Another one for the "conventional wisdom" B.S. list: Circumcision

[MachineGhost]

These tragic examples are more than unfortunate, isolated episodes. For every extreme case that gets reported in the media and debated in the courts, hundreds of nasty little incidents sink without a trace. For certain hospitals in Britain, the practice of patching up circumcision botch jobs is said to be appallingly routine. Largely, these interventions go unrecorded. The infant is simply stitched up and sent home. The perpetrator is not reported. Censure is not issued. Cultural sensitivity trumps child protection. One wonders if, say, the parents of a newborn suffering from skin lesions following a clumsily administered home tattoo would get off the hook so lightly.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2856/circumci ... cut-it-out

[dualstow]

I don't want to read this until someone can grow me a new foreskin.

[MediumTex]

I don't want to read this until someone can grow me a new foreskin.

I hear there is a startup in China that is giving young men iPads in exchange for their foreskins.  These foreskins are then shipped to the U.S. and western Europe for transplantation.

[AdamA]

I don't want to read this until someone can grow me a new foreskin.

I hear there is a startup in China that is giving young men iPads in exchange for their foreskins.  These foreskins are then shipped to the U.S. and western Europe for transplantation.

Foreskin might be a good VP play.  Is there an ETF?

[MediumTex]

I don't want to read this until someone can grow me a new foreskin.

I hear there is a startup in China that is giving young men iPads in exchange for their foreskins.  These foreskins are then shipped to the U.S. and western Europe for transplantation.

Foreskin might be a good VP play.  Is there an ETF?

I don't know about an ETF, but there might be some good opportunities in trading foreskin futures.

For experienced traders, there might be some good action using a foreskins/leather chaps barbell approach.

[dualstow]

In this case, I won't settle for a mini!

[Tortoise]

Foreskin might be a good VP play.  Is there an ETF?

Isn't that the one that goes by the ticker symbol DIK?

[Storm]

Great article.  As father of an 8 month old son, when the OB asked me in one of our initial visits if we wanted the baby to be circumcised, I said no.  I think male circumcision is no different than female genital mutilation and is barbaric.  I told them that if he wanted to be circumcised, he can decide that on his own when he's old enough to do so.  I was circumcised by my parents and I want him to have the choice of being intact.

Can you think of any adult man who would say "hell yeah, go ahead and cut part of my penis off... I don't want to feel as much pleasure when I have sex..."???

[MediumTex]

Politics...religion...foreskin.

We do it all here.

[quenali]

My father was born in 1924 and was not circumcised. He made sure that I was cut soon after my birth in the 50's. I respect my fathers opinion and I'm sure he had good reasons for his decision.  Now, I'm about to become a grandfather and my daughter told me last week that my soon to be born grandson will not be circumcised and I've been having a hard time accepting that. After reading this article I do feel better about it. We are not Jewish.

[Reub]

The article is full of anecdotal stories and very short on scientific data. It is also published on a website that promotes secularism and may be biased against anything that may have its roots in religion. The writer is a producer and an art critic, not a doctor or a scientist.

[Gumby]

Looks like the debate will extend on for awhile. Here's an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times from earlier in the week...

"Enter medical reality. Circumcision, far from being unhealthful, is good for boys and men, and for the nation's wallet, according to the experts. Last week, a study out of Johns Hopkins University predicted that healthcare costs in the United States would rise by billions of dollars in coming decades as the popularity of circumcision wanes, largely because of increases in the rates of sexually transmitted diseases and related cancers; studies in Africa and elsewhere found that circumcision lowered the risk of HIV infection. This week, the  American Academy of Pediatrics shifted from a neutral position on circumcision to one saying that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. The physicians' group stopped short of recommending that all baby boys be circumcised, but its position will likely persuade more health insurers to cover the procedure; coverage has been falling off in recent years because of the academy's previous stance."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opi ... 6678.story

[WildAboutHarry]

In its policy statement — the first new one since 1999 — the American Academy of Pediatrics cites evidence showing health advantages for male circumcision, specifically the prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Crap.  I just pasted this in as Gumby was posting.

I think male circumcision is no different than female genital mutilation and is barbaric. 

