1) Arguments that create a simplistic equivalence between male and female circumcision — which are not the focus of today’s post, so much as:
2) Feminist allies (usually male) who feel the need to respond to the former by discussing how male circumcision is never problematic because *they* are circumcized and they have awesome feeling — really great, their penises are so sexy they can hardly stand it — and can satisfy partners like nobody’s business. Circumcision can’t be bad, because it would be untenable for bad things to be associated with *my* (or occasionally my partner’s) penis. I don’t want to hear about botched operations, and reduced sensation, and how there is no real medical data supporting the practice – LALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! MY PENIS IS AWESOME!
1. Agreed. Male and female circumcision are totally different. In fact, I don’t think it should be called “female circumcision” at all, rather we should always refer to it as “female genital mutilation,” to illustrate the difference.
2. There may be no data to support the claim that circumcized males are less prone to STDs, etc., but is there any evidence to support the anecdotal claims of enhanced sexual performance? I’m just wondering if there have been any studies.
“not the focus of today’s post…?” Is there some other post somewhere?
And I don’t get this. It seems like you are trying to suggest that there are no reasons to oppose the anti-circumcision zealots other than the desperate desire to, um… I don’t know… avoid associating bad things to my own penis, to which none of the aforementioned bad things have happened? Why would some other dude’s experience with his penis affect how I feel about my own penis?
Also, it seems like you are trying to suggest that the various men who report “um, my sex life is just fine, actually,” are lying or worthy of discounting because they’ve been somehow brainwashed by their callused glansi? (glanses?)
When an enormous number of circumcised people (the vast majority AFAIK) suggest that it isn’t really a big deal, implying that we all are primarily making that claim because we don’t know any better or are all (?) suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance is, well… a bit obnoxious.
Especially since there’s a perfectly logical explanation. The sensitivity issues seem to be resolved fairly well by life: if you’re more sensitive then you use more lube, or rub more lightly, or whatever, and you may be less likely to appreciate the really heavy stuff. If you’re less sensitive then you use less lube, or rub harder, or whatever, and you may be less likely to appreciate the really light stuff. [shrug] What’s the big deal?
I think of our responses as similar to the bemused responses of people whose lives should have been “ruined” by whatever current trendy thing is considered horrible. It’s like the guy who protests that yes, he saw his parents having sex, or he got spanked, or he didn’t get breast fed, but he doesn’t really care either way…and the well-meaning analyst who ascribes great meaning to it over his protestations.
It seems like a lot of MUTILATING the GENITALS is TEH EVIL but really, what’s all the fuss for?
Here are two I hate:
1) Since it’s not illegal, I have the unconditional right to circumcise my (male) child.
2) Hacking off bits of my (male) child’s genitals is a private decision between me and my son’s doctor, and nobody else’s business (including that of civilized societies in general).
I didn’t say it was the only argument in favor of male circ, I said it was one that was particularly stupid.
…okay, well I read it as being analogous to conversations in which “Today we’re talking about how x is problematic” gets overrun by a load of folks saying “but I experience x and it’s not problematic for me so you shouldn’t talk about it anymore,” when that’s totally not the point — but I guess that’s just me.
At any rate yes, I find that behaviour annoying. The other day in class we were talking about how others’ perception of our racial identities affect our self-identification and the two white guys in the class sat around and complained that what we were discussing was irrelevant because their identities weren’t affected by others’ perception of them. Fortunately they managed to restrain themselves from dominating the discourse, otherwise I would’ve had to scold them.
Madeline – I agree with you about using FGM when discussing the practice among a western audience. People working inside communities to affect change, however, have found they get a better response if they call it circumcision or cutting.
Sailorman – I didn’t read the post as saying circumcised men who report no ill effects are brainwashed, just that they also fail to see that male circumcision ISN’T WHAT’S UNDER DISCUSSION. Even saying something positive about male circumcision is still keeping the focus on men and off FGM – THAT’s the problem.
1. I agree that the arguments that make simplistic comparisons can be problematic only insofar as the range of procedures covered is by default much wider when discussing FGM or female circumcision but I think that the reasons they are done essentially the same, ‘Tradition’ or perceived health advantage.
For example in this article about circumcision in Egypt we see some of the social underpinnings. From the article: “The age to be done varies between 2 to 12 years old, and an unmutilated girl will be regarded by the community as “impure”, facing many taboos and social rejection. The dishonored family could not marry her without the “rite of passage” from childhood to adulthood (so that she makes “good marriage material”).”
and
“There is not one person here not circumcised, and it will continue”, a 16-year-old secondary school Egyptian girl student commented. “No one can get married without it,” said another one.”
I am sure if you asked that 16 year old you would find that she is circumcised, mom is, grandmom is, and so forth. These sound to me like the same excuse parents used to circumcise their boys in the US.
Here is another amazing example the blog of a mother in Singapore praising her infant daughter’s recent circumcision, again by a doctor.
In this case the Singapore mother had her baby girl circumcised in a hospital or perhaps a ped office by a doctor. How is what she did not parallel to what is done in the US? I am sure these parents do this out the best intentions and to be clear I am not supporting them but trying to illustrate that there are significant parallels between what is being practice in Egypt, Singapore, and perhaps other places and what goes on here in the US every day. The difference is only gender.
I do understand that there are additional issues including degree and conditions and my two examples don’t address degree. They do address in part the excuse and conditions; 75% done in Egypt are done by doctors or nurses and the mother from Singapore apparently did it at the doctor. To be sure when female circumcision is performed in unhygienic conditions its going to turn out bad but so can ‘bush’ and clinical male circumcisions. MGM and FGM are not as dissimilar as we wold like to think; a great article was recently published in Medical Anthropology Quarterly:
A Rose by Any Other Name? Rethinking the Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting.
2. To your second point I agree. I think that represents the collective condition of most in the US including researchers, doctors, and laymen. I think the problem lies in that it is difficult to accept that such a personal, lets say modification, may have not been in ones absolute best interest.
To Madeline: Your right there are no health benefits to infant male circumcision and the perceived benefits often cited are either way down in the noise or extremely rare and treatable in less invasive and more effective ways. They keep popping up again because (see 2).
Also it is difficult to know whether men who under go circumcision truly have enhanced sexual experiences. As you said it is anecdotal and for the most part men who seek circumcision may have a medical condition which skews their opinion; for them it may in fact be a relief. One interesting study though discusses how it turned out for a group of South Koreans; not so well. This is a bit different because in their case they did it for social/peer reasons not medical. It is common in South Korea not to do this on neonates but teens to early 20s.
“not the focus of today’s post…?” Is there some other post somewhere?
ON THE INTERNET?!?!?!?!?! I’m going to take a wild guess and say “Yes, somewhere on the internet, there is a post about this.” It’s not our job to tell you where it is. You’re a big boy, you can find it.
Total agreement on all counts, Mandolin.
Joe,
Your post ends up not addressing the extremely large differences between the physiological implications of male circumcision and female genital surgeries (Yes, FGS encompasses a large range of surgeries, but most are not limited to nicking the tip of hte clitoris or removing the clitoral foreskin).
You also end up ignoring the differences between the social construction and use of the practices.
Basically, I’m all up for helping you end male circumcision in the US — it’s just that the analogs to female circumcision aren’t really useful or accurate.
partial genital excision
commonly performed on male infants in one geographic location
commonly performed on female teenagers in another geographic location
with the latter being more physically damaging than the former.
in each location the mutilation is seen as ‘normal’ or ‘preferable’. each culture justifies its socially mandated surgery with easily falsifiable non-logical argument. both are indicative of culturally arbitrary body-modification fashions, reflecting the superstitious self-indulgence of each group of humans.
with the latter being more physically and socially, including ramifications for personhood and the treatment of affected individuals within their culture damaging than the former.
