The Benefits of Circumcision

[inchwormz]

My mother - who is VERY pro circ - sent me this link on the benefits of circumcision.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

Please help me find sources for the other side of these "benefits". She insists they are all facts, and that these are the reasons to circ. She also insists that the "bell method" does not hurt (apparently my brother slept through the whole procedure ) and that the benefits of circ far outweigh the risks.

I'm worried for my two sisters who have yet to have children but are both in their prime childbearing years, and it's only a matter of time. They both insist they will circ any sons they have, partially based on the convincing efforts of my mom, and partially for their own reasons. I think I could have some effect on showing my mom the other side, and I'd have a better chance of my sisters listening to the other side if my mom was on it with me.

Both sisters have the same main arguments,

"it's ugly intact"
"it's dirty/smelly intact"
"*I* wouldn't want to be with an intact male - so my sons will not suffer that humiliation"

They are well aware of my thoughts that circ is considered cosmetic surgery, and they are also fine with performing this on their own sons and calling it that. All very selfish, ignorant reasons to circ, I know, and I'm really not sure if I have a chance in hell of changing their minds but I'm going to at least try by giving them the actually facts.

They both have very poor self-esteem issues, and issues with "men" in general, so I know a LOT of these feelings stem from this. In fact, my one sister feels so strongly about the topic, she always goes into the fact that if someone had let her "fix her ears" when she was a child she would have (she's always thought they stuck out some, but I've never noticed!). She absolutely insists this will ensure her sons will be better off "emotionally" and "psychologically" in the long run.

Please help. I'm worried for those little baby boys they may have (in more ways than one!).

[SleeplessMommy]

In Canada, very few babies are being circed anymore. The "50%" in Canada claimed on circinfo is about 10 years out of date.In some parts of CA, it may be hard to find a doctor willing to do it.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/
(anyone have the current stats by province?)

A big reason for decreased circumcision in Canada is doctors are realizing how dangerous it is:

An Okanagan incident is being cited as new guidelines for BC doctors suggest that male circumcision may amount to abuse. One paediatrician says the guidelines issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons could put a chill on doctors who perform the surgery. The college says routine infant male circumcision is unnecessary and irreversible and many consider it to be an unwarranted mutilating procedure. The blood loss death of a baby after a circumcision at Penticton Hospital two years ago raised a public outcry that led to the new guidelines.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper...s_14JUL04.aspx

There is also a huge risk of MRSA infection... which can cause fairly serious problems.

On the other hand, there is a great reason to leave a baby boy intact - the sensitivity of the foreskin. Read more here: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/

[inchwormz]

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

In Canada, very few babies are being circed anymore. The "50%" in Canada claimed on circinfo is about 10 years out of date.

Is the whole article out of date? I'm trying to find more facts that may dispute some of the other "benefits".

I also read this on another forum, but would like to find the source of this infomraiton to keep everything factual. My family can be very emotional, and of course this will skew the actual facts. So I'm suggesting to everyone to try to take the emotion out of the choice, and JUST LOOK AT FACTS. A very hard thing for my sisters to do. :

"In a part of Canada, a man can sue the hospital that performed the procedure, the doctor that performed it, and his parents for choosing to have it done."

Anyone know anything about this?

[CallMeMommy]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that website is a circumcision fetish website. Yeah, that kind of fetish. I wouldn't believe anything on there.

[inchwormz]

Originally Posted by CallMeMommy

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that website is a circumcision fetish website. Yeah, that kind of fetish. I wouldn't believe anything on there.

Well, I can't go to my mom with that. She'll need a very solid reason to believe it! Got one?

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

I believe the links on that site prove what it is but I have never visited there. I dont want to see all the misinformation it holds.

Can you show here the AAP website statement on circ? Will a medical orginization website be enough for her?

[georgia]

This is an great overview with cited references if they are open and interested in learning more. IME, there are always going to be people who are not going to be swayed no matter what information is presented. I tend to focus my energy on those who have asked for info and are open and interested in learning more rather than those who are adamantly opposed to learning for whatever personal reason. It's just easier on me emotionally, if that makes sense. We all have to pick our battles, and we each have our own personal style of advocacy. Best wishes, OP!!