Not even in the same ballpark.  There are valid medical reasons (see above).  I believe uterine cancer rates are lower in females with circumcised partners (old data, must Google).  And male circumcision is no more barbaric than ear piercing a newborn/toddler (I'm against it, but to each his/her own), giant (and I mean giant) holes through ear lobes, tattoos, scarring, branding, and all other forms of body art practiced now and over the centuries.

Female circumcision, on the other hand is, well, like cutting off a hand.

[MachineGhost]

Looks like the debate will extend on for awhile. Here's an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times from earlier in the week...

I think this debate is a classic example of the two kinds of truth: those of reason and those of facts.  On the reason side you have "barbaric" religious rituals as well as "progressive" human rights activists.  On the facts side, you have medical evidence which shows both a slight pro and moderate-to-severe con (from botched snips).  If the evidence for the con is currently lacking due to a opaque transparency and tracking, it is likely the sordid evidence will become more damning over time and public policy would have to intervene.

OTOH, reason or facts alone is not enough to determine that human infants, adults with disabilities or animals have rights, because the ability to suffer is that "insuperable line".  In this case, I think it depends on whether the parents perceive a human infant as property rather than as a volitional, sentient being.

I mean, come on... "Don't you want to him to look like his father?" suggests a serious lack of any high level thinking skills, just facile glibness.  I think Hollywod ought to make a dramatic comedy movie around the debate because the Jewish mother would act hysterical, feel flush and then faint at the mere suggestion of not circumsizing (or was that Italian mothers?).

[Pointedstick]

For what it's worth, my wife and I did not have our one-month-old son circumcised, to the horror of my liberal secular Jewish mother (much like the author). She couldn't come up with any reasons why we should get it done that didn't seem like like the reason part of the brain struggling to justify what the emotions had already decided. Among the bogus-sounding reasons were the classic "he won't look like his father" and my personal favorite: "some women won't want to have sex with him!" My wife's answer to that was that if a woman wouldn't want to have sex with him solely because he was uncircumcised, that woman is a shallow bimbo who wouldn't make a good partner.

In the end, my wife and I decided that we didn't have anything against the procedure itself, medically speaking, but we felt like if we were going to modify our son's body in a semi-permanent manner, we ought to have his consent. If he's unable to consent because he was just born, well then a lack of consent does not equal a yes!

[dualstow]

I'd never heard that part of the debate before. I'm certain I look like my father but hey, we don't even take our shirts off at family get-togethers.
---
(Secular Jewish) radio doctor  Dean Edell is anti-circumcision, or was the last time I tuned in, and I really respect his opinion. I'm a big fan of his book, "Eat, Drink and Be Merry", which helped me to tune out health fads & scares in the media in much the same way that the pp & bogleheads help me tune out the noise on Bloomberg and CNBC.

[WildAboutHarry]

In the end, my wife and I decided that we didn't have anything against the procedure itself, medically speaking, but we felt like if we were going to modify our son's body in a semi-permanent manner, we ought to have his consent. If he's unable to consent because he was just born, well then a lack of consent does not equal a yes!

This is a perfectly reasonable decision that you and your wife made.  Making the opposite decision is also perfectly reasonable.  But not to decide is also to decide.  And adult circumcision (yes, that is occasionally done) is much more difficult, as you might imagine (Google phimosis). 

There are so many much more significant decisions parents make that impact their male child's life than whether or not to circumcise.  Do you stay married or divorce?  Do you provide books, read to your child, clearly articulate your expectations for behavior, etc.  Do you immunize or not?  A foreskin, or lack thereof, matters very little (except, see medical stuff and phimosis above). 

In this case, I think it depends on whether the parents perceive a human infant as property rather than as a volitional, sentient being.

Nonsense.  Children are not property, but parents have the right and obligation to direct their children's lives, and that includes all manner of medical decisions.  While circumcision has historical/religious roots, there are medical benefits.  If circumcision DID NOT have the historical/religious connection and somebody just discovered that circumcision made you less susceptible to HIV, not subject to penile cancer, genital warts, etc. I suspect that men would be lining up for the procedure.

Well, maybe not.