Different Joe than above but I wanted to say that like sailorman I assumed this was a follow up to another recent post. Also, agree with most of what He said. okay, male circumcision is bad, but it’s pretty low on my list of bad things that must be stopped.
Jesus Christ.
I swear to god, Mandolin posts saying:
1) Stop comparing male circumcision to FGM.
and
2) Stop telling us how great your (male) circumcision is.
And almost immediately, we see posts doing both 1 and 2. It’s like clockwork.
—Myca
Hi,
Really can’t see any need for female circumcision. As far as male, other than botched procedures, it doesn’t seem to be worth worrying about.
Whether or not your cirucmcision ruined your life forever or left irreparable damage, that is not the point. If someone scooped your left eye out as a baby but you have no memories of it and can still see fine out of your right one, would scooping out babies’ eyes without their consent be any less wrong?
It’s not about whether or not you are happy with the results of the procedure. That does not matter. It’s about *not* performing unnecessary, irreversable, non-consentual surgery on children’s genitalia. Period.
Mold,
Your second thought does not follow from the first. You don’t see a need for FGM, but don’t have a problem with male circumcision. So… what is the need for male circumcision then?
Mandolin,
I agree my post is a tad glib with respect to the areas you mention; it is certainly something that requires a much deeper discussion and I am certainly aware that the vast majority of FGS done in Africa are far more sinister affairs that result in greater physiological problems. Something I am not aware of is what the distribution is of the procedure across the range of possible procedures. I think what makes it difficult, and perhaps impossible, to draw strong parallels is the wider range of practices and motivations.
Out of curiosity I Googled FGS in Singapore it seems the custom is a nick in the prepuce shortly after birth.
I also seem to recall a legal case out in the north west a while ago where someone, likely from Africa, convinced a doctor to perform the ‘nick’ on their infant daughter. And as should have happened the doctor wound up in a ton of legal trouble. I find it hard not to see the parallel in that case but to be sure with respect to FGS you must bound the problem to make any remote comparison. We should just make it easy and ban them all.
Just out of curiosity, what did you think about the Darby article? I think they go deeper into the issue and touch more on the things that I glossed over. Also there is an interesting discussion occurring at the NYT about a African women who went home to do her ritual FGM. What are your thoughts on that? Thanks for the feedback and the discussion.
But…my penis is so sexy I can hardly stand it! MY PENIS IS AWESOME!!!
Seriously, though…Mandolin, while simplistic “all FGM is the same as male circumcision” arguments are clearly absurd, I can see some utility in drawing a comparison between hood-ectomies and male circumcision. Specifically, I wonder if intact mothers would be so cavalier about circumcising their boys if they compared it to slicing off their own hood.
As to argument #2, I usually hear it coming from guys who were circumcised in infancy, and who claim that there is no loss of sensation. They seem blind to the fact that they can’t testify as to loss of sensation, because they have nothing to compare it to.
Funnily, Bjartmar ignores the fact that circumcision is usually carried out by, and approved by, adults of the same sex. That’s one of the big difficulties in fighting FGM. (And in Judaism, where circumcision is a religious mandate, guess which parent is responsible for circumcising a son? Guess which sex a mohel is supposed to be?)
LALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! MY PENIS IS AWESOME!
Mandolin wins the Internet!
Mold,
With regard to your second thought about the ‘botch’ there in lies part of the problem. It is being performed on infants for no medical reason. So say there is a botch what do you tell the kid. Sorry we botch that, there was no medical need to do it but you’ll just have to live with it. Complications can range the gamut from very minor up to and including death. Two that made the news this year, although there may have been more, included one in London and one in Ontario. So if the procedure is not medically indicate is it worth even one death?
Sailor:
That is very much not what I read her as saying. These men she mentions aren’t lying, but they are discounting others’ bad experiences based on their own good experiences.
You would never argue that everybody should be forced to go skydiving because you really enjoy it and you’ve never gotten injured. But, somehow, when you substitute “get circumcised” for “go skydiving”, logic flies out the window for these guys.
Do you have any data for that? Or (and I’m not being snarky here) are you suggesting that because you are happy with your circumcision, so it’s probably the same for everybody else?
I see two problems with studying circumcision. The first is sort of psychological: people are less likely to be upset about things they can’t change than things they can change — and being circumcised is something that can’t be changed. So there are probably some people who will report being satisfied with their circumcisions, who would report being dissatisfied if they thought they had a choice.
The second problem is one of sampling error. Sure, we can study adults who get circumcised, asking them about their experiences before and after the operation. But we will only be sampling adults who wanted to be circumcised. To eliminate sampling error, we would have to collect a number of uncircumcised men at random, remove their foreskins, and then ask them how they felt about it. And I’m pretty sure I know how the results of that study would turn out.
Mythago, I’m not ignoring that; I’m just not talking about it because it’s not relevant to my point.
I was discussing a way to get intact women to think twice before approving their boy’s circumcision. Obviously, the method is useless in the cases where the mother is not given a choice in the matter.
I suppose I could have discussed making the same argument to fathers, but most men have likely already drawn the analogy between their infant’s foreskin and their own. Therefore, pointing it out to them would be rather useless.
My penis is still awesome.
One more argument I hate:
I’m concerned and I know there’s no medical reason to do surgery removing parts from my son’s penis, but I’ll just defer to my circumcised husband.
Bjartmarr discusses
sampling error. Sure, we can study adults who get circumcised, asking them about their experiences before and after the operation. But we will only be sampling adults who wanted to be circumcised. To eliminate sampling error, we would have to collect a number of uncircumcised men at random, remove their foreskins, and then ask them how they felt about it. And I’m pretty sure I know how the results of that study would turn out.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
… but that study would also be skewed by “sampling error” – if by sampling error you mean “emotional influence over how people report physicial effects and sensations”. The unwillingness of the subjects would also color their report of the physical effects.
Something similar happened when Israeli doctors did a study based on the thousands of Soviet Jews who came to Israeli and were circumcised in adulthood.
The results split rather evenly between the three options: “sex is better now” or “sex is relatively unchanged” or “sex is worse now”. Both pro- and anti-circumcision forces tried to spin the results to suit their agendas, giving different interpretations to the “no change” group.
Then one of the researchers went back and correlated the results of the sexual question with the question about the participant’s motive for circumcision. It turns out that most of the “sex is worse now” respondents were doing it to please their girlfriends or due to peer pressure.
(Caveat: the physical procedure these men underwent was traditional Jewish circumcision, which is much less invasive than standard hospital circumcision.)
The closest we can get to a really objective comparison is randomized studies of penile sensitivity. There have been a few such studies, but so far they have not been large enough in scope to silence the apologists for circumcision and other critics.
I think there is a case to be made that the opinion’s of circumcised males as to their own state of being is quite relevant to the discussion. Admittedly, they (okay, I’ll be honest, we) have no basis for comparison. But unless circumcised men are protesting their circumcision in meaningful numbers (or we have a reason to believe that they are being intimidated into silence), then I think there is something problematic in outsiders swooping in to inform us we’re damaged and to “save” us from ourselves and our crazed culture.
I don’t think dialogue is a problem at all; but dialogue is a two-way street. Silencing the purported victim’s telling of his own story is not the right way to go. We shouldn’t be forced into being bystanders in our own play, as the enlightened informed outsiders deliberate over what to do with us.
“The closest we can get to a really objective comparison is randomized studies of penile sensitivity. There have been a few such studies, but so far they have not been large enough in scope to silence the apologists for circumcision and other critics.”
The problem isn’t the quality or size of the study, but that few people (in circumcising cultures) want to hear it, and most media does not seriously report it.
The penile sensitivity study which can be accessed from here is of substantial size, methodologically sound, and if it were performed again, the results would almost certainly be similar.
