So confused. - Page 2

[mom2tig99Nroo03]

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Quirky

Since you're a researcher, you should think about WHY the research is being done in the first instance -- and what the underlying and unstated assumptions are behind the research.

The fundamental, underlying bias behind all the studies on the "benefits" of circumcision carried out by Western (mostly American) scientists and doctors is that circumcision is at best beneficial and at worst harmless. Nowhere in these studies is there a true cost-benefit analysis of the risks of circumcision and the harms of removing the foreskin, because the assumption is made at the outset that the risks are minimal and the foreskin is a useless evolutionary remnant.

Also, look at the lack of research being done on female circumcision to prove its benefits. That's because it's been widely accepted in this country that female circumcision is harmful and mutilating with no benefits whatsoever -- despite the fact that genital tissue is practically identical between the two genders and is different really only in form, not in innervation or function. After all, embryologically speaking, the genitals differentiate from identical tissues only under the influence of hormones.

There was a paper presented at the World AIDS symposium a couple of years back that showed that, even controlling for religion, education, socio-economic status, etc., circumcised women were significantly less likely to be HIV positive (I believe in Tanzania) than their intact counterparts. This research was met with overwhelming silence, because Western societies have decided to eradicate female circumcision. No follow-up research has been done in a controlled experiment putting women into two control groups, those offered circumcision and those remaining intact. Yet the exact same type of epidemiological evidence was used to justify the trials of male circumcision.

You have to look at these studies in context. If you wouldn't consider circumcising your daughter to prevent (fill in the blank), then you have to realize that you are still freighted down with the cultural belief that somehow circumcision is different for boys than for girls, that somehow the female genitals are sacrosanct but the male genitals are not. The research is (no longer) done on the benefits of female circumcision because we have already assumed the outcome, that the costs can never justify the benefits.

It's so simple! Cut through the cultural clutter, and it will be a huge relief to come out the other side and realize the delusions that your families are suffering from. They're not right, they're just brainwashed. You don't have to persuade them or convince them, you just have to tell them that the discussion is over and that your baby boy is remaining whole just as your baby girl did.

And at the end of the day, the "science" about circumcision is just about cultural rationalization for the completely illogical superstitions that sacrificing boys' body parts on the altar of convention will purify society of its sins. It's voodoo science masquerading as modern medicine, and it should have gone out the window with bloodletting to relieve bad humours in the body.

Love this...thank yuu! It makes so much sense to me

[GoodNamesGone]

: You know what I'm tired of seeing? This research where what is natural is suppossed to measure up to what is unnatural.

Breast-feeding is natural, but they try to rate it against formula rather than make it what formula should live up to (or surpass).

Co-sleep is natural, yet they research it by comparing it to crib-sleeping as a standard.

An intact penis is natural, yet people have to make arguments why NOT to cut it.

I'm not saying that all natural things are better (hello, waste products are natural, but I won't eat them!) just that this is where we should start. We should be choosing to do the unnatural because it is BETTER than the natural. Not because we can't prove that natural is better OR worse.

That'd be like telling everybody get an appendectomy "just in case." Then doing a study where I said that some people who didn't get an appendectomy got appendicitis, so that means we should ALL get an appendectomy. Silly. Very silly. I'd be laughed out of whatever place I preached my silliness.

You sound like a smart guy, and like your mind is made up already. You will find LOTS of support at places like this one, and as more people are educated, in real life too. Heck, your son may never thank you simply because it never becomes an issue for him- just normal.

[Seie]

I havent read through the thread, just wanted to comment on the STD/HIV thing. I live in Europe where hardly anyone is circumcised. I have been with a number of intact men - and only two circ'ed men. None of the intact men I have ever been with have had actual discomfort using a condom but BOTH of the circed men felt discomfort using a condom. What use is any extra protection from circ if it makes a man less likely to want to protect himself and future partners?
I have read posts from several others here who have experienced a connection between discomfort with condoms and circumcision. It would make sense as a condom will not move as easily on a circ'ed penis when there is no foreskin to help it move.

