Look... let's say that you are against slavery because you have discovered that it's more profitable to let slave eligible humans work a minimum wage job for you- tax the bejeebers out of them and charge them lots of money for slum housing and health insurance... that you have discovered that if you play it properly- you can actually trick your slaves into being in debt to you while thinking they are not slaves.

that wouldn't put you on the same side of the fence as an abilitionist would it?

Just because you may have some idea that you can research this whole thing to the n-th degree and come out with a conclusion that YOUR DECISION is to not circumcise your son's penis because it is medically not necissary... that doesn't mean that you have gotten it

You think I have a clitoris because my dad did the research and decided it would be OK for me to keep it? If that were the case- should I be happy about that? "Yeah- my dad is so cool... he let me keep my clitoris! I'm so lucky he is my dad." You think the quantity or effort going into that research would change the disgusting proposal that my clitoris was EVER HIS to research?

Also- if you think I have animosity- you are mistaken. I really have no feeling about you personally... but I have over a long period of time developed arguments against certain ideas that you happen to have (as do many other people) I'm "just" presenting you with my arguments... I don't dislike you. Think of it as stylistic... and in this moment- I have adopted an unusually abrasive and straightforward style in speaking to you I'm not usually such a "toughie." Don't take it personal.

"what do you, or any of us who are women know about having a penis"

I don't know about having a penis... but I do know about making love to men with a penis- both circumcised and intact. Which gives me knowledge about the anatomical differences that few straight men would understand- intact or circucmsied. The fact that I don't have a penis does not mean that this is a concept that I can't get... just like the fact that I am not a slave does not mean that the concepts of why slavery is wrong are going to be lost on me.

I am an expert on having genitals which were never surgicly modified by my parents.

I do know how I would feel if I knew that I was misssing a substantial potion of my sex organ because my parents decided that I could get by without it.

I do know how I would feel if my mother had cut my body so that it would resemble hers.

I do know how I would feel if medical groups colluded to produce "potential benefits" to provide excuses to sexually control women through genital reuction surgery.

I do know how I would feel if my government had a law which said that it was not legal to cut the genitals of a man for cultural reasons, but that it was valid to take into account cultural factors when cutting a female...

I do know how that would feel if people made comments about how men like my genital mutilation and that should make me feel good about it.

I do know how it would feel if some man who had never even seen a woman with normal genitals and who had been raised in a culture which fears normal female genitals were to tell me that I could trust him to objectivly research the benefits of cutting the genitals of his daughter by reading all the information that had been researched by people who cut women's genitals for profit and who themselvs, are women with mutilated genitals... and that, together with his wife with the mutilated genitals they would come to a decision that was the right one for their child.

Love Sarah


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*
I am not going to argue the female circumcision point any more. In the four pages of this thread it has been asked about 20 times and I have answered it many times. I am not trying to be difficult, I just think that there isn't much point in us rehashing it over and over.*
Really? Where? I didn't see an answer.

Also, in response to your point to Sarah about how only men would be qualified to make the circ decision under her logic - in your opening post you stated your husband's concerns about a circed penis giving more pleasure because of the ridge. Under that logic, only women (or gay or bi men) would be able to make the decision because only they would know what it feels like to have sex with an intact vs. a circed penis.

Also, what makes you think that the woman couldn't feel the ridge under the foreskin if it doesn't retract? It's not like the foreskin is as thick as cardboard- look at the pictures. I'm pretty sure that to the extent I'd be able to distinguish between a prominent ridge and no ridge, I'd be able to feel it through the layer of skin that is the foreskin.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AnnMarie_
*The USA is the ONLY country that does it to so many boys for non-religious reasons. The rest of the world isn't falling over dead because they have a foreskin. It's a decision that simply does NOT have to be made and should be left up to the owner, like any other unnecessary surgeries.*

I agree with your general point AnnMarie. Again, remember I am not saying I am going to do it, just that I am going to research it to find out the best choice. Just because other people do it or don't do it isn't enough. It is important to look at the reasons for those choices. If I decide that there is no reason to do it, I wont. End of story.

Quote:

*And yes, the female circ argument is valid. If you wouldn't research it for your daughter, why your son? You think it's your responsibility to research all options, so why not that one? Others say there are benefits.*
I didn't say it wasn't valid. I said that I have responded to it multiple times on this thread already and that it was pointless to keep saying the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

SavetheWild,

You are a brave woman to post all that you have on this thread! And you have stayed calm and polite throughout - kudos to you!









As Anne-Marie has just said - the foreskin is healthy, functional tissue. I posted a link in another thread for you - an article in a British urology journal which describes what exactly the foreskin is, going into detail concerning its anatomy. It is quite heavy, detailed reading, but well worth it.

You'd never find an article like that published in an American journal for the reason Sarah gave you - American (circumcised) men just cannot admit the value of the foreskin, since they don't have theirs and they insist on continuing to cut off their sons'.









I'm American, and both of my brothers were circumcised without parental consent in military hospitals (my dad is intact). But I'm married to a Brit and live in Scotland.