[Venia]

Originally Posted by inchwormz

Well, I can't go to my mom with that. She'll need a very solid reason to believe it! Got one?

About halfway down.
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price2/




Other than that its going to take a lot of reading on your part of the many resources listed above. Many if not all of the those "studies" listed on that pro-circ site have "data issues"; IE misrepresentation of results, sampling bias, and experimental flaws. Some "examples" I have seen include:

UTIs - The number of UTI is boys is very very low already. The data itself shows that yes, circ'ed boys in that study did have a lower incidence of UTIs...about 1-2% lower. So with that, almost 200 boys would need to be circed to prevent 1 UTI. This data also does not take into consideration the fact that forcible retraction was the norm at the time the data was collected. Forcible retraction is linked to causing infections, UTIs included.

Cancer - another numbers game. Reduced, yes. But by how much .01%? Natural variation of cancer rates could produce those numbers. Additionally, even if the data was overwhelmingly convincing, I bet my chances of breast cancer would also be lower if I had a double mastectomy. Would I do it just for prevention?....uh, no.

STDs- Other than the simple use of a condom to prevent STDs, again the studies themselves do not take into consideration many MAJOR factors that would skew their results (STD status of partners, religion differences of circed males versus uncirced, length of study, recovery time, etc)

The rate of immediate circumcision issues is anywhere from 5-50% depending on the sample group (excluding long-term issues). That percentage alone is higher than any "benefit" I personally have read about.

[Fellow Traveler]

Here is a very well reasoned point per point critique of that site:

http://www.rollingdoughnut.com/2009/...e_for_the.html

It should help you understand the claims made and why they are not what they appear.

[tutucrazy]

Originally Posted by Venia

About halfway down.
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price2/




Other than that its going to take a lot of reading on your part of the many resources listed above. Many if not all of the those "studies" listed on that pro-circ site have "data issues"; IE misrepresentation of results, sampling bias, and experimental flaws. Some "examples" I have seen include:

UTIs - The number of UTI is boys is very very low already. The data itself shows that yes, circ'ed boys in that study did have a lower incidence of UTIs...about 1-2% lower. So with that, almost 200 boys would need to be circed to prevent 1 UTI. This data also does not take into consideration the fact that forcible retraction was the norm at the time the data was collected. Forcible retraction is linked to causing infections, UTIs included.

Yes, that study listed on circ info is very old, was done in the 80s. They compared intact premature infants to full-term circumcised boys. Premature infants have a much higher risk of UTI b/c they have immature kidney function. So not only were the parents in the study told to retract for "cleaning" (which is VERY harmful) their infants were premature and had a much higher chance of getting UTIs in the first place. With proper care, meaning leave the foreskin alone, the foreskin will actually protect a boy from getting a UTI.

Read about half way down: http://www.nocirc.org/statements/breastfeeding.php

Cancer - another numbers game. Reduced, yes. But by how much .01%? Natural variation of cancer rates could produce those numbers. Additionally, even if the data was overwhelmingly convincing, I bet my chances of breast cancer would also be lower if I had a double mastectomy. Would I do it just for prevention?....uh, no.

Men have a VERY low risk of getting penile cancer while women have a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer. If Circinfo's reasoning were valid then we should remove breast buds of baby girls.

STDs- Other than the simple use of a condom to prevent STDs, again the studies themselves do not take into consideration many MAJOR factors that would skew their results (STD status of partners, RELIGION/morality of circed males versus uncirced, length of study, recovery time, etc)

The rate of immediate circumcision issues is anywhere from 5-50% depending on the sample group (excluding long-term issues). That percentage alone is higher than any "benefit" I personally have read about.

The USA currently has the highest rate of STD transmission of any country. 1 in 3 Americans have an STD. The circ rate among our sexually active men is still well over 70% as only recently have circ rates declined dramatically. Over 500,000 circumcised, American men have died of AIDS. This should tell you enough about the value of circ against STD/HIV.

All those studies are severely flawed and if you look at WHO is conducting them it sheds light on the invalid findings. There are equal studies that have been done that show no connection between circ and lower rates of STD/HIV.

Here is something else you might find interesting...