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by icewaterwithice

Until our first child my wife and I never really gave circumcision a thought. We figured that it was something that parents "just do" if they have a male child. When we got pregnant with our first we started to really give it some thought and did some research. This was when we really started questioning the procedure. We were enlightened by the historical reasons, the sensual consequences, and the ethical arguments of circumcision. Equally confusing and at times quite alluring was the plethora of information that could be found pertaining to the supposed medical benefits. This was in 2007 so the HIV studies were in the newspaper. Twenty weeks later we found out we were having a girl and my brain could stop hurting.

Two years later we are pregnant again. We recently found out that it was a boy this time and I find myself a little disappointed because now this issue has become very real for us. I consider genital mutilation to be wrong and could not live with myself objecting to FGM yet allowing my son to be circumcised. I could not live with myself allowing any child of mine to have a scalpel taken to their body days into the world without any immediate medical justification. Yet, I still find myself faltering under some of the research. As a researcher myself I understand the arguments against experimental protocol or bias of researchers. I also realize that there may actually be some truth in the findings despite my desire to want to hear differently.

As I write this I dont even know if I will post it. I mainly come here for morale support when I feel crushed by the deluge of information before me. I know what we are going to do and keep telling myself that at least our decision is reversible and he can decide what he wants to do based on the information that is available to him when he comes of age. I know that if we were in almost any other part of the developed world this would not even be a question. I am tired of thinking about it and I am tired of family pressure.

I did this, too, 6 years ago. I have always enjoyed science and got really bogged down in all the conflicting studies. This is what helped me get unstuck: medicine is always changing the treatments for any given condition, and what we "knew for sure" 20 years ago is "stupid" now (fill in with any ridiculous old medical procedure or theory, like removing all tonsils, or thalidomide, or twilight sleep births.) My son would be born with a foreskin, so whether it is God or evolution that put it there, he should keep it. There is no other body part that you are considering removing, even though other parts will suffer more infections and problems. Therefore it MUST be purely cultural.

[SleeplessMommy]

Our son is intact - and we have never regretted it. When he is old enough, we will explain to him about the importance of condoms. I am a big fan of condoms for young adults because of the wide range of protections offered - reduced risk of pregnancy, STDs, and virtually complete HIV infection. If you go with circumcision, you are choosing an alleged 50% reduction in risk of HIV infection. But your son will still need to use condoms to reduce the risk of STDs (syphilis, chalmidia) and unintended pregnancy.

When you look at the HIV protection offered from condoms (99.9%+ if used every time) compared to the alleged protection offered by circumcision (50% alleged reduction for males, with increased infection risk for female partners) the more conservative option is condoms - especially since the expected sexual partners have a very low rate of HIV infection (0 to 1% in North America) versus 25%+ plus for parts of Africa.

As others have mentioned, if you keep your son intact he can always choose surgery at a later date if he wants to. If you choose the surgery for him, there is no way to replace the specialized nerve endings removed.

Best wishes!

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

As others have mentioned, if you keep your son intact he can always choose surgery at a later date if he wants to. If you choose the surgery for him, there is no way to replace the specialized nerve endings removed.

Best wishes!

This is so true. If he feels he want to do that for whatever reason he can. Some might say few men would choose it themselves. If he looks at the alleged benefits and is unconvinced, that itself raises ethical flags high.

[hakunangovi]

I think it is important to understand what statistics actualy mean. Supposing,statisticaly, 1% of the male population is at risk of contacting a disease. Suppose, also, that the researchers claim a 50% reduction in the likilihood of contacting that disease if all males have been circumcised. This means that 200 males will have to be circumcised in order to save one lazy individual (who could not be bothered to use a condom) from contacting said disease. The obvious question is then: "Is that really worth it?"

[nd_deadhead]

Hi Ice, congratulations on your baby boy!

You ask a lot of good questions. As for your families, you can remind them that a lot of things have changed since you were a baby - car seats are mandatory now (I remember laying in the back window ledge of the car), babies are put to sleep on their backs instead of their tummies (my mother wouldn't have dreamed of putting us to sleep on our backs!), breastfeeding is encouraged much more. Doctors used to yank tonsils out on a regular basis; now tonsillectomies are much less common.

