This item text has been erased.

53 responses total.

Good question!  We have a newborn in our family so this topic
has recently come up for discussion, but mostly by the women.
Men don't seem to have much to say about it.  How curious.

No circumcision at birth, but the child could choose to be circumcised when
he is considered old enough to make that decision.

Yes.  But done by an experienced doctor who doesn't think newborns are
magically immune to pain.

My understanding is that the medical community dropped circumcision from 
their "recommended" list for a couple decades, then saw enough health 
problems in the males who'd gotten the "improved non-treatment regimen" 
to make them switch back to recommending it.  

Kind of like getting your appendix out if you have abdominal surgury. 

What types of health problems were seen?

You name it.  Mechanical irritation problems.  Increased rates of infection,
both venereal and non-venereal diseases.  Higher rates of penile cancer.

Ouch! Good arguements for the procedure.

I discussed this topic at some length last night with a bunch of older jewish
people, and the responses to Valerie's question were very interesting.  The
women responded that they would circumcise and all agreed that much of the
reason was because of emotional ties to tradition.  The men, most agreed that
if they could be convinced there was no medical benefit, and that the child
wouldn't be the object of derision in the shower room later on (by being
different), they would consider not circumcising a son.  

When I say all the women, I mean except me.  I am still waiting for all the
medical substaniation to come in.  Glad I dont have to make this decision any
more.  But my daughter's and their husbands may, and it will be interesting
to see what they choose.

I wouldn't have my sons circumcized.  It seems a cruel thing to do to a a very
tiny person who's just figuring out what life outside the womb means.

Any difficulties associated with non-circumcision are likely to be grooming
related.  If we don't teach our kids to keep themselves clean, then of course
they'll have problems.  As to STDs, hey, circumcised men get those too.

I see men who are coming in for minor general surgery requiring a general
or spinal anesthetic electing to have circumcisions done at the same time. 
I usually don't ask why but the few times I have I've gotten a response
that they think a circumcised penis looks better (I agree) and that being
circumcised will increase their tactile sensation during intercourse. 


An infant is calm and relaxed within minutes of this procedure
having been done.  For an adult the recovery is much longer.
I have yet to hear any man who is circumcised say he wished 
he wasn't, including my son.  

This response has been erased.

I would think that if men thought circumcision was not a Good Thing that,
they would indeed share their opinions and look to changing 
the practice.  I mean, we are talking about an issue here (the penis) that
is quite important to most men.  Also, there a whole lot of boys
being circumcised and their fathers are requesting and consenting
to the procedure.

The popularity of circumcision has dropped considerably over the last
two decades. The most popular reasons for circumcision are ethnic/
religious, and "so he looks like dad." (Given that most American males
are circumcised, the emphasis on "looks like dad" has a significant
impact on the present rate of circumcisions.)

Problems related to non-circumcision are primarily hygiene-related, and
geriatric. Absent an unusual circumstance (e.g., phimosis), there is no
medical need for or benefit to circumcision.

This is not a subject that comes up in normal conversation. I know two
people who were strangely vocal on the subject of their non-circumcision,
who would never dream of having themselves or their children circumcised.
I have never met any man who said, "I was glad I was circumcised," or,
"I wish I had been circumcised." There probably are some -- but as I said,
it isn't normally a subject of conversation.

I don't think circumcision can be defended at all on cosmetic grounds --
an explanation frequently exposited for female circumcision. And it is
true that in nations that practice female circumcision, there are large
numbers of males who would never dream of marrying a non-circumcised
woman.

re #9:  I would not consider "she was calm and relaxed within minutes of
        the procedure to in any way justify or defend the practice of
        female circumcision. Calmness likely results from exhaustion and
        a massive endorphine rush, after several minutes of excruciating
        pain.

Female circumcision is a far different procedure from male
circumcision.  Female circumcision eliminates the tissue
which allows a female to have an orgasm.  Male circumcision
supposedly enhances a male's sensitivity making sex more
enjoyable. 

I don't think hundreds of thousands of fathers elect 
to have their sons curcumcised just so they will have
matching penises.  I think they have better reasons
based on what they feel is best for the child.