Why should circumcised men be believed when they say their sex/sensation/comfort is all it could be, when most intact men will tell you their foreskin is important and they’d hate to lose it? The former can’t know what he’s missing, while the latter knows quite well what the former is missing.
I think there’s something problematic in assuming that meaningful numbers of men aren’t unhappy with their circumcisions, or in assuming that there are no reasons that might keep them from speaking up. Just because we’re not picketing the maternity ward doesn’t mean that we don’t exist.
Reasons for keeping silent might include ignorance about the benefits of having a foreskin, or not wanting to get upset about something they can’t do anything about, or being embarrassed to talk about it, or being socialized to think that foreskins are ugly or abnormal.
I think there’s something problematic in assuming that meaningful numbers of men aren’t unhappy with their circumcisions, or in assuming that there are no reasons that might keep them from speaking up. Just because we’re not picketing the maternity ward doesn’t mean that we don’t exist.
That’s fine. But you need to put out the evidence, and you need to at least take it seriously when some circumcised men say that they really are content with what they’ve got (which of course, cuts right to the heart of Mandolin’s second pet peeve). I don’t think you can just assume a lack of agency or a false consciousness on our part.
We know there are men who are unhappy with their circumcisions. There are some in this thread.
They come and tell us they’re unhappy. And the response of some feminist allies is — what? To say “My penis is awesome!”
The awesomitude of your mighty penetrative staff is of great interest to you and any people whose orifices are dripping with lubricant of one variety or another upon the contemplation of your mighty penetrative staff. It is of little relevence to the conversation. We know that men retain sexual function when they’re circumcised. We further know that there’s measurable loss of sexual sensitivity (see Brick’s link). We *also* know that there are men who are unhappy with their circumcisions.
The “MY PENIS IS AWESOME!” line of argument is, in fact, accusing other people of false consciousness. It’s telling the people who come to us with anecdotal and evidentiary data of their own dissatisfaction and the scientifically measurable detriment of others, to shut up — because their problems can’t possibly be bad. After all, YOU TOO were circumcized, and YOU got over it — and with an AWESOME PENIS no less.
Logically, it’s a bad argument. Your penis’s awesomitude doesn’t in any way invalidate the experience of that guy over there who dislikes having had bits involuntarily chopped off him. Nor does it actually disprove the evidence, which is that — sorry — the deforeskined dick is also a bit less sensitized than its enforeskinned pals.
Note that the “MY PENIS IS AWESOME” argument involves arguing that there can’t possibly be any problems with circumcision because of (insert bragging, misinformation, denial, or all three).
Some of you seem to be confusing it with the “Yeah, okay, fine, but I’ve got better things to worry about argument” which doesn’t involve denying the fact that circumcision causes disbenefits, invoking myths about circumcision, or bragging about the fact that your cock can’t possibly have anything wrong with it.
Observe the difference:
For contrast:
If you’re not spreading myths about circumcision, spending lots of your energy bragging, or denying that there could possibly be any disbenefits associated circumcision (since after all your penis is too awesome to have any possible disbenefits associated with it), then you’re probably arguing point 2 instead of point 1.
But you need to put out the evidence
Let’s see. We’re agreed that the procedure is medically unnecessary, sometimes harmful, occasionally drastically harmful, irreversible, and involuntary. Further, the procedure can be performed later in life on those who consent. And I merely want to hold off until we can determine what the individual who owns the penis wants and I’m the one who needs to provide evidence?
I think you need to re-read what Mandolin said before you go any further. Nobody’s saying that some guys aren’t genuinely happy with their circumcisions. Mandolin is saying that their happiness is irrelevant to the question of whether circumcision is ever problematic. And I’m saying that some of us are displeased with ours, and for various reasons that number may be larger than you think.
But if a guy has educated himself about foreskins, and has put some thought into it, and then says he’s genuinely happy to be rid of his, I’ll believe him.
(And if a guy doesn’t know anything about foreskins but is nonetheless thrilled not to have one…then I don’t think his opinion on whether infants should be circumcised is all that relevant. Sorry.)
Edit: After reading Mandolin’s post, I feel the need to point out that my Penetrative Staff has Copious Awsomeitude. That is all.
When talking about a procedure that isn’t medically beneficial and which is (usually) done without consent, I think that a very low number of complaints is still “meaningful.” There is so little harm that comes from refraining from circumcising our sons, after all. (ETA: Or from reducing ceremonial circumcisions to a nick.)
We know from that data that exists that some number of men will suffer decreased sensitivity as a result of being circumcised. If a man wants to take that chance, more power to him. But it ought to be his choice to make, not his parents’.
(I of course am not denying that parents have to make many choices for their children. But some choices should reasonably be deferred until the child is old enough to decide for himself; this is one such case.)
Two comments:
1. “unless circumcised men are protesting their circumcision in meaningful numbers….”
In what numbers are circumcised females protesting their circumcisions?
Psychological factors cut (excuse me!) both ways:
– circumcised people being defensive about something they must live with (I’m all right, Jack).
– anti-circ people use the circumcision issue (especially male circumcision) as a scapegoat for all kinds of other insecurities and angers (My social/intimate life sucks because…. because I’m circumcised!).
I see both of these very human dodges a lot when these issues are discussed. Don’t you?
And they feed off each other, don’t they? The defensive/indifferent mainstream finds it easier to dismiss the anti-circ movement because of its more extreme claims (Deep effect on infant’s bond with mother! Causes autism!). And the already insecure just get riled up by the dismissal.
Which leads the well-intentioned and rational back to an attempt at factual inquiry:
2. “The penile sensitivity study which can be accessed from here is of substantial size, methodologically sound, and if it were performed again, the results would almost certainly be similar.”
Well, no – the whole sample was just 163 men, split between cut and uncut. And it’s been criticized on many levels:
-criticism of the statistical juggling/massaging applied
-criticism of the obvious anti-circ bias of the researchers
-criticism of the way people were recruited (for one earlier study, ads were placed in erotic magazines catering to foreskin fetishists, and in anti-circ newsletters).
So we aren’t there yet.
To some degree, the comments here are replaying those of a previous thread, but there is–unless I am reading too much into things here–an implication in the way Mandolin wrote her post that I think is worth considering, i.e. that the routine circumcision of infant males is an explicitly non-feminist (and therefore patriarchal) practice. I think it is; I think that while it is structurally the inverse of FGM–meaning that it tends to reinforce male privilege, while FGM tends to reinforce female disenfranchisement–it grows out of the same male dominant value system, whether it is practiced medically, as it is here in the US, or ritually, as it is among Jews worldwide and in every tribal culture that I have read about. (There is, actually, a false dichotomy in that last sentence, because I think the medical ritual of routine infant male circumcision is no less ritualistic than, say, the “spiritual” ritual of the Jews; the difference is that because medicine is ostensibly an objective science, it can very effectively pretend that its rituals are not rituals at all, but are procedures necessitated by objective facts.)
So, if the routine medical circumcision of infant males (and I am limiting myself to that subset of male circumcision practices for the sake of clarity) is a patriarchal practice, it’s worth asking what, specifically, is patriarchal about it? I will be back to answer my $.02 worth when I have more time, so for now, I will just put the question out there.
But unless circumcised men are protesting their circumcision in meaningful numbers (or we have a reason to believe that they are being intimidated into silence), …
Having “meaningful numbers” of unhappy circumcised men is meaningless. Bodily integrity – free from the harm of unnecessary surgery – is an individual right. It only takes one unhappy male to demonstrate the violation. I know we have that, even if it means I stand alone. (I do not, obviously.) What the majority believes demonstrates only how our legal infrastructure permits male circumcision despite its clear flaws within our Constitutional framework. It does not mean the majority is correct. The burden of proof only rests legitimately on those opposed to leaving healthy bodies intact to explain why that shouldn’t be the case.