The medical community has changed its mind about infant circumcision too. There is no medical organization on the planet that recommeds it; it is strictly cosmetic surgery. Would you get a tattoo on your son "just because everyone else does it"? For that matter, when your son is a teenager, will you forgive him for going out drinking if he tells you "everyone else is doing it?" It would be pretty hard to disagree with him, if you based your own decisions on that same reasoning (or lack of reasoning).

Above all, remember one thing: Circumcision can always be done later, but can never be undone. Why subject your perfect, normal, healthy infant to a painful operation that he doesn't even need?

[KMK_Mama]

We made the decision to keep our son intact too. I have never once regretted it and it makes me happy to know that he has his whole body as nature intended it and that we never allowed him to be violated in such a violent manner just because it's what "everyone" does. We had the same issues with family and now that our son is 3 years old I wonder why I was ever discussing our sons penis with any of them. It really is none of their business so I would just let them know that the subject is not up for debate. You already know what the right decision is. Now you can look up foreskin restoration to see if it is something you'd be interested in doing.

[PuppyFluffer]

Originally Posted by hakunangovi

I think it is important to understand what statistics actualy mean. Supposing,statisticaly, 1% of the male population is at risk of contacting a disease. Suppose, also, that the researchers claim a 50% reduction in the likilihood of contacting that disease if all males have been circumcised. This means that 200 males will have to be circumcised in order to save one lazy individual (who could not be bothered to use a condom) from contacting said disease. The obvious question is then: "Is that really worth it?"

Such great logic!

[Kylix]

Originally Posted by Quirky

Since you're a researcher, you should think about WHY the research is being done in the first instance -- and what the underlying and unstated assumptions are behind the research.

The fundamental, underlying bias behind all the studies on the "benefits" of circumcision carried out by Western (mostly American) scientists and doctors is that circumcision is at best beneficial and at worst harmless. Nowhere in these studies is there a true cost-benefit analysis of the risks of circumcision and the harms of removing the foreskin, because the assumption is made at the outset that the risks are minimal and the foreskin is a useless evolutionary remnant.

Also, look at the lack of research being done on female circumcision to prove its benefits. That's because it's been widely accepted in this country that female circumcision is harmful and mutilating with no benefits whatsoever -- despite the fact that genital tissue is practically identical between the two genders and is different really only in form, not in innervation or function. After all, embryologically speaking, the genitals differentiate from identical tissues only under the influence of hormones.

There was a paper presented at the World AIDS symposium a couple of years back that showed that, even controlling for religion, education, socio-economic status, etc., circumcised women were significantly less likely to be HIV positive (I believe in Tanzania) than their intact counterparts. This research was met with overwhelming silence, because Western societies have decided to eradicate female circumcision. No follow-up research has been done in a controlled experiment putting women into two control groups, those offered circumcision and those remaining intact. Yet the exact same type of epidemiological evidence was used to justify the trials of male circumcision.

You have to look at these studies in context. If you wouldn't consider circumcising your daughter to prevent (fill in the blank), then you have to realize that you are still freighted down with the cultural belief that somehow circumcision is different for boys than for girls, that somehow the female genitals are sacrosanct but the male genitals are not. The research is (no longer) done on the benefits of female circumcision because we have already assumed the outcome, that the costs can never justify the benefits.

It's so simple! Cut through the cultural clutter, and it will be a huge relief to come out the other side and realize the delusions that your families are suffering from. They're not right, they're just brainwashed. You don't have to persuade them or convince them, you just have to tell them that the discussion is over and that your baby boy is remaining whole just as your baby girl did.

And at the end of the day, the "science" about circumcision is just about cultural rationalization for the completely illogical superstitions that sacrificing boys' body parts on the altar of convention will purify society of its sins. It's voodoo science masquerading as modern medicine, and it should have gone out the window with bloodletting to relieve bad humours in the body.

Quirky, do you know where we can find a link to that paper that was presented about female circumcision at World AIDS day?

Kylix

[Quirky]

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.asp...ractId=2177677

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.

[Kylix]

Originally Posted by Quirky

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.asp...ractId=2177677

Thank you very much!

Kylix