If it is genital surgery for cosmetic reasons, Mary -- particularly
to satisfy the aesthetic preference of the partner -- there are an
awful lot of similarities. Do you have a source on that "making sex
more enjoyable" bit? I have heard quite the opposite. (It isn't
possible to do a side-by-side comparison,  after all.)

You are familiar with the anatomy, I presume. And surely you are
familiar with the fact that the layer of skin cells on the glans of
an uncircumcised penis is very thin, as compared to that on the
glans of a circumcised penis. This, Mary, results in a definite,
documented *loss* of sensitivity. Would you expect otherwise?

It is interesting to hear your speculation on why men would want (or
allow) their sons to be circumcised. However, most men are ignorant
as to the whys and wherefores. This is *not* a topic of normal
discussion. And, frankly, "looking like dad" is the most common
explanation I have heard.

My source is weak for the "making sex more enjoyable".  It
is solely based on adult patient's statements on why they 
are electing to have the procedure done.  I would guess
they had run their reasons through a urologist, but
maybe not.

I should probably take a printout of this discussion into
work and have a few of the urologists correct any
misinformation.

Too, is female cirumcision done for "cosmetic" reasons?

Aaron, I *REALLY* don't think mary was talking about FEMALE "circumcision"
in #9.  Maybe you should check the what the subject of this item is.  Calling
the appeal of female "circumcision" "cosmetic" is about like calling the
appeal of a slave who's feet have been chopped off "cosmetic" - though there
are probably plenty of slave owners out there who'll testify to the reduced
run-away rate of footless slaves, that they wouldn't buy one with feet, etc. 

My understanding is that female "circumcision" is only popular where womens'
social status is (or has until very recently been) that of two-legged talking
cow.  Elsewhere, it's about as popular as penisectomies (which would be the
male equivalent of it).  Try ear piercing if you want a medically dubious
cosmetic procedure to compare to circumcision.

I spoke with two urology residents today about circumcision
and some of the questions raised in this item.  What they said:

Hygiene is a big factor for many in the decision to either
have themselves circumcised or to have their infant sons
circumcised.  Some men have a hard time keeping their
uncircumcised penis clean, quite frankly, and this can lead
to chronic low-grade infections and a higher risk of penile
cancers.

The reason parents most often give for electing their son be circumcised
is "family tradition".  (That does indeed sound a whole lot like father
wanting his son's penis to look like his.  Aaron is right.)  The second
most stated reason is ease of hygiene. Religious practice plays a part but
not a big one. 

Babies do feel pain when circumcised but they are now routinely given an
local anesthetic block which helps a great deal.  (They also agreed with
me in my observations that infants start crying the moment they are
restrained and soon after the procedure are in a restful sleep, easily
aroused, and nurse without any apparent agitation.  So it's hard to guess
at home much actual surgical pain they are experiencing.) 

Some adults come in electing to have circumcisions to enhance their sexual
pleasure (sensation).  They are told there is no guarantee this will be
the outcome.  Many men do like sex better, after circumcision, but not all
find the procedure makes a difference.  (I think that's about as close as
you can get to a side-by-side comparison, don't you think?) 

There are some men out there who have become fixated on their missing
foreskins.  They mourn for their loss.  It is a major issue in their
lives.  It is unusual and probably points to profound psychological
problems.  Parents being counseled on circumcision are routinely told that
not all adults are in agreement with the choice their parents made so long
ago. 

The current trend in the U.S. follows what has been happening in Europe
over the past 20 years - fewer and fewer male babies undergoing the
procedure (for whatever reason).  Current statistics show 70% of U.S.
males are circumcised.  In contrast, 70% of European men are
uncircumcised. 

The procedure is covered by insurance.  Doctors are not tending to take a
position on what is best as they consider it a family decision with some
pretty substantial family dynamics and sexual identity issues at the
center. Too, the hygiene issue can be a significant problem for some.

Thank you for giving us that information, Mary.  So, I gather that
circumcision is neither medically indicated or contraindicated?  Other then
hygiene issues, there appears to be little evidence that doing the procedure
or not doing it has any short or long range medical consequences?

This response has been erased.

