The American Academy of Pediatrics says that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the concerns.
Okay, let’s take that as proven: that the slight reduction in the rate of UTIs and HIV manages to outweigh the risk of botched circumcision, but only slightly. There is, in fact, no scientific evidence that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. (Yes, there is anecdotal evidence, but that’s not scientific data.) I remain confused about why we are having men have the surgery as infants. Surely we can wait until they’re eighteen and then allow them to decide whether the health benefits are worth it. It’s their body! Particularly since it’s a “maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t” situation, it really sounds like something that the owner of the particular penis ought to be allowed to have some input in.
Also, wouldn’t it be easier to reduce the rate of UTIs and HIV with proper hygiene and wearing condoms, as opposed to by surgery?
However, the evidence behind the health benefits of circumcision is shakier than the Academy gives it credit for, which brings us to the next article in the news roundup. This is a fascinating analysis of the methodological flaws in the randomized, controlled circumcision trials.
Short version: The men knew that they had been circumcised (well, obviously) so it wasn’t a blind study; the circumcised men got free condoms and safer-sex counselling and the circumcised men had bandaged, wounded penises for much of the study, so they obviously weren’t having a hell of a lot of sex. Bad statistics make the decrease look many times larger than it is. (Gah, bad statistics are my pet peeve.) Condoms are more cost-effective and don’t risk teaching men that, because they are circumcised, they don’t need to use condoms when they have sex. In short, the health benefits of circumcision are far from proven.
Finally, this is an interesting article from the Guardian about one man’s choice not to circumcise his child.
About ozyfrantz
I remain confused about why we are having men have the surgery as infants.
Because male bodily autonomy isn’t as open and shut as we are led to believe.
Because as adults they might say no.
No, because when you bring in the parents’ religious beliefs, it makes things a LOT more complicated. I’d long decided not to circumcise any sons I might have–and now I’m seriously dating a Jewish guy.
You know that whole “Jewish covenant” thing? Guess what you’re required to do to your sons as part of it.
If we DO end up marrying and/or having kids, this will go from an academic disagreement to a Big Relationship Issue.
Here are contact details for nearly 90 celebrants of non-surgical Brit Shalom, more than 40 of them rabbis, one also a Professor of Religious Studies, in 30 US states and several other countries, including Israel: http://tinyurl.com/britshalom
Because babies and children are in a non-privileged condition, also.
It is my understanding that there is controversy over whether or not circumcision reduces the sensitivity of the skin that remains on the penis. It is a scientifically incontrovertible fact that circumcision creates a 100% reduction in the sensation one gets from the foreskin, which happens to be rich with specialized, erogenous nerve endings. I’m not sure how one can maintain that there is no scientific evidence that this doesn’t reduce sexual pleasure.
To my knowledge, studies completed of adults who have been circumcised show that they have no reduction in sexual pleasure.
So are those studies:
A. Adult men who had their foreskin until adulthood then were circumcised and then compared sexual pleasure of before and after.
OR
B. Adult men who had been circumcised before they became sexually active and then somehow had their sexual pleasure compared to that of adult me who still had their foreskin.
I’m asking because its my understanding that the foreskin, the part that is removed, is rich in nerve endings and it would seem to me at least that no matter how you slice it a significant loss of nerve endings would reduce sensation and sensitivity, which I bet are counted when “sexual pleasure” is measured.
Abubaca: …no, I showed that the studies that said it had an HIV benefit were poorly executed.
Danny: The former. The latter would be medically useless, yes?
Yes because bad or useless information has never influenced people or policy before right?
Go to the pro-circ websites to find men circumcised as adults who attest that sex
is better circumcised. And there’s no lose of sensation.
It wouldn’t surprise me if circumcision has different effects on different men, depending on subtle differences in their nervous systems.
It also wouldn’t surprise me if some of the men who are blaming circumcision for sexual problems actually have problems caused by something else.
That isn’t quite correct.
First, you must be referring to measures of men’s subjective evaluations of their own sexual ‘pleasure,’ since as I noted it’s incontrovertible that circumcision reduces the sensation of the sexual organ. This is problematic, because as far as I know, there have been no randomized studies which looked at the impact of men’s subjective evaluation of their own sexual pleasure after being circumcised. (If you’re aware of any such study, I would greatly appreciate a citation.)
This is important, because what the studies that do exist are measuring is the subjective experience of a group of men who will be highly motivated to report positive things about their elected surgery. It’s the equivalent of saying that tattoos make people happier, because surveys of people who got tattoos report that overall they liked having them.