I just wanted to give you the perspective of someone outside American society. In a society where babies are not routinely subjected to amputating surgery on healthy body parts.

Whenever I have mentioned circumcision to anyone over here (male or female), they react in complete horror. They cannot believe that Americans (a supposedly civilised society) routinely cut the genitals of their baby boys.

You said that you don't want to do the FGM discussion any more - but....

In America, women are not subjected to female circumcision. American women KNOW the value of retaining all of their genitals, because they HAVE all of their genitals. So we, understandably enough, react in horror at the thought of countries where female circumcision is practiced as a matter of course.

In Europe, men are not subjected to male circumcision. European men KNOW the value of retaining all of their genitals, because they HAVE all of their genitals. So they, understandably enough, react in horror at the thought of America, where male circumcision is practised as a matter of course.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Conversely, in America, American men are circumcised. This is what is common, accepted practice in their society. They have never known anything different, so they don't know what they are missing. And it is the MEN (often) who insist that they have received a benefit from the procedure, so insist on doing the same to their sons.

In countries which practice female circumcision, women are circumcised. This is what is common accepted practice in their society. They have never knownw anything different, so they don't know what they are missing. And it is the WOMEN who insist that they have received a benefit from the procedure, so insist on doing the same to their daughters.

As someone else said, the reason you have received a strong reaction here is simple. If you are able to step outside of American mainstream thought on this issue, you realise - it is simply not your right to cut off a healthy, functioning part of another person's body. Period.

Living in Europe, where most men are intact and almost all babies are left intact (the only ones circumcised are circumcised for religious reasons, generally speaking), it seems so obvious.

You are clearly an intelligent, rational, loving mother, who wants to do what is best for her son. Living here in Scotland, it amazes me yet again to find a mother like you (who clearly wants what is best for her son and is determined to do all the research necessary to find out what is best) who even entertains the thought that circumcision might be a good thing.

That circumcision is even on your horizon as a possible (and I know you have said that you are inherently anti-circ - good for you!) 'good' just points out the incredibly warped nature of American society with respect to this issue.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Sarah, this is my point:

i think that it is important to find out all the information you can and become as educated as possible about making any decision that could affect your child. Learn everything you can, take every factor into account and make a decision in the best interests of your child.

If you are actually offended by or disagree with that concept, I am truly surprised.

The other thing that I am not sure is clear yet is that I AM BIASED TOWARD LEAVING HIM INTACT!!!! I am just saying that bias alone is not enough to base a decision on. I want to base it on all the other factors as well. When I find out all of those other factors I am sure that I will come out choosing to leave him intact. But I will have made the decision wisely, with all information, and in a way I respect.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Mommiska,

thanks for your post. You make very good points and I agree with you (and appreciate the tone of your post as well







) . It is interesting that this surgery is one place where people are willing to change the natural body in infants. And I have no doubt that everything will show that there is no justifiable basis for doing so. But I won't feel like I have done my job as a parent if I decide the issue without researching it as well as I can.










_edited because I spelled Mommiska's name wrong, sorry Mommiska!_


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sarah_
*J
The book I recomend is the Gollaher Book because it helps to frame the modern decision in the historical context... help us to understand our bias, our inability to be subjective... looks at us human like bugs under a microscope... "let's look at those human beings... see them mutilate the sex organ of their babies... I wonder why they - across history... across cultural divides... always return to their genitals with knives..."

Love Sarah*
And his book did very little for me. To each her own, I guess. I found the part about Samoa interesting, because I've been there. But it didn't strike me as a book that would provide many answers as to whether or not circ should be continued.

And why'd you pick on Ohio? Is that the dumbest state you could think of?







:


----------



## ~Jenna~ (Dec 7, 2003)

re: female circ

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
I didn't say it wasn't valid. I said that I have responded to it multiple times on this thread already and that it was pointless to keep saying the same thing over and over again. [/B]
I just read over this whole thread again and you didn't directly address female circ. I'm really curious if you have a girl would you spend an equal amount of time researching it?


----------



## PumpkinSeeds (Dec 19, 2001)

T

and then there's the whole vax issue....

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*
But I won't feel like I have done my job as a parent if I decide the issue without researching it as well as I can.

*


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by ~Jenna~_
*re: female circ

I'm really curious if you have a girl would you spend an equal amount of time researching it?*
Just jumping in here, although I'm sure STW can respond for herself. US society says that circ is somewhat ok. US society has said that female circ is not ok. A strange contradiction, I know, but you have to realize the cultural context in which you are asking the question.
But it does help to realize that our justifications for circ are very similar to the justifications used in other countries for FGM (cleanliness, tradition, etc.)


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

PS to STW, why don't you just continue researching/ thinking and let us know what you decide?

Regarding your original question, I think you will find that any supposed benefits are exaggerated (at best) and not worth putting your son through all of the risks. Because there are lots of very real risks associated with circ'ing!!


----------



## ~Jenna~ (Dec 7, 2003)

What I'm getting at is that if male circ is okay and needs to be researched then female circ should be the same. If one wouldn't dream of circ'ing their daughter then I can't figure out why you need to look into for your son.