MYTH: Male circumcision (MC) is not as harmful as female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision (FC).
TRUTH: Many people think that FC involves severely disfiguring a woman’s genitals in attempt to make sex not enjoyable. In reality both MC and FC began as a way to reduce the sensitivity of the genitals. In the late 1800s it was thought that if the foreskin was removed then a boy would not masturbate. After this was discovered to be untrue, men still found a way to masturbate, the claims of “medical benefit” arose. In current times both MC and FC are perpetuated in the name of culture, tradition and “medical benefit”. While there are no doubt severe cases of both MC and FC where the genitals are so severely damage or amputated that the individual can not enjoy sex, this is not the goal for the cultures that practice circumcision today. Severely amputated genitals would be considered a botched circumcision for in any culture where circumcision is practiced. In technical terms there are varying degrees of both FC and MC. First degree FC involves the removal of the clitoral hood. This is the same part that becomes the foreskin on a male at 10 weeks gestation. Second degree FC involves the removal of the clitoral hood and some of the labia. Finally, the third degree involves the removal of the clitoral hood, the labia, and the vagina is sewn up to make the opening more narrow. The third degree would have the most severe impact on sexual enjoyment. Similarly there are degrees of MC. There is a partial circumcision, which preserves most of the foreskin and the frenulum. There is the average circumcision where the entire length of the foreskin is removed; this is what you see most commonly in the US. And there is what is called a “tight circumcision” where the foreskin and all the frenulum are removed leaving the man with very little skin to grow with erection. With both FC and MC there will be more scar tissue and a greater reduction in sensitivity to the sex organs when more tissue is removed. The circumcision that we practice in the US actually removes more nerve dense, vascular tissue than all forms of female circumcision in other countries. While the entire clitoris contains 8,000 nerve receptors, a man’s foreskin alone contains over 20,000 nerve receptors. Bottom line is that BOTH male and female circumcision are completely unnecessary, are harmful mutilation of the sex organs, are performed on non-consenting minors, and exist in varying degrees of severity throughout the world. Genital reduction surgery of any kind is a decision only for the owner of the body to make at a time when he or she has reached a consenting age, as it permanently alters the function of the sex organs. Take a browse through the articles and links below here to take a compelling journey through both FC and MC. It is interesting to see some of the articles in support of FC and how they mirror the same “reasons” that our culture uses to perpetuate circumcision of boys. The hypocrisy of our nation is both astonishing and sad. EVERY child has the right to a normal genitalia!
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygien...rcumcision.htm
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/45528
http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/...d_article=3752
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/fi...m_maq_0907.pdf

Basically the person that runs circinfo has perpetuated a 100 years worth of efforts by doctors to somehow prove that circ has medical benefit. Check out this video about the medicalization of circ. You and your mother will be shocked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4unKTMpBGA

Whenever you see a person so adimately supporting a surgical procedure you have to ask yourself why. Why does that person want baby boys to be cut? What is their interest in this continuing? For us it is easy to see that we feel circ is a human rights violation and want to protect boys from harm. But what could be the benefit of transforming a world that is mostly intact to circumcised? 85% of the world is happily and healthily intact so why would this person think that promoting circ is such a valuable use of his/her time? I can tell you that when a person becomes so completely mad about altering sex organs and trying to get people to do it to their children, some red flags should be raised. Please contact me via PM if you would like more information about the website your mother has come across.

[ursaminor]

Originally Posted by CallMeMommy

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that website is a circumcision fetish website. Yeah, that kind of fetish. I wouldn't believe anything on there.

I think so too. this, circlist and a few others are circumcision fetish sites.

[jessjgh1]

Originally Posted by CallMeMommy
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that website is a circumcision fetish website. Yeah, that kind of fetish. I wouldn't believe anything on there.

Originally Posted by inchwormz

Well, I can't go to my mom with that. She'll need a very solid reason to believe it! Got one?

CallmeMommy was referring to the link your mom sent-- that one is a front for circumfetishists.

The further you go into their links the more likely you might get her to see that.... there are accounts of men's adult circumcision.... where there was a set up video camera-- and you can buy the film. The gilgal society site and circs site (that it links to) used to be a bit more obvious but they have all been cleaned up a bit.