The ‘group of men who voluntarily choose to become circumcised as adults’ is an extremely small group, and includes a disproportionate number of men who are religiously motivated and/or otherwise persuaded that removing a significant amount of sensitive tissue from their sexual organs is somehow a good thing. In short, you can rely on them being biased as a group to report favorably on their experiences with their altered organs. It is similar to the phenomenon which can be seen in many women who underwent FGM reporting positive experiences as ‘cut’ women.
In short, it is another highly misleading piece of junk science being used to buttress public support for an unjustifiable violation of underage boys’ fundamental human rights. The fact that this kind of misleading information even sucks in people like you, ozy, who are laudably opposed to the practice, just shows how insidious this kind of ‘data’ really is.
Don’t forget that one reason the foreskin is even there in the first place is to preserve sensitivity of the glans, which is still there in a circumcised man. In my experience, the glans is a lot more sensitive than the foreskin, whether the guy’s circumcised or not. (Yes, I can tell. There’s a big difference between “Mmm” and “OH GOD YES,” and you can certainly hear that difference, even if you’re not the one with the penis.)
It may be that the difference in sensation for most men is too small to make a difference.
Not quite true; scientific studies on this reach different results. There have certainly been studies that show it does decrease pleasure, but there are also certainly studies that show it doesn’t: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research_findings
Except you’ve shown in this post that those studies are very poorly executed.
Since any* intact man will tell you that his foreskin itself gives him sexual pleasure (Shakespeare called it “my sweet ounce of man’s flesh”) studies based on circumcision are just silly. Do we need to cut people’s lips off to prove that kissing is enjoyable?
*Some isolated but high-profile exceptions may have a tiny version of Anton’s Syndrome, which leads people to want amputation.
That’s weird how they would rig a study like that to make circumcision look good. It makes me wonder who wants to slice penises and why. I know foreskins are often sold to pharmaceutical companies for tissue research, and they make anti-wrinkle cream out of them, but I can’t imagine a foreskin from Africa making it to America and still being useable for these applications, without being prohibitively expensive. Also, since foreskins have a market value, one could make the case that circumcising then selling the foreskin is theft.
I can buy tissue research, but….anti-wrinkle cream? Can you give us a citation for this?
“Who wants to slice penises?” Well, for starters, there are religious reasons for some people (and circumcision is a bigger deal in those religions than “don’t eat meat on Good Friday” or “You should really go to synagogue”). And don’t ignore the sheer power of tradition: most doctors automatically circumcise babies simply because that’s “what is done.” It takes a LOT to overcome cultural inertia, otherwise racism and GLBTQ-related violence would not still exist.
Why not evaluate the scientific evidence? Then you’ll realize that circumcision is good.
Um…I feel that circumcision is harmless, but kinda weird and unnecessary (like those ear-piercing gauge extensions). I’m not going to stop someone from getting himself “cut,” but I don’t feel like it’s medically necessary in any way.
Circumcision isn’t good OR bad. It’s….removing a flap of skin that most people won’t see. It honestly makes very little difference in OR out of the bedroom, unless you’re one of the unlucky fellows with low sensitivity.
The main reason I was against circumcising my own kids is because it just didn’t seem necessary. It’s not harder to teach a kid to bathe properly just because he has a foreskin. I don’t mind people doing it for religious reasons, but since it’s not medically necessary, I figure why bother going through with it?
I would not call it harmless. Would you call a removal of the clitorial hood harmless?
It is undeniable that a lot of nerve endings are removed when the foreskin is removed. I think the vast majority of men with a foreskin will report that the foreskin does indeed have sensation (be it for touch, temperature and so on). Removal of the foreskin would objectively elliminate these sensations. I am an uncircumcised man and just the thought of going with my glans exposed in my underwear makes me cringe like one does when one watches a man being hit in the groin. Direct touch to the glans is only bearable when I am aroused and that reflects what I’ve exerienced from women: no direct touching on the clitoris until properly aroused. Seeing that most circumcised men have no problems walking around I have to assume that there is some loss of sensation in the glans (and some studies have found a significant difference in pressure sensation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847?dopt=Abstract ). I remember back when the loss of sensation (with the consequence of lasting longer, avoiding premature ejaculation) was an argument for circumcision so this is not some new argument the anit-circ people have conjured from thin air by themselves.
Now, whether this manifests itself as a difference in sexual enjoyment I think is a much less clear picture. I think the reason why studies are not very clear on this is partly because it’s a very subjective thing to measure. I also think that the brain compensate for any sensation loss to a certain extent (which may vary from individual to individual) like we see in sight-impaired people who have an heightened sense of hearing. Does such an compensation make it harmless? I would say no.