[stone]

From a UK perspective, I think it is good to have lots of information out their to help parents decide but I think it would be nuts if there was a major effort by people against male circumcision whilst at the same time allowing so much female circumcision in the UK and of UK girls sent abroad for the procedure. Although illegal, nothing is done to stop it. Girls are even sent from all over europe to the UK to undergo dangerous and barbaric female genital mutilation.

[Tortoise]

I find it interesting that there are health benefits to circumcision. Why did human males evolve to have foreskins if there is a health/survival disadvantage to having them?

I also find it interesting that there is a religious aspect to circumcision. If God intended men to live without foreskins, why did he create men to be born with foreskins in the first place? (No disrespect intended, just an honest question.)

[dualstow]

I also find it interesting that there is a religious aspect to circumcision. If God intended men to live without foreskins, why did he create men to be born with foreskins in the first place? (No disrespect intended, just an honest question.)

It's a question that's been asked throughout the ages. I don't know the "official" word on it, but it may be another thing that separated the Hebrews from the heathens. Why did God make pork and lobster so delicious? (Granted, eating those foods are more opt-in while removing something from the human body is more opt-out).
As a nonreligious person, though, I think about these questions less and less often. God could have made our hair and men's beards grow a certain length and then stop. Clearly, free will includes grooming. If Jesus was originally preaching to his fellow Hebrews and not to the entire world, then perhaps (from this specific viewpoint), non-Jews were meant to leave their foreskins intact.

As for your first question:

I find it interesting that there are health benefits to circumcision. Why did human males evolve to have foreskins if there is a health/survival disadvantage to having them?

Perhaps they offered protection against something that modern medicine and sanitary conditions make unnecessary. I have nothing to back this up -- in fact, it is not even my opinion -- but I'm just throwing it out there. Or maybe they're like wisdom teeth and that classic vestigial item: the appendix.

[WildAboutHarry]

I find it interesting that there are health benefits to circumcision. Why did human males evolve to have foreskins if there is a health/survival disadvantage to having them?

Humans didn't evolve foreskins.  Some very, very distant ancestor did.  And as dualstow mentioned, we carry around a bunch of evolutionary baggage that isn't particularly useful (or in some cases detrimental) now.  But some of that baggage could be useful later.

And since we are on the subject:

The baculum (also penis bone, penile bone or os penis) is a bone found in the penis of most placental mammals. It is absent in humans, but present in other primates, such as the gorilla and chimpanzee. The bone aids sexual intercourse. The female equivalent is the os clitoridis - a bone in the clitoris.

It is absent in humans, equids, elephants, monotremes, marsupials, lagomorphs, hyenas, and cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), among others.

Such a wide distribution among placental mammals suggests that the bone evolved early in the history of these mammals, and was subsequently lost in certain groups.

Go figure...

[MachineGhost]

From a UK perspective, I think it is good to have lots of information out their to help parents decide but I think it would be nuts if there was a major effort by people against male circumcision whilst at the same time allowing so much female circumcision in the UK and of UK girls sent abroad for the procedure. Although illegal, nothing is done to stop it. Girls are even sent from all over europe to the UK to undergo dangerous and barbaric female genital mutilation.

WTF?  I thought that crap was only in the backwaters of Africa.  Oh joy...

[MachineGhost]

I find it interesting that there are health benefits to circumcision. Why did human males evolve to have foreskins if there is a health/survival disadvantage to having them?

The minor benefits seem largely like going on cholesterol-lowering medication for high cholesterol, i.e. snipping is a palliative for an unhealthy lifestyle.  So don't go around acting like a slut or being with sluts and you'll reduce your chances dramatically of acquiring the baddies, same as if you stop stuffing your pie hole with junk food so you dont get a heart attack.  What if the unintended consequence of snipping is more sexually unhealthy behavior?  It's not fair to use current medical evidence ex post facto for the long history of circumcision that had nothing to do with the baddies and everything about sexual repression.  I also read on some anti-circumcision site the claim that countries that don't snip have lower rates of rape because the male is more sensitive to pain.  I'd like to believe that.

[Reub]

How often do you go to anti-circumcision sites?

[Ad Orientem]

Wow. This thread should have come with a PG-13 rating.