I was just reading something on... uh, some of this.
Some people I know were discussing circ'ing and I couldn't think of anything other than, "it's horrible!" so I did some reading.
Points I know about for sure:
Studies done in Africa- very very poorly controlled, poorly thought out and executed, and had a higher drop out rate then an infection rate. It is unwise to take them seriously.
Older men with prostate problems- so we should cut off foreskins because surgeons aren't capable of handling them properly? Shouldn't surgeons receive possibly better training to avoid damaging the foreskin during prostate surgery?
Older men with penile cancer- 1 in 1000 risk, but the risks of circumcision (infection, bleeding, death, severe trauma, problems with the circumcision, increased UTI's, painful erections, premature ejaculation, impotence- and so on) IMO, far out weighs the risks of penile cancer.
The argument that it's cleaner, it smells cleaner, and body image... actually reminds me of an ad from the 1950's selling Lysol-brand douches. Because it's a woman's duty to her husband to be clean, fresh, and odor-free. What it SOUNDS like is that culturally we don't know that discharge (vaginal discharge, that white stuff under the foreskin that I can't remember the name of) is healthy and normal. Just like women used to be encouraged to douche regularly, and women didn't know that discharge was normal, men don't know that the white stuff is normal and clean. Men need to accept it, women need to get over it, and before you know it people will joke about circ like they do about douches.
Better sex- HUGE myth. The penis is at first very very sensitive (nothing to protect it, right?) which might be fun for a bit. But then from constant rubbing on clothes the sensitivity fades or it becomes TOO sensitive, so sex is painful or there are impotence/orgasm problems because they can't feel anything. Caluses and lesions on the glans from constant rubbing are also a problem- how that would make for better sex, I don't know.
My DH is circ'd. He has premature ejac problems, and we can only do it once a day or it's too sensitive and it hurts. So really. Not fun. (although I'm sureh e would not appreciate me telling anyone this :P)
Also- if you can get an infection, or if you find it hard to clean, or if you need prostate surgery when you're older, why not be circumsized THEN? It's like saying, "oh, well, a lot of people have problems with their appendix- why not cut it out NOW when they're babies and save everyone the trouble?"
It just doesn't make any sense. Why do painful, mutilating surgery on babies to PREVENT the possibility that something might go wrong later? What if something goes wrong because of the circ - it's not like you can just be like, "oh, whoops, lets put this foreskin back on again, that should get rid of that nasty infection!"
About the HIV studies in Africa (from
http://www.circumstitions.com/)
HIV Claims Wildly Exaggerated.
Headline: "Circumcision Halves HIV"
Fact: 56 Circumcisions needed
to prevent one case
of HIV in Uganda per year
(if the study is flawless, and it's not, and in the US - other things being equal, and they're not - 380 circumcisions!)
No!
The Uganda and Kenya studies claim to find that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV than intact men. Based on these, mass circumcision campaigns have begun in various African countries - even where a greater proportion of circumcised men have HIV than intact men. Plans are being made to encourage the circumcision of babies.
This is utter folly, a waste of resources and a dangerous distraction from the real issues of HIV/AIDS (as well as a human rights violation).
* Babies do not have sex. Any benefit of infant circumcision in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS will not take effect until they reach puberty.
* In Africa, many babies do not live to reach puberty. The cost and effort of circumcising them would be better spent on measures that help them survive childhood.
* The studies were of volunteers. Infant circumcision raises ethical issues. It can certainly be argued that it breaches
o the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
o the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
o the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
* The studies were cut short. Over a longer period of time, the supposed benefit of circumcision will be reduced.
o The circumcised group was told to abstain from sex for six weeks, or use condoms. The control group was not.
o When the study was ended, the intact control group was offered circumcision, so it will not be possible to tell if the effect was lasting or not.
* Almost as many of the circumcised group in Kenya contracted HIV as the intact (control) group in Uganda, so something they do in Uganda (such as campaign against promiscuity) is about as effective as circumcision. (The Luo people in Kisumu, Kenya, where the study was held, are fishermen on Lake Victoria with "girlfriends" in every port. Local women trade sex for fish.)
* Circumcision is no vaccine
* Circumcision is not cost-free or risk-free. Even if the studies are correct, 56 circumcisions to prevent one man getting infected with HIV is not the most effective way of spending the money, time and expertise.
* Circumcising men disempowers women. Important co-factors of HIV/AIDS are unprotected sex and "dry sex". Circumcising men makes it harder for women to refuse these, and no less risky to accept them.
* Circumcising men does not protect women. One study, widely reported to have shown a protective effect, did not in fact reach statistical significance. Nor did a more recent one but it suggested women are at up to 50% more risk.
(PS- this is from approx 1 hr of research. I am sure some of my facts are weird/wrong, maybe the resources I read are lousy, so I'm sure someone else can give you better answers!)