… then I think there is something problematic in outsiders swooping in to inform us we’re damaged and to “save” us from ourselves and our crazed culture.
This is a valid complaint. There are infant circumcision opponents who must convince circumcised men that they’re damaged. I feel no need to convince any circumcised male that he’s damaged. I think it’s irrelevant because it’s the flip side of Mandolin’s point 2 in the original entry. Males may have whatever opinion of their own penis they choose. It’s only when he seeks to impose his opinion on the body of another who can’t consent that it becomes an issue.
I am circumcized. I am quite happy with my sexual functioning (it may perhaps even be “awesome”). But I strongly oppose infant circumcision.
“Funnily, Bjartmar ignores the fact that circumcision is usually carried out by, and approved by, adults of the same sex. That’s one of the big difficulties in fighting FGM. (And in Judaism, where circumcision is a religious mandate, guess which parent is responsible for circumcising a son? Guess which sex a mohel is supposed to be?)”
Actually, mythago, in many places FGM is performed by women. One of the major hurdles to getting communities to stop cutting is that the practice is tied up with women’s only “societies” (think Elk’s CLub) that are a source of social power for women, and also because performing cuttings is a reliable source of income for older women. One of strategies to end cutting that has proven very successful is to educate these older women about the harms of the practice and at the same time provide skills training so that they can do something else to support themselves.
We know the cultural work that FGM does; we also know the cultural work that Jewish male circumcision does, i.e., it includes Jewish males in biblical covenant between God and Abraham; what cultural work do people here imagine that the routine medical circumcision of infant males does? And if you want to cite the medical/health/cleanliness justification for the procedure, then I would ask what cultural work does that particular vision of the male body do? Because medicine, too, is not without a cultural context. I am asking because it does seem to me that the discussion of male circumcision taking place here is taking place as if the procedure were ahistorical and without cultural context.
As I said, will be back when I have more time to say what I think, but I am wondering what other people here think too. How do you all contextualize your positions vis-a-vis male circumcision in the United States?
“what cultural work do people here imagine that the routine medical circumcision of infant males does?”
Well, it’s introduction to the US was only secondarily about hygeine, yes? Its primary purpose was supposed to be anti-masturbation, IIRC.
For American males without a historical religious attachment to circumcision, I’m inclined to call it a vestige of Victorian sex negativity (which itself is a primarily woman-hating practice, the manifestation of which in this case is negatively targetting males).
Also, there’s a partriarchal dimension to this which isn’t quite explored — children are an underprivileged group in a patriarchy, and that this targets infants (often for painful, unanesthetized procedures) is surely not coincidental.
1. FGM and Male Circumsision are are on two totaly different playing fields in which are not comparable, and it also drives me nuts. It seems to me that FMG is a way of control over women in some cultures to cut down on promiscuity, and in the same surgury detrimentalizes any enjoyment of sex, whereas the male was at one point (and still is in parts of the world) a religious ritual and seems to have less detrimental effects on the person.
To Answer Richard Jeffrey Newman, I would say that it stemmed out of a patriarchal society, and therefore has a certain stigma attached to it.
“FMG is a way of control over women in some cultures to cut down on promiscuity”
In some cultures, yes. However, this statement is incomplete and simplifying.
Someone asked upthread about the rates of occurence of different kidns of genital mods, and I’ll try to get to that. It’s a long answer.
Short answer: the forms of FGC performed in Singapore and Indonesia are, by and large, minor enough so as to hardly fall under the umbrella. I am *not* well versed in the cutting performed in these cultures, but as I understand it, the original procedures often involved removing about 1/4 inch from the clitoris. This *is* equivalent to cutting a large bit off the penis, and *does* cause sexual problems. However, it’s starting out at a level quite a bit less detrimental than most FGC.
However, activism in Singapore and Indonesia has, as I understand it, successfully changed many of these shallow cuts to nicking — which is, as I understand it, the ritual drawing of a little blood from the clitoris without removing any tissue. This is actually the end point goal of a lot of activism in places like Africa where the population is striving to get people to adopt the ritual shedding of a few drops of blood as a replacement for more detrimental FGC procedures.
So, no, Singapore and Indonesia aren’t really representative of the detriments of FGC. Again, if I’m remembering the situations correctly, the two countries are actually closer to what we want to see globally.
I was discussing a way to get intact women to think twice before approving their boy’s circumcision.
Which is to say, intact women who are being told by the boy’s father that he wants the child circumcised? I don’t really see the point of your argument, except the assumption that if it involves a child, it must be some woman’s fault.
Which is to say, intact women who are being told by the boy’s father that he wants the child circumcised?
Which is to say, intact women who have a say in the matter, period. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
I never said anything about finding fault. I was discussing a way to prevent a boy from being injured.
But yes, now that you bring it up, I do think that any adult with a say in the matter who approves a circumcision is ultimately to blame for any detrimental effects.
Many women simply cede the issue to their husband. This has always struck me as wrong, and it’s why my son isn’t circumcised, because I felt strongly and my husband agreed that unnecessary medical procedures are never a good idea. The idea that boys and their fathers bond over the shape of their weenie is really kind of creepy.
Some good discussion here, but to go back to the top, I agree that if people (usually women) are discussing FGC and out of the blue someone (usually a man) says “You should be talking about (and condemning) MGC” that’s pretty annoying, but what more often happens is that somewhere during the discussion of FGC, someone gratuituously says “FGC is unspeakably evil and is done to destroy the women’s sexual sensation* but male circumcision is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and it’s the greatest thing since sliced, um, bread.”
*Can anyone point me to evidence that this is ever its intention? There is evidence that it doesn’t (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2837).
There is a tabular comparison of the two at http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html which makes them look pretty similar.
The actual practice between tribal FGC and surgical MGC is very different, but when you compare tribal with tribal or surgical with surgical, the differences fall away. Nearly 40 youths died every year 2000-2005 from tribal male circumcision in Eastern Cape Province alone. Surgical FGC was recommended in the 19th century and intermittently up to the 1950s, and magazines like Penthouse had enthusiastic articles about it (by and for consenting adult women) into the 1970s and 80s.
As ethical and human rights issues, when performed on non-consenting minors, what difference is there?
————-
Richard Jeffrey Newman: “we also know the cultural work that Jewish male circumcision does, i.e., it includes Jewish males in biblical covenant between God and Abraham.” That doesn’t explain why the many Jews who don’t believe in God or Abraham continue to circumcise, and in fact while that is a core reason, it’s surrounded by a whole penumbra (see http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html) around identity and supposed spiritual benefits. Shalom Auslander’s “Foreskin’s Lament” is relevant. He ultimately had his son circumcised out of fear of God’s wrath if he didn’t.
————-
As for argument 2, “their penises are so sexy they can hardly stand it” indicates something is the matter, because intact men don’t have that problem, nor “if it were any more sensitive I’d have a heart attack” – the world’s cardiac wards are not overflowing with the world’s intact men. This suggests (since nobody can experience someone else’s sensitivity) that there is something the matter, and certainly that circumcision has changed their sexual functioning.
“There is a tabular comparison of the two at http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html which makes them look pretty similar. ”
There’s a really cool one of these I used to have that had quotes in it. Things like “I gave her a tight circumcision, got rid of all the extra tissue” — female practitioner in Egypy / “Do you see how tight that circumcision is? No extra tissue there” — male mohel in USA.
I thought the illustration was really shocking… and one of the ways in which I think the comparisons between MGC and FGC can be a good thing — when the comparisons are careful to note the places where the two procedures are in fact analogs, and when they have a chance at shaking westerners out of their blithe assumption that MGS is okay (which it is not).
This pdf brochure draws a graphical comparison between various genital cutting practices.
Good post, Mandolin.
I don’t think it the one you mention Mandolin, but this one seems similar to what you describe. It is also linked off of the page Hugh posted.