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Again, consider the cultural context of your question. It's hard to believe that millions of other parents are wrong (although they are.)


----------



## ~Jenna~ (Dec 7, 2003)

Also I don't like STW's implications that we just went along with other's commentaries that we didn't do the research for ourselves just because some of us here say there are no benefits. I mean, this is the Case AGAINST Circumcision - so it is obviously that some of us are going to think there are NO benefits. I just don't understand why she was suprised some of us feel that way.

somemama - I can see where you are coming from though.


----------



## SaveTheWild (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by somemama_
*PS to STW, why don't you just continue researching/ thinking and let us know what you decide?*

Will do.









Quote:

*Regarding your original question, I think you will find that any supposed benefits are exaggerated (at best) and not worth putting your son through all of the risks. Because there are lots of very real risks associated with circ'ing!!*
I expect the very same thing.

Peace. Out.









PS to PumpkinSeeds-- Yep, gotta continue my research on the Vax issue too, and I am going about it the same way. There is so much to do!


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

"i think that it is important to find out all the information you can and become as educated as possible about making any decision that could affect your child. "

Once again... the presumption that this is a decision that belongs to you... your imbedded inescapable BIAS from circumcisionculture. Do you think you have a right to cut off or research any other body part- or do you think that it would be criminally wounding a person.. you feel no obligation to research the removal of any other body part except this one... doesn't that put up a little flag that something different is happening here? Why the genitals?

Why the genitals? think think think....

Other parents DON'T feel the need to research this...oher parents just give birth to their babies wihout this IDEA that there is a piece of their child's body they maybe should cut off. Parents from really advanced nations... the people who make Volvos... the people who give out the Nobel prize... the people who designed the Chunnel... not cavemen- but smart caring parents- this does not even make a BLIP on their radar as a possibility... yet you have this audacity that you have this great burden to go out and research if your son should keep all of his sex organ...

"If you are actually offended by or disagree with that concept, I am truly surprised. "

Go ahead and do all the research you want- I'm not gong to stop you- in fact I will help if it makes you feel better... it doesn't make it any less insulting... like way back in 1969 when my dad was researching if he should cut off my clitoris... he found this one study that said I had a 1% chance of getting a uti in my first year of life if I has a clitoris... and he decided that it wasn't worth it... I found out later that there was this bogus study that had been published in 1967 that said there was a WHOPPING 4% chance that I get a UTI... boy am I glad they didn't have the internet back then- because if my dad had seen that OTHER study- he might have been convinced that cutting out my clitoris was in my best interest!

So I'm curious... when you go at the research without knowing the value of the errogenous anatomy... where is the fulcrum on the scale when you get the various stats? What % of uti perventitive benefit would tip YOUR SCALE from (alleged) bias toward intact to bias toward circumcision... there must be a number right? Whats the point of digging up all the numbers if you can't apply them? You must have a plan... what is it? How do you construct the cost benefit model if you don't know the anatomy and you don't acknowledge a human's basic right to posess all of their sexual anatomy. If you can't acknowledge that- it would be like letting people who can't acknowledge the rights of all humans design the analysis of the appropriateness of abolition. There is a broken piece in the model.

The entire premise of this research undertaking is that your son's right to his whole sex organ is something that might be overridden by statistical analysis.

Hmmm.

Why the genitals?

Love Sarah


----------



## Sarah (Nov 20, 2001)

Somemama- I live at the KY, IN, OH tristate... my husband was circumcised (without any parental consent) in Ohio. My picking on Ohio was not scorn- it was simply a place where the circ rate is high and a girl would likely have little interaction with people who had not circumcised or who were not circumcised (thanks to the blanket policy of circumcising all boys born in Ohio hospitals decades ago) ... a person to whom the presentation of material against circumcision might come as totally out of left field... a person who had never for a second even considered not circumcising... not because she was dumb... just because that was the world she was in.

As for the book not providing "answers" (you mean directions?)... that's why I liked it- Gollaher doesn't take a stance- he just explains the history... it's up to you if you want to join the hisorical picture of humans fixating on the genitals of their children and cutting them for whatever reason is popular in their century/continent.

Love Sarah


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by SaveTheWild_
*Just because other people do it or don't do it isn't enough.*
I agree. Every male being born with one is.


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by ~Jenna~_
*What I'm getting at is that if male circ is okay and needs to be researched then female circ should be the same. If one wouldn't dream of circ'ing their daughter then I can't figure out why you need to look into for your son.*
As well as researching cutting off the fingernails, toes, fingers, ears, and every other body part. Makes just as much sense as researching cutting off part of the penis.


----------



## sahli29 (Jan 23, 2004)

//


----------



## somemama (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by ~Jenna~_
*Also I don't like STW's implications that we just went along with other's commentaries that we didn't do the research for ourselves just because some of us here say there are no benefits. I mean, this is the Case AGAINST Circumcision - so it is obviously that some of us are going to think there are NO benefits. I just don't understand why she was suprised some of us feel that way.

somemama - I can see where you are coming from though.*
I don't think it's wrong to ask the question of how much research we did. I think the question stems more from curiosity than from criticism.


----------

