Circumcision protects against infections

linda massie says:

There is a common assumption in circumcised cultures that the circumcision of male children is legal without their consent. However children have a right to sue their parents or the medical profession for performing this procedure on them when they were too young to defend themselves. Whether or not circumcision can prevent any infection is really not the point. The point is it is an invasion of children’s rights to grow up and make this decision for themselves. It is much better for women to have a partner who has not been circumcised ask European women who have rarely seen a circumcised male and when they have they have been horrified, circumcised men have no natural lubrication as the moving part of their penis has been destroyed it is a human tragedy and the loss of sensual tissue is enormous. Those who continue to promote this practice come from cultures which do this to their children and therefore have an emotionally attachment to the idea that their children or partners have not been damaged. Europeans do not circumcise babies as they know it is harmful. America already has the largest group of circumcised men on the planet and the highest rates of HIV if circumcision was useful why is this? When are Americans gonna wake up and realise that this alteration of their childs body is child abuse by the medical profession.

justaguy says:

This article not only edits the important information (i.e. the study was done in a 3rd world country with dubious results), and makes a conclusion without presenting a proper reasoning.
Prior to publishing trash like this, perhaps proper research should be done and provide the needed “truths” to allow those reading this to make an informed decision.
Additionally, cosmetic surgery on an infant (this is all it can be until he is of age to be able to engage in sexual behaviour) should not be the decision of the parent, but to the male himself. Look at all those men who are given the opportunity to circumcise after reaching the age of reason and see that most choose NOT to have it done. Thus, this should not be imposed on him as an infant.

JK says:

This is what a taboo looks like.

It has always seemed obvious to me that cutting the genitals of a healthy child, whether male or female, is unjustified and cruel. Male circumcision among white non-Jews began as a way to stop Victorian boys from masturbating. It was also perfectly ineffective. (Did any age masturbate more than the Victorian?)

In time, the British abandoned circumcision, but we did not. Instead, as Americans often do, we came up with cheap, incoherent rationalizations to keep right on doing exactly what we’d “always” been doing.

Today we generally don’t see masturbation as evil. If anything, masturbation is a healthy outlet for the male sexual appetite. This appetite clearly wasn’t designed for today’s world, and it participates only sporadically in what we think of as civilized life. Masturbation tames men, and perhaps women too, and thank goodness for it.

So instead of stopping men from masturbating, today we hear that circumcision makes women more willing to perform oral sex. Today circumcision isn’t anti-sex; it’s pro-sex. A striking turnabout; it would be wicked fun to take back to the Victorians. “More willing to what?” they’d ask. “Well, no son of mine is going to be circumcised!”

Perhaps empirically speaking, being cut does mean getting more oral sex. But this will last only as long as women keep up what amounts to chauvinism against the male body: Women’s genitals are perfect the way Nature made them. Men’s, however, are filthy, at least until they are mutilated, after which they’re just fine.

Uh. Yeah. But getting head from women isn’t, from what I understand, a serious problem for European men, virtually none of whom are circumcised. Men don’t demand a similar procedure of women — only that they wash, which seems reasonable enough for both. Washing seems, suspiciously, to work everywhere but in America.

We further hear that if a child isn’t circumcised, he will wonder if something is wrong with his anatomy, because all of his friends and even his father will have been cut. This however is decreasingly true. As I understand it, only about 50% of American boys are cut these days, and the number continues to decline.

Must we worry, now, about all of our boys, cut and uncut, because every single child is going to grow up in a world of discordant penis types? Will every single boy now be subject to this soul-crushing and nigh-insurmountable psychological trauma? Please. The fear that your child may see a child who looks different simply isn’t a rational fear. Nor, if it were, could we possibly guard against it. Everyone’s different these days.

Look closely: This is what a taboo looks like. It’s a familiar, domesticated taboo, not some alien Polynesian thing about how women aren’t allowed to eat bananas. It makes sense, apparently, until that moment at which it stops making any sense whatsoever: Here we see how a very unreasonable thing is defended by a colossally unreasonable thing, and then the debate is over. Taboo.

And of course there’s the recent claim that circumcision helps reduce the spread of HIV — perhaps as much as 60% (but perhaps not). The experiments have been tried in Africa, where circumcision is now being aggressively promoted, not only on adults, but on children down to age four. (This, one would think, would be a bit bigger trauma than seeing a child whose penis looks different.)

It is always interesting to watch this claim get trotted out, particularly by American conservatives — the very people who might otherwise insist on the fact that condoms sometimes fail, and that, for this reason, we shouldn’t be pro-condom. Condoms, if used consistently, are far better than circumcision at preventing the spread of HIV.