Which is to say, intact women who have a say in the matter, period. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
I don’t have to. I can just look at the ones you put there yourself. Mandolin pointed out the perils of trying to compare male circumcision to FGM, and you proposed that this is a useful metaphor because you “wonder if intact mothers would be so cavalier about circumcising their boys if they compared it to slicing off their own hood”.
The WHO and UNAIDS state:
Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
and from:
Sensation and Sexual Arousal in Circumcised and Uncircumcised Men
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com:80/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x
“No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups.”
Although I wasn’t looking for it, as is often the case when your not looking for something, the the case I spoke of in post 18 popped up in another discussion. It was Seattle 1998.
That’s absolutely it, Joe. I think the table with the quotes is the most successful job of comparing FGC and MGC I’ve ever seen. I think its success is in allowing proponents of the practices to speak for themselves (if the quotes are composed instead of real, they still sound accurate to my ear and so read like good composed stuff should).
Particularly these really affecting quotes:
Sudanese grandmother: “In some countries they only cut out the clitoris, but here we do it properly. We scrape our girls clean. If it is properly done, nothing is left, other than a scar. Everything has to be cut away.”
My own father, a physician, speaking of ritual circumcision inflicted upon my son: “It is a good thing that I was here to preside. He had quite a long foreskin. I made sure that we gave him a good tight circumcision.”
35 year old Sudanese woman: “Yes, I have suffered from chronic pelvic infections and terrible pain for years now. You say that all if this is the result of my circumcision? But I was circumcised over 30 years ago! How can something that was done for me when I was four years old have anything to do with my health now?”
35 years old American male: “I have lost nearly all interest in sex. You might say that I’m becoming impotent. I don’t seem to have much sensation in my penis anymore, and it is becoming more and more difficult for me to reach orgasm. You say that this is the result of my circumcision? That doesn’t make any sense. I was circumcised 35 years ago, when I was a little boy. How can that affect me in any way now?”
Thanks for the link, Joe.
I could reply to Joshua with the response he blocked me from posting over at http://www.care2.com/news/member/876269444/557236
but rather, dragging us back on topic, http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? Stallings R.Y, Karugendo E.
Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.
What’s striking of course is the double standard. No call for Random Controlled Trials of FGC here, let along mass FGC campaigns!
—————
“No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups.” Yes, because they ignored the foreskin!
A partially corresponding study is at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2837
Female circumcision does not reduce sexual activity
———–
Hanny Lightfoot-Klein was one of the earliest people to blow the whistle on FGC, writing the classic “Prisoners of Ritual” (which includes a chapter on MGC)
An interesting question:
I think there is a very strong class component to circumcision in (gentile) America – and there was a similar class component in England during the early 20th century.
Circumcision was associated with being upper or middle class. This also underscored the distinction between the immigrant generation and their native-born children.
These trends are currently playing out among the Latino population – immigrant parents going along with circumcision because it’s “the American way” or seen as more advanced. And even some adult males wanting to be circumcised to “fit in”.
Here in Israel, many not-at-all religious Soviet emigres underwent circumcision for similar social (rather than religious) reasons.
First Joshua, the study you sited with respect to sensitivity didn’t even test the foreskin among other problems which can be read about here unlike this study. And one recently done in South Korea found that circumcision causes reduction in sexual satisfaction in 20% of men. Now to the next part.
Have you ever heard the saying, “The big print giveth, the small print taketh away.”? The thing is this 60% figure that keeps getting thrown around represents the relative risk reduction not the absolute risk reduction. The authors, press, and funders throw that around for one simple reason, it look far more impressive. For example in one of the studies the figures were 22 (1.5%) 47 (3.2%) over about 1400 which leads to a absolute risk reduction of less than 2%, and that was the high mark. The problem is you don’t want a headline reading “Circumcision reduced absolute risk of contracting HIV by 2%”. A headline like that doesn’t get you recognition, further funding, or the front page of major papers. Now if the results were instead 40% and 80% we would have a 50% relative risk reduction, a 40% absolute risk reduction, and perhaps something to talk about, in Africa.
Lets also remember that these studies were conducted in a pandemic zone where we have infection rates which are in the neighborhood of 15 – 35% (or more) and I would imagine that just about everyone and everything in those countries are considered ‘utra-high risk’. I also don’t believe that the bulk of the population group studied in Africa could possibly be compared to those in the west with respect to education, standard of living, and other important factors. For example, in many of these countries concurrent relationships are very common. Wife, girlfriend, girlfriend2, ect. And it’s not just one way either the Wife and girlfriends often have a few on the side who are visited and rotated through perhaps every few weeks or so. Read The Invisible Cure Africa, The West, and The Fight Against AIDS by Helen Estein for more details. This concurrency network presents a unique problem. The thing is that while it is relatively, and by that mean once in a blue moon, common that condoms are used for encounters with prostitutes it is not at all common between those in the concurrent network which can spider out to be expansive fast tracking HIV in Africa. This is in contrast to most other societies where fairly long term serial monogamy is the norm.
So, out of this ‘perfect storm’ there is, optimistically, an actual reduction of less than 2% if all goes perfectly. Project that optimistic projection into the west and we are likely talking about tenths, perhaps even hundredths of a percent difference but likely less. This is quite possibly why simple observational studies failed to show any real correlation, even in Africa the data was all over the board. Indeed, not too long after that recommendation, The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations for example, just for good measure, released the following July 2007 statement. For those who don’t want to click through some choice quotes include:
“Male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic”
“African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.”
Oh and this one is my favorite:
“The USA has a growing heterosexual epidemic and very high rates of circumcision”
Dr. Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, where she holds the Samuel Gale Chair in the Faculty of Law and is a professor in the Faculty of Medicine, had some good things to say about this in her book, The Ethical Canary, reprinted here. She said in part: The most recent claim of a medical benefit from circumcision is a reduction in the risk of contracting HIV infection or other sexually transmitted diseases. The research on which this claim is based is being challenged, but even if it is correct, it would not justify circumcising infant boys. Even assuming that circumcision gave men additional protection from becoming infected with HIV, baby boys do not immediately need such protection and can choose for themselves, at a later stage, if they want it. To carry out circumcision for such a future health protection reason (assuming for the moment that circumcision is protective) would be analogous to testing a baby girl for the gene for breast cancer and, if it is present, trying to remove all her immature breast tissue in order to eliminate the risk of her developing breast cancer as an adult woman.
If you continue to read on you’ll find that she clearly shows that even with our current laws, routine infant circumcision is technically criminal assault, actually aggravated criminal assault. A very interesting interchange between Dr. Somerville and the Chief of the Division of Neonatology Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (who by the way has also been working to stop RIC) expands on her legal interpretation.
Since your interested in HIV research perhaps you would be interested in this paper presented at the International Aids Society on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in 2005 “Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?” Found that: “In the final logistic model, circumcision remained highly significant [OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.41,0.88] while adjusted for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.” Basically, circumcised women had a significant lower HIV risk after adjusting for significant influencing variables. The conclusion goes on to say that ”A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.” Conundrum? Woops Wrong answer I guess; Why don’t we set up some more testing to see if we can provide an additional benefit to women? Because like male circumcision FGS for any non-medically indicated reasons, especially on nonconsenting individuals which infants always are, is unethical.
Professor Jon Myers, Professor of Public Health at UTC (University of Cape Town), asked the same question in a recently published article in a South African Medical Journal. Here is the news article The article, as it was published in the South African Medical Journal, can be found here but like he said: “A Tanzanian study had found that female circumcision reduced HIV transmission. Biologically, the explanation for this was probably the same as for male circumcision. … “If female circumcision was medicalised in a similar way to male circumcision, it could be made safer and less damaging.” Plus I’ll sarcastically add that if you do it while their infants they’ll never know what they are missing. So would you EVER think of putting a daughter through this for some vanishingly small reduction in risk; of course you wouldn’t.