Let me guess, you’re eyeing your jar of Olay with suspicion now
To be more serious: Here is one product: http://www.skinmedica.com/skin-care-products/skin-rejuvenation/tns-recovery-complex (select the tab named ingredients). What you are looking for is the ingredient called Human Fibroblast (I know it sounds like a character in a Douglas Adams book).
SkinMedica’s products have been promoted by Oprah Winfrey on her show. Here’s another one: http://healthyskintips.com/content.asp?ContentID=13
Apparently by some digging it seems like it’s not actual ground up foreskin which is used, but the foreskin cells are being cultured in a growth media (perhaps with some calf serum (from cow fetuses)) and the growth produces fibroblasts which are cells which synthesizes collagen and the extracellular matrix – all building blocks needed to maintain the structural integrity of connective tissue (such as skin) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibroblast)
Companies are also looking into using foreskin cells in injections to reduce wrinkles (similar to how botox is used): http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-cut-above-the-rest-wrin
Other interesting thing put into skin creams are for instance bull semen, ambergris (a gray/black substance found in the intestines of the sperm whale, urea (now usually synthetic, but also produced from horse urine), human placenta (look for Hyaluronic Acid and Protein Hydrolysate in the ingredients list as both can be extracted from placentas), herring scales in many pearlescence products and fnially waste cooking oil (perhaps from your local McDonalds
: http://www.toptenz.net/products-in-cosmetics.php
Actually, I use goat’s milk lotion usually, and I have no problem with wearing lipsticks even though they’re made with fish scales. I could probably handle foreskin in my lotion, it just seems kinda weird.
They’ve invented circumcision clamps that render the removed foreskin useless.
So it’s not about money for foreskin/
Any cites for that? Exactly how is the foreskin rendered useless? Are all cells killed by this clamp?
Suffice it that some men can’t bear the idea that other men have MORE PENIS than they do.
Because informed consent is the enemy of religious tradition. Best to do it to them before they can have any say in the matter; after all, they might (gasp!) choose WRONG.
I honestly don’t think that’s why the Jewish people circumcise their kids. Remember, they originated in the ancient Middle East, where the climate is fairly hot and daily bathing wasn’t always an option. Under those circumstances, it was probably easier to keep your penis clean and sand-free if it didn’t have a foreskin.
The stupid part is that so many American hospitals just do it as a matter of course. It’s ok to have “extra” body parts–we keep our appendices and tonsils, after all.
No evidence that hacking off large pieces of genitalia reduces sexual pleasure, right.
The berlin reform looks similar to that recommended in Tasmania
https://theconversation.edu.au/tasmanian-report-calls-for-groundbreaking-reform-of-circumcision-law-9105
It’s a mystery how either Germany or Tasmania is going to allow any male genital cutting, forbid any female genital cutting (even very minimal kinds), and maintain equality of the sexes.
The policy is heavily loaded towards circumcision, virtually instructing doctors to browbeat parents into doing it:
“Parents who are considering deferring circumcision should be explicitly informed that circumcision performed later in life has increased risks [FALSE - they give no evidence for this claim] and costs. Furthermore, deferral of the procedure also requires longer healing time than if performed during the newborn period and requires sexual abstinence during healing. [The word "condoms" never appears in the policy.] Those who are already sexually active by the time they have the procedure lose some opportunities for the protective benefit against sexually transmitted infection (STI) acquisition, including HIV; moreover, there is the risk of acquiring an STI if the individual is sexually active [without condoms] during the healing process.”
(No mention that if it’s not done at all there is no cost, no risk, no healing period and very little greater risk of STDs, if any.)
The policy fails to consider the structure or functions of the foreskin, a normal healthy body part, only the cutting of it off. [The words "frenulum" and "ridged band" do not appear in it.] The erogenous value of the foreskin has been known for millennia, even to its enemies.
The policy claims benefits of circumcising outweigh the risks without ever numerically comparing them.
It exaggerates benefits and minimizes risks and harm.
It ignores major complications and death from circumcision.
It discusses one circumcision clamp without mentioning that its maker was driven out of business by lawsuits arising from botches caused by the clamp.
Bottom line: HIS body, HIS choice, when he is old enough to make one. The AAP admits that he will almost always choose to keep it all.
The policy is badly flawed and should be withdrawn. For more detail see
http://tinyrul.com/aapanno