So, for that matter, is abstinence, if you are one of the rare people who can do it. Or try limiting yourself to fewer sex partners — say, one — or just do low-risk sexual activities. Any of these choices would do vastly more to prevent AIDS. Recommending circumcision makes no sense at all here, particularly when we consider the likelihood that, in African nations’ rudimentary health systems, it will cause both infections and a false sense of security.

If a man wants to be circumcised, let him get it done as an adult. Yes, this absolutely means that fewer men will be circumcised. But we beg the whole question if we assume that we should circumcise infant boys because it will be more painful to do it later. If he’s not going to want it later, then it shouldn’t be done at any time, sooner or later.

In all, there is a very strong libertarian case against circumcision, even when done for religious reasons. It’s an attack on bodily integrity; it’s usually done without consent; it can’t be adequately reversed. We don’t typically let religions do these kinds of things, do we? And if it were any other optional bodily modification, we’d immediately bring out some very cogent arguments: Ear piercings? Save that for adults, who can decide for themselves! But that logic is rarely applied to circumcision.

So… Now you know what camp I’m in. If you’ve read very much by me, you know that these longer posts often take a hairpin turn. Here it comes.

I have to tell you that I think protesting circumcision in front of the White House is just plain stupid. It betrays a really warped sense of how, for want of a better word, to care for a culture. The president isn’t going to save us on this one, nor should he. Nor would I welcome it if he could. We ought to resist becoming that kind of society.

This isn’t an issue that can be won or lost with legislation. It goes deeper than that. It’s about attitudes and values. It could just be the ultimate issue in the great debate between rationalism and tradition. And tradition still runs strong. Legislation is probably doomed to fail, no matter where the reasoning leads us. That’s how politics works. Or rather, how it often doesn’t. Prohibiting something that 50% of American parents are already doing is a non-starter. Change minds first. Yes, it will be difficult. But reducing the amount of cruelty in the world always is.

Cindy says:

Many of the benefits espoused by advocates of circumcision would be more effectively achieved by penectomy, which has the additional benefit of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Of course, penectomy is too invasive, and is not a practical solution. Many of the “clinical benefits” lauded by advocates of circumcision include reduced risk of phimosis, balanitis, urinary tract infections (UTIs), genital cancer and sexually transmitted infections (STIs); however, evidence for these benefits are weak or nonexistent, and several alternatives to circumcision are available that are more effective, less invasive, and less expensive.

Phimosis is as common in circumcised newborns as it is in boys who are not circumcised. Topical steroids are effective in approximately 85% of patients,[1] and could eliminate the need for newborn circumcision to avoid phimosis. Balanitis is more common in circumcised than uncircumcised boys under age 3 years, but may be more common in uncircumcised older boys. The only published adult study of balanitis showed that a referral bias occurred among circumcised men: the control group had a 47.8% circumcision rate,[2] but the participants were from the UK, where the circumcision rate is around 21%. Balanitis can typically be treated with topical antimicrobials.

Newborn boys are more likely to have urinary tract abnormalities compared with girls, particularly in the first 6 months of life; however, many boys later outgrow these abnormalities. Observational studies have found that uncircumcised boys are at increased risk of UTIs during the first 6 months, but this finding might be a result of differential rates of prematurity, urine collection, false-positive urine specimens, and the frequency at which health care is sought.[3] In the absence of anatomic defects, UTIs do not require surgery and can be treated with oral antibiotics. The risk of UTI resulting in chronic renal disease is remote.

Of the 16 studies that assessed whether an association exists between circumcision status and the risk of cervical cancer in female partners, only 1 study found a significant association: a positive association in 1 study out of 16 studies is what would be expected by chance alone. Furthermore, a newly available vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) could prevent most cases of cervical cancer. With regard to a reduced prostate cancer risk after circumcision, the medical evidence that supports this association is weak.[4] The incidence of penile cancer is rare (0.8 cases per 100,000); two case–control studies in the US found that, when adjusted for phimosis, newborn circumcision was not associated with penile cancer.[5,6] The association between phimosis and penile cancer might explain why only half of patients with penile cancers are positive for HPV DNA, whereas nearly all patients with cervical cancer have HPV DNA. The other half of patients with penile cancer are probably associated with balanitis xerotica obliterans, the leading cause of true phimosis. Countries with very low circumcision rates, such as Japan, Norway, Finland and Denmark, have a lower age-adjusted incidence of penile cancer than the US. Low-risk sexual practices combined with screening and treatment of HPV infection and phimosis may be more effective and less invasive than universal circumcision.

Circumcision has no medical indication during the newborn period, and it is not the first-line preventive for any illness. Very few adult men choose to be circumcised, full disclosure is a rarity, and parental proxy consent for newborn circumcision is not valid.[15] No reason exists that can justify why circumcision cannot wait until the infant is old enough to choose for himself. As a public health measure, newborn circumcision in the US has failed to show a benefit in protecting against cervical cancer, penile cancer, STIs, and HIV.