Again from The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations: Articles 3 and 6 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights require consideration in discussion of the implementation of circumcision programs to prevent HIV. Article 3 clause 2 states that “The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society” and article 6 clause 1 states that “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” Given that male circumcision is an invasive HIV prevention method that is expected to have a population effect rather than a direct, measurable individual effect, genuine informed consent that involves a clear understanding of the lack of direct benefits to the individual is therefore ethically required. As Dr. Somerville pointed out infants and children don’t immediately need this protection and they can acquire it at a time, if they so choose, when they are capable of giving consent.
The AFAO goes on to say: How a man factors the known risk reduction alongside the unknown variables into his sexual decision-making is the important thing. Unless he opts to use condoms with all sexual partners whose HIV status is positive or unknown, he remains at risk of acquiring HIV (and if he does this, there is no need to be circumcised for added protection).
And there is the issue of communicating the partial effectiveness even to adults in Africa. I am not sure that will be understood in the way its meant all the time. In another recent article we have this jem: “Aah,” one subject said during trials, “I have a natural condom.” Followed by: Bailey admitted that the studies in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya found an increase in the number sexual encounters, less consistent condom use and an increase in unprotected sex respectively among the circumcised. But he said that with repeated study visits and intensive behavioural counselling there were eventually reductions in risk behaviours. Somehow I get the feeling that these “repeated study visits and intensive counseling” will not be part of the program implemented en mass. Instead it will likely be a hour or two presentation, a chop, a handful of condoms, a trifold pamphlet (that will end up in the street), and no return visit for re-enforcement. This is problematic.
So after all that the whole issue really boils down to this:
A. You don’t need a circumcision, but you need to always wear a condom and you ought to be choosy about your sex partners.
B. You can get a circumcision but you need to always wear a condom and you ought to be choosy about your sex partners.
The primary advice simply doesn’t change, you still need to always where a condom and you must limit and be choosy about your sex partners. Along side condoms and selectivity, circumcision is irrelevant. Which makes a campaign like this not only unethical but also a resource sink draining what little money there is into an intervention that still needs the support of less invasive more effective methods anyway.
To consider circumcision is to consider a situation where you might try and forgo the condom for whatever reason and presume that since your circumcised it’s fine. All that shows is that the neither the man nor the woman are thinking too hard. In a low HIV prevalence population this is a bad idea, in a pandemic zone this is suicidal. But if adults think their circumcisions will protect them, spin the barrel, pull the trigger you only have to be wrong once; however, implementing something like this on infants or children is clearly unethical.
But not all circumcisions ARE similar.
I’m not an expert on the various FGM practices, but there is a big difference between the traditional Jewish circumcision technique and what is done in hospitals. In particular, Jewish circumcision preserves almost all the erogenic tissue of the foreskin.
There is also a big difference in the practitioner and their training – hospital circs are often done by untrained interns using a kit, while mohels are trained and closely supervised the first few times they come near a live child. Modern standards of cleanliness and anasthesia are the norm for most Jewish practitioners – nobody’s using a broken shard of glass in the outback. This has obvious impact on the rate of complications.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
It’s nice to say “only the owner of the body should make such decisions” but that’s not how parenting and culture work. There will be numerous impositions and restrictions on the child from their parents, family, and community – including a lot of molding/modeling of the child’s physical reality and experience.
Moderator – I submitted a post that didn’t show up and I didn’t see the form over here if you could save it for me that would be great.
Ben-David: “But not all circumcisions ARE similar.”
Absolutely. Nor are all FGCs. Another reason the penis’s (or labia etc’s) owner should be allowed to decide for him- or herself how much is to be cut off, if any.
“Jewish circumcision preserves almost all the erogenic tissue of the foreskin.”
Sorry, but the ridged band is right around the tip and it’s the first to go.
” hospital circs are often done by untrained interns using a kit, while mohels are trained and closely supervised the first few times they come near a live child.”
Yet accidents still happen, as was in the news from Jerusalem a few days ago.
“Modern standards of cleanliness and anasthesia are the norm for most Jewish practitioners – nobody’s using a broken shard of glass in the outback.”
Yet the hasidim of New York insist on doing metzitzah b’peh (suction by mouth) and deny that the boys who got herpes got it from them. Sorry Ben-David, but everybody, just everybody who does genital cutting thinks their way of doing genital cutting is the best way of doing genital cutting.
“It’s nice to say “only the owner of the body should make such decisions” but that’s not how parenting and culture work.”
That’s how parenting and culture work for every other healthy renewable part of the human body EXCEPT the infant male foreskin. The exactly corresponding part of the other sex (a rare exception is intersexed people, and now they are protesting and being listened to), any other part of the boy’s body, the foreskin of an adult man, and someone would be thrown in jail.
I turned up someone else’s post in spam, Joe, but didn’t find anything with your name on it. Sorry, you may have to rewrite.
“But not all circumcisions ARE similar.”
That’s why I like the table with the quotes. It’s clear that the people in both columns are talking about radically different things, a difference which is lost in the table which is reduced to NO/YES, and the blatantly manipulative gross-out imagery brochure which was also posted here. (“X” is gross-looking is not a good argument, and we could probably put together a similar diagram showing appendectomies and shooting victims and asking which were victims of violence, but it would be equally meaningless.)
Anyway, in the table with the quotes there’s no need to create a false equivalence between the two procedures, because it’s clearly the attitudes along the axes presented in the table — not the radical effects of the surgeries — which are being compared. And the attitudes along the axes presented in the table are similar, in ways which I’d hope most USAns would find problematic.
Ditto what Joshua said. I was ambivalent on this issue until I talked to my cousin about it this year. She is getting a Ph D from Hopkins in a health field. She educates people and does research on AIDS prevention. It is her belief that male circumcision helps to prevent the transmission of AIDS. I don’t have data to add to what Joshua said, but it is clear that in the medical community it is not a slam dunk that Mandolin is correct in saying “I don’t want to hear about botched operations, and reduced sensation, and how there is no real medical data supporting the practice”. You may not want to hear it, but there is a debate.
To Joshua’s comment, in quoting the WHO and UNAIDS, it’s important to remember that they also advocate starting mass male circumcision programs in Africa on infants rather than sexually active adults. Which group is more likely to spread HIV today? Isn’t preventing the spread of HIV supposed to be the goal here? Medical resources are not infinite. This policy pretends otherwise.
Also, how might the UN’s downward estimate of global HIV cases and the new infection rate factor into the debate?
Ben-David,
When I have children, I intend to raise them as vegans like me. However, I also accept that they can later reject veganism and eat meat once they’re old enough to decide for themselves. I can’t reject my circumcision.
Medically unnecessary circumcision simply isn’t in the realm of legitimate parental choices. Proxy consent should be seen as holding a child’s rights in trust, not ownership.
plunky: “It is her belief that male circumcision helps to prevent the transmission of AIDS.”
As confounders (competing reasons for the difference) are accounted for, it has been found to help less and less. The most recent studies (by Mor et al. and Millett et al.) have found it doesn’t help men in the US. When all the chips are finally down, it may (or may not) still make a measurable difference, just because the intact penis has a greater area than the reduced one, but there are many other aspects to factor in before going ahead, especially on newborn babies. It’s important not to let fear of AIDS overwhelm all other considerations.
Quoting WHO and UNAIDS gives the argument more credibility than any or the total of personal interpretations and or opinions posted here. The jury is out on the matter … male circumcision has a protective effect of up to 60% against female to male HIV transmission. That makes the foreskin a public health risk. Case closed!
Joshua appeals to authority. In 2000, UNAIDS said relying on circumcision to prevent HIV is like playing Russian Roulette with only two bullets in the chamber instead of three. That hasn’t changed. “60%” just means the risk (ie the chance of being infected on each unprotected encounter) is reduced by 60% (assuming the African studies are flawless, and will translate accurately into the real world – which they aren’t and won’t), not that anybody is actually immunised.
Tony: “Also, how might the UN’s downward estimate of global HIV cases and the new infection rate factor into the debate?”
They mean the Number Needed to Treat goes up and the cost-effectiveness of circumcision goes down.
Joshua,
The results of the study suggest the foreskin is a private health risk for men who engage in unprotected sex with HIV-positive women.
But Hugh is correct, you’re appealing to authority. Authority that has readily abandoned logic, no less. UNAIDS suggests that African nations start mass circumcision programs with children. That’s hardly a position worthy of respect considering those infant males will not be at risk of sexually contracting HIV from a female partner during unprotected sex for many years, while adult males now engaging in unprotected sex with HIV-positive female partners will have fewer medical resources available to them to voluntarily choose circumcision as a preventive measure.
Forgive me if I fail to blindly adhere to the musings of WHO and UNAIDS.
Just for fun, see if this is familiar:
I advocate letting each man seek his own truth. You’ve already found his truth for him.
Again merely an individual’s opinion offered against rock solid scientifically confirmed findings. Mere opinions against proven science does not cut it.
Joshua:
Where have I denied the findings of the studies? I’ve merely questioned the actions of WHO and UNAIDS for their flagrant lapse in judgment in pushing a plan that any half-thinking person can figure out is not the most effective solution for reducing the spread of HIV now. Why are you dodging the true issue?
It’s worth noting that you’re advocating forced infant circumcision, which has not been studied for its ability to reduce the risk of HIV infection. The studies you claim as your proven science looked exclusively at voluntary adult circumcision. That is quite different anatomically and ethically from forcing the surgery on infants. I don’t care what adults do to themselves, even if that means choosing an inferior method of reducing the risk of HIV like circumcision. That’s not the issue here.
Also, should we discuss the recent downward revision in the estimated worldwide cases of HIV? UNAIDS was miscalculating for years in the face of evidence that the disease was neither as widespread or spreading as rapidly as it had been saying? Rock solid?
“rock solid”? ROTFL! Those “findings” are more full of holes than a letter from France delivered by a Catholic landlady.
* more safe-sex advice for the circumcised experimental group
* significant drop-out numbers of unknown HIV status
* experiments cut short based on outcome (ie, when the were ahead)
* non-sexual transmission completely ignored
for starters.
See what I mean? WHO and UNAIDS are dead wrong in the eyes of a handful of zealots. I suppose the CDC are also dead wrong with what they about the issue? ROTFL!
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Joshua — there are problems with the study. However, even if the study is taken at face value, the value of infant male circumcision as a salve for HIV infection in countries where condoms are widely available is dubious at best.
If your goal is to argue that the use of infant cicrumcision to prevent HIV infection is a good idea in a first world country with wide availability of condoms, then I’ll need to see you argue that and substantiate it, which you have not yet done.
There are problems with the study? Which one? There have been 20 odd studies and 3 RCT’s (randomized controlled trials) which confirmed the earlier results.
Have I mentioned infant circumcision? No.
All I have done is draw attention to the fact that male circumcision reduces the risk of female to male HIV infection by up to 60%.
I don’t have to justify the results of the studies and the RCT’s to you or anyone. They speak clearly for themselves. Learn to live with it.
Joshua,
There was a clear implication in what you wrote. Don’t try to weasel out of it.
You know, Joshua, the foreskin was at one time a public health risk because it led to masturbation; at another time it was a public health risk because it made transmission of STDs easier; at another time, removing the foreskin cured everything from asthma to paralysis. Whatver the results of the studies–and even if they are as unambiguous as you suggest in terms of the physiology of HIV transmission (which they are not), they are not as unambiguous as you suggest in terms of the public health implications–calling the foreskin a public health risk, pathologizing a part of the human body (not exacty the same, but also not so different from the way in which pregnancy was at one time thought of as a sickness that needed to be treated) is a pretty scary and risky move, one you ought to think twice about no matter how strongly you feel about the studies you are citing.
A hypothetical: if UNAIDS and WHO and the CDC said circumcision had no health benefits and infant circumcision was a human rights violation, would Joshua still be so dogmatic about their infallibility?
The facts are simple. WHO, UNAIDS and the CDC accept that male circumcision has a protective effect of up to 60% in terms of female to male HIV infection based on the results of numerous studies. Sorry to say that mere personal opinions can do little to change the simple truth of this fact. Learn to live with it.
A new study by the WHO also reveals that at-birth amputation of the left foot results in a 50% reduction in corns, plantar warts, and athlete’s foot. Hurrah!
Joshua:
WHO, UNAIDS and the CDC assume that infant male circumcision has a protective effect of up to 60% in terms of female to male HIV infection based on the results of numerous studies involving males voluntarily circumcised as adults.
I don’t think anyone here cares if adult males choose circumcision voluntarily, for any reason or no reason. I can form an opinion on its validity, but my opinion on what adults do is irrelevant. If you want to agitate for voluntary, adult circumcision, say so and I won’t care. But you don’t do that. You’re not unique among pro-circumcision advocates, of course, but why do you always leave out the key ethical aspect (voluntary, adult) of the studies when citing the potential benefit?
Also worth noting is that not one of those groups can say exactly what causes this potential protection from voluntary, adult male circumcision. They theorize, but there is no rock solid proven scientific explanation. How can anyone be certain that there isn’t a factor that hasn’t been controlled for?
I agree with Mandolin’s response to that; you’ve clearly indicated exactly what you mean, and what you left out of your last statement demonstrates it. But it’ll be fun to ask the question: Do you support routine infant circumcision?
Joshua, What exactly do you think this 60% means? It is a fraction that can be restated as 6/10ths or 3/5ths. So if I was able to choose to be circumcised then I could have unprotected reproductive sex with 3 out of 5 HIV infected prostitutes, but if I went one more I’d most likely become infected, right? I don’t see any significant benifit in this. Two of my brothers commited suicide from having too much cut off. Suicide prevents HIV infection, too. Are circumcision induced suicides factored in to the WHO/UNAIDS 60% reduction rates? fredr
Tony: “But it’ll be fun to ask the question: Do you support routine infant circumcision?”
The catch with that question is that “routine” once meant “without even asking the parents” but nowadays the cutters use it to mean “without medical indication” and they slip without saying between the two. The question is, does someone support neonatal circumcision in the absence of symptoms (other than owning a foreskin)?
Fredr, that’s not what “60% reduction” means. It relies on large numbers, and doesn’t work on small ones. A circumcised man could have his first intercourse with a virgin who’d had a medical injection with a dirty needle (common in parts of Africa) and contract HIV from her.
fredr:
How do you know that your brothers’ suicides were related to circumcision? I am not doubting you; I am just curious.
Hugh,
I lamented over how to phrase this question, and decided on the generic “routine infant circumcision” because it’s most commonly used. But you’re absolutely right. Your question is specifically what I want answered.
It seems like if one was looking at circumcision as a means of reducing the spread of HIV, regularly circumcising infants would be pretty much required to have a serious impact. Or at least, I don’t think it likely that enough adults would do it on their own to have a significant effect on the population.
Of course, in a world with *condoms*, it doesn’t really seem worth it.
Actually, Morganite, in a world where condoms are accessible and affordable, it seems … well, let’s take a look (HIV cases per thousand adults 15-49 according to Univ. of Calif. SF’s HIV InSite:
US: 6
Spain: 6
Italy: 5
France: 4
Canada: 3
Belgium: 3
Britain: 2
Denmark: 2
Sweden: 2
Iceland: 2
Norway: 1
Germany: 1
Australia: 1
Japan: <1
Not exactly a stellar success for the only nation which practices routine infantile circumcision.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Boy we have a great example here!