The material is very one sided and the language is very suggestive- hinting towards all sorts of problems that might happen, etc. I can see that it could be very convincing.

To counteract it I would show her as many medical sites that all state that circumcision is unnecessary and have correct care information.
I'd show stats of circumcision rates from a more global perspective.
And I would find as many people you know (internet counts) that you can say so and so and so and so and so all have intact sons and have no problem.

Feel free to use me as a friend.... I'm Jessica my son is Josh, he's 5 1/4 and we are in New England. No problems and almost all our friends left their sons intact, too.

Good luck
Jessica

[SleeplessMommy]

Where the local circumcision rate is less than 10% (many parts of Canada) I think "your kids may be teased for being circed" is a pretty strong argument. Assuming you have a little boy, and he is the first male grandchild, you could try "all of the cousins should look the same" (Cousins are much more likely to see each other naked than kids at school.)

It is possible a Canadian doctor might even talk the parents out of it - could you recommend your pediatrician, assuming he/she is on your side?

[BamaDude]

Originally Posted by inchwormz

My mother - who is VERY pro circ - sent me this link on the benefits of circumcision.

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

Just scroll down to the bottom of that page and follow the links to the associated websites (if you have the stomach for it!) to find out what the real agenda there is.

[Greg B]

Give your mom this link:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...yStatement.pdf


The link you posted is very biased. They bring up some minimal benefits, ignore the disadvantages, ignore the human rights angle, ignore the concept that parents must legally act in the best interests of the child, minimize the sexual feeling and function advantages of a foreskin, and argue that since some men may need or want it, it is a good thing to do. It could just as easily be argued that many men do not want to do it, nor do they need it, so no one should do it unless they actually grow up and decide for themselves.


Regards

[anony]

Point to the low rate and ask "If it's so necessary, why is it being done so rarely in Canada nowadays?" I live in Alberta where the rate is one of the highest in the country (under 20%) and yet, it's uncommon to see any young boys who have been cut when you're at the swimming pool, etc. And there are regions of Canada (which are you in?) which have 1/5 or 1/10 the rate. It is not only wrong and harmful, but a social outcast thing to do when you circ your son in Canada these days.

You run the risk of emotional issues in the future when sons see they're different than most and wonder why. Sometimes they are bound to find out what circ entails and why they're in the minority. Teasing, while it should never be encouraged or allowed, can more likely happen to the boy who IS circumcised nowadays in Canada if that's what your mom's so worried about. A few scathing expose vids and facts from the net can convince your sisters of the right way, even if your mom stays set in her ways.

[moonglowmama]

Originally Posted by inchwormz

Both sisters have the same main arguments,

"it's ugly intact"
"it's dirty/smelly intact"
"*I* wouldn't want to be with an intact male - so my sons will not suffer that humiliation"

I know this is not a very professional thing to say, but my first thought to the above statements were 1) Girl intact private parts might seem messy and dirty and can even harbor odors (!) but in America we don't routinely cut them off and 2) it's weird for moms to think in a sexual way about their children.

But, having thought that, I'd mention out loud the sexual and basic purposes of the foreskin. It's very likely they have not seen nor do they know what the purpose of a foreskin is.

Good luck to you. It sounds like in this situation you'll need to tread slowly and objectively and leave room for them to do some research on their own when the time comes and be available to listen to concerns and questions they have when it really comes down to it.

If your family dynamics are anything like mine, you might do well to cultivate a close relationship with your sisters now, before they are pregnant, so that you can become advice-giver and confidante later, instead of your mother, kwim? Everyone likes to be listened to and cared for, and if your mother is the angry one spewing about circumcision, while you are the wise, calm one gently listening and guiding, your point of view may eventually hold more value to them.

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by inchwormz

"*I* wouldn't want to be with an intact male - so my sons will not suffer that humiliation

The answer to that one is that you aren't choosing humiliation for him, you're leaving the choice to him.

Then you show her the intact celebrity superhunks gallery from http://Circumstitions.com and point out that people like what they're used to. With about half of US infants being left intact these days it won't be an issue of humilation. Over 90% of the non-Muslim world is intact.