Thanks for the info, mary.  I think the hygene issue is enough reason to 
have it done, but it's interesting to see that it improves sex for some men.
I definitely agree that the poor guys mourning for their foreskins have a
mental, not physical, problem.

You should probably be skeptical about circumcision improving sex.  I was
told there really isn't a clear reason why someone with a healthy penis
would experience "better sex" after circumcision.  One doctor even agreed
with aaron that it would make sense that an always-exposed glans would be
somewhat desensitized.  Yet, some men (who can make a comparison) do
state being circumcised heightened their level of sensation during coitus. 

As I recall, we didn't really discuss whether or not to circumsize my
son, it was just assumed that it would be done (by both the doctors
and ourselves, and this was only 13 years ago). It didn't seem to
bother him -- they took him away while he was asleep, about half
an hour later, he came back, still asleep -- they said he didn't cry,
but fell asleep nearly immediately afterwards.

You expected them to say, "It was hell for him -- sheer agony?" Not that
what they said isn't possible, but would they have told you otherwise?
Check out some pictures of babies' reactions to circumcision, sometime.
There are probably books in the library.

Nowadays, circumcision is done with a parent present in
most instances.

RE #25 One reason I'm not married and have no children, legitimate or 
otherwise.

Actually, I have always told that sotry for the impression of how
calm he was -- he'd fall asleep anytime, anywhere.

re #25:  Only possible with the *novel* idea that anaesthesia is a good
         idea.

Re:  22.
I am.  Both the placebo effect and the possibility that it must be done as
an adult for there to be any "improvement" come to mind.  Then there's the
non-random nature of the subjects...

To paraphrase the immortal words of the late Butterfly McQueen, "I don't know
nothing 'bout circumsizing babies!"

This response has been erased.

The claim that recently circumcised men often report an improvement in
sensitivity doesn't contradict the claim that circumcism leads to a thicken
of the skin of the glans and thus reduced sensitivity.  Obviously such
thickening would take a long time.  This looks like one of those things
that is impossible to compare, like male orgasms vs female orgasms.  All
we can say is that both seem to be quite popular.

So sensitivity could go either way, but it isn't a huge difference either way.
Hygiene is clearly simpler for circumcised men.  The pain to the baby seems
pretty insignificant.  Cutting bits of people for no particular reason never
seems like a great idea.

Adding it all up, I see no compelling reason for choosing one over the other.

But if I ever had a son, a choice would have to be made.  So I'd make a choice
for some non-compelling reason.  I'm circumcised.  I know that works OK, and
I know how to teach what little hygiene is needed, having been taught it when
I was a kid.  It's familiar.  I'm comfortable with it.

Yeah, this kind of adds up to choosing it "to be like daddy."  I admit it
isn't a good reason.  If some good reason appeared (like maybe new medical
results or maybe the mother felt strongly about it), I'd happily skip the
circumcism.  But lacking good reasons either way, why *not* chose what you
are most comfortable with?

It's certainly true that most men don't talk about this much.  But I think it
is only partly because it a bit embarrassing to discuss peni in public.  Most
we don't talk about it because it just isn't very interesting.  Discussing my
penis in public is just embarrassing enough that I'd prefer to have something
to say about it that makes some kind of difference.  Circumcision doesn't
really qualify.

As a nurse, I've seen a lot of babies that HAVE been circumsized... And Mary's
right in that the little guys do fuss when they're being restrained on the
'circ board'. After all, who WOULD like to be strapped down on a board with
your bottom exposed?? Some of the Drs do use an anesthetic, some don't. And
the little guys do cry during the procedure--but by the time they're diaper
is back on, they're back to sleep.  The parents are taught how to take care
of the circ. site and it IS tender for a little while aftewards, as the
parents change his diaper.  But again, its a short-lived tenderness, they seem
to forget once they're dressed again.  [I'm not saying I approve or
disapprove; am just stating what I've seen after working in Obstetrics for
nearly 6 years].

I can only go by statistics of the one hospital that I've worked at... It
seems that most all black baby boys are circ'ed, as are most white boys
[unless they are Jewish...].  It is fairly RARE that a hispanic baby boy will
be circ'ed.  In the Asian population, a few are. a lot arent.