What was not said is that the MSM/IDU contribution to HIV infections in the US is 70% and the combined total of infections among black/Hispanic people is 2.5 times higher than in whites.
If you believe in the truth of your cause why the necessity for the spin?
Joshua: Your ‘rebuttal’ lacks 1. a citation, and 2. comparative stats for any of the other nations on my list. And, in the case of your race remark, 3. relevance.
If you want to be persuasive, you’re going to have to do a bit better than that.
k, Joshua. Sometime back I asked you to substantiate some of your claims through argument. Please do that now, as re: 73.
Joshua:
In case you missed it when I asked you directly, let me ask again. Do you support routine infant circumcision? Or to phrase the question more precisely, as Hugh mentioned, do you support neonatal circumcision in the absence of symptoms indicating direct medical need (i.e., the presence of a healthy foreskin with the potential to cause future problems is not a symptom of any medical need)?
Joshua, in case it wasn’t clear — either put up, or be banned. Merci.
Richard, when my older brother commited suicide he left a note. Only my mother, younger sister, and younger brother read it, then my mother distroyed it and made my sister promise to never reveal his last words, to me. They didn’t know that my younger brother read it, too. He told me that it related sexual dysfunction with his wife as the reason for their devorce and his suicidal depression. 8 years later he killed himself the same way with a note under simular circumstances. My mother distroyed the note before any of us could see it. I used to think the creator was keeping me erectile dysfunctional because I’m gay. Then I studied the neurological functions of the sex organs and the corresponding brain parts. I observed that my gee string nerves (frenular delta) were severed during routine neonatal circumcision to cause masturbation dysfunction because Catholics believe that is a sin.
Later I checked up on causes of schizophrenia as two of my other brothers developed it after puberty set in. Most cases in men and women have childhood sexual trauma as a commen factor.
Now I hope the circumcised Islamic terrorists succeed in dirty bombing the circumcised Christians and trigger a Nuclear Holicaust on Islam with circumcised Isreal convienently in the middle. This will end the infant genital terrorism insanity. You should not have allowed this to happen to me. Teaching hatred begets acts of hatred.
I have a PTSD flashback of a woman telling me that because her father molested her as a child that her mother put a curse on him to cause his bloodline to become extinct. Cutting the frenulm can cause this to happen to a man and this is what my brain is telling me this woman meant. When you treat women (like a) bloody (peice of meat) she will take an obsidian blade and cut your son’s foreskin off as punishment, and teach him it is the will of the creator. If you are circumcised, then most likely one of your great/grandmothers was a victom of rape and/or sexual abuse by an intact male god worshiper…
Yes I know I sound like I have circumcision induced paranoid dellusions with audio and visual halucinations just like all the prophet, Crazy.
Fred,
I’m sorry you’re upset, but clearly your psychological problems don’t have to do with your circumcision. There are a few factual problems with your argument:
1) Circumcision is not perpetuated by women, and your image of it as a female retribution for rape has no relevance to cirumcision as it actually has occured historically.
2) You overstate the link between schizophrenia and sexual trauma.
I don’t think that you are malevolent, but I would urge you to seek care. Schizophrenia is not as correlated to sexual trauma as you suggest, but it is correlated to genetics. Particularly since you say you’re experience audio and visual hallucinations that are frightening, you may want to consider the possibility that you are like your brothers schizophrenic — something I’d urge you not to leave untreated since it’s led to suicide in your siblings. If you are able, I hope that you will look into treatment possibilities, whether those are therapeutic or medical.
If you’re going to post in this thread again, I would ask that you post things which are objectively verifiable. Again, I understnad that you are not malevolent, but your last post does disseminate myths and misinformation — as well as having echoes of sexism, and also racism through its endorsement of genocide. Please try to confine further arguments to facts; there are enough of those to sustain excellent arguments against infant male circumcision.
Sorry Mandolin, I was feeling bad that day ’cause I had to play god and have my dog put down from COPD. I kept her alive as long as possible until signs of distress became unmanagable.
That slur on circumcision religions is my own interpretations of the book of the revelations of the apocalypse, the last book in the new testiment. No one really knows what the symbology represents and there are many guesses. But since we know that a masculine calyx is called a calypse in the origanal language, and apo means away from, it’s clear to me what caused the apostle John’s dellusions.
You’re wrong about schizo being genetic. It’s easy to confuse genetics with traditions ’cause you get each from your parents. My mother’s sister’s sons have schizo-dissorders, too, and they were cut as infants as well. They each deny the possability that it was from their own genes and put the blaim on the unrelated fathers. Some studies show a link to the mothers genes over the fathers. I will hunt for the links later when my computer is reconnected. I think that some of us are actually genetically unstable to neonatal genital trauma moreso than others.
Mind > Information > Factsheets and booklets by subject > Men > Men’s mental h
http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Factsheets/Men/
Click here: Brain Development in Schizophrenia and Autism – HiddenMysteries Health Archive
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/health/effects/autism.html
Click here: Environmental factor – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_factor
In your rebuttle
1) I was paraphrazing an old testament story of Moses or his brother Arons wife who took a sharp stone and cut off her sons foreskin and through it at his feet and said ” This is because you treat me bloody.” If the mother says yes to circumcision it happens regardless of the fathers wishes.
2) I actually did leave out some of the other causes of schizophrenia as they are often side effects from the origanal childhood sexual trauma, like biological infections, and neurological damage/brain chemistry dissorders.
1)Would you deny that being circumcised incorrectly could never lead to suicide?
2)Would you deny that altering normal neurological links from the reproductive parts of the brain to the reprodutive parts could not alter normal sexual brain chemistry?
3)Would you deny that your labias and G spot give no sexual pleasure for you as a woman?
As far as sexism, I beleive that creation is a feminine atribute and I am a feminist and wish women had more power than men over politics. I realise that as the second sex we men are expendable when it comes to the mother and child.
The only race I am against is the race to extinction. Pro circumcysts are leading the way.
I am 51, and I am not suicidal anymore as when I was younger. I have a mission to help people to understand the consequences when going against logic and nature. Superstitious people can easily be convinced to beleive lies and pseudo-scientific misinterpretations of the signs nautre gives us. Education works better than circumcision in the prevention of HIV…
I just had a son, thought long and very, very hard about whether to circumcise. In the end, it boiled down to a few things.
1. I will not do a surgery to him that is unnecessary and runs the risk of destroying his sex life, however he choses to take it up.
2. I will not make a choice that alters his body without the possibility of his consent. I will be guarding his body for him until such time as he may take care of it himself, and I do not feel that my guarding it can responsibility include that kind of alteration.
3. I believe him to be beautiful and utterly complete the way he is, such that I will not allow anything that unnecessarily alters what I believe to be a beautiful body until such time as he is capable of giving consent, at which time I have no more say in the matter. (This means I try to feed/nuture him in a very healthy fashion as he grows, ie organic when I can afford it, treat him as if he is special and free him, as much as I can, of the nasty and negative male stereotypes that I have knowledge of.)
4. I am unwilling to traumatize him in any fashion, but most especially in that fashion. Circumcision is, to my mind, a bloody act which has its roots in shame.
I had to fight everyone in sight about this one, including reminding the doctors present at the birth repeatedly (while doped out of my mind), but I got my way. I hope he appreciates it. At least he’ll be able to say whether or not he wants to have it done.
<3 Mouthyb.
The argument that annoys me the most is: “I don’t care whether it’s right or wrong, uncircumcised penises are ugly so I think that boys should be circumcised.”
I hear it frequently from women, but also from men.
I agree with (2) above.
I do not agree with (1), because RIC is broadly similar to many forms of FGM that do not attack the clitoris. Also note that every culture that cuts girls also cuts its boys.