I am now working on one of the Pediatric units [still at the same university
hospital] and thus far, have had only one male patient that has not been
circ'ed.  Hmm, was workiing just yesterday with a 10 year old boy and the
mother having said something about the boy having been in a few weeks ago [to
his Dr] for a circumcision, though she didn't go into details as to why they
elected to have it down at this time.

You've raised an issue that i do feel strongly about Denise.  If a child has
not been circumcised as an infant, then, unless there is absolute medical
necessity, I would not support circumcision until the child is grown enough
to give informed consent.  Now, we can get into a whole discussion about age
of consent, which i believe would vary from child to child, but certainly is
above 10 years old.  

How many girls are having their ears pierced by age 10 these days?  (My
impression is a lot.)

How much difference is there?

Hey look, I'm not a man, but i still think there is quite a bit of difference
between ear piercing and circumcision.  I can't for the life of me, imagine
a boy asking to have his penis circumcised so he can get a gold ring to wear.
About the ear piercing, I would not pierce my children's ears until they asked
for it and then, I waited till I felt they could fully understand the
ramifications (potential pain, risk of infection, etc.)  Neither daughter had
it done until after they were 21.  

<Wow!  The number of non-pro-ear-piercing people in the world isn't 1.>

My point was to contrast circumcision (some medical justification, falling
popularity, generally done on the infancy-or-adult basis you describe) and
piercing (no medical justification, rising popularity, accepted age of
consent seems to be headed toward kindergarden).  

Sorry, but I don't think your gender has anything at all to do with it.

If you can't imagine that, I don't think you want to know what sort of 
cosmetic work guys have done in certain parts of the world...

Ear piercing is reversible -- wait long enough, and the hole will usually
close up.
Circumcision is not.
It seems simple to me -- being as you can always be circumcised later, but
once it's been done you can't go back, I would leave my son uncircumcised
until he is able to make the decision himself.

re #32:  I have never seen the claim put forth that circumcision increases
sensitivity. Obviously, immediately after the surgery, there will be
increased sensitivity -- i.e., post-operative pain, and the effect of
having a previously protected area of very sensitive skin exposed to air
and abrasion. The claim I have seen put forth with regard to "senstivity"
as it relates to circumcision is that the resultant decreased sensitivity
results in increased sexual performance. It defies common sense to suppose
that sensitivity would increase with the removal of a protective cover,
just as it defies common sense to suggest that optical sensitivity would
improve if your eyelid were removed, or that it would take a long time for
your body to respond. When sensitive skin is exposed to environmental
trauma, the body responds very quickly -- have you ever had chapped lips?
I doubt that many women would believe that they would experience long-term
improvement in "senstitivity" with the removal of their clitoral hoods,
which are the female parallel to a foreskin. 

I would welcome any reference to an authoritative treatise or journal,
which supports any notion of increased sensitivity (beyond the
post-operative period) following circumcision. 

You suggest that the pain to the baby isn't a concern. Recent studies,
such as Lancet 1997; 349 (9052): 599-603 (Effect of neonatal circumcision
on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination) suggest otherwise,
finding that infants who are circumcised suffer a lasting subsequent
increased pain response.  Circumcision should always be accompanied by
proper anaesthsia. 

Your statement, "Cutting bits of people for no particular reason never
seems like a great idea," is on-point, as fundamentally we are speaking of
a cosmetic procedure. The American Cancer Society denounces suggestions
that circumcision can be justified by decreased cancer rates, pointing out
that the studies underlying those assertions show a very weak correlation
and employed flawed methodology. While there is evidence that circumcised
infants have a slightly lower rate of urinary tract infections, the
American Medical Association recently found that circumcised males are
more likely to be infected with sexually transmitted disease. No Western
medical association takes the position that circumcision is medically
advisable -- most recommend against routine circumcision. The AMA
presently takes a neutral stance, and has announced that it will release a
comprehensive study of the subject in 1998. 

For me, cosmetic appareance is not a sufficient reason to put an infant
through a surgical procedure with no clear medical benefit.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss