so.. are there really arguments on both sides...??

[loving-my-babies]

or is this a ridiculous excuse guilty parents say???

I have heard this on several ocassions.. and ofcourse my POV is that it's BS but I want to know if any of you find ANYTHING, even the slightest, positive thing about circumcision. there has to be SOMETHING if even doctors here in the US circ their babies, or is it truly, 100% cosmetic?

[KellyB]

I've read (but it might be a lie) that circumsized males are slightly less prone to UTIs.

[Frankly Speaking]

Let's look at every single medical justification we can think of and I'll debunk them.

I'll start it. there was one UTI study that showed a 3.5% differential in UTI rates. However, this study purposely used premature babies for their intact group and full term babies for their circumcised group. Itr is a well lknown fact that premature babies are more prone to UTIs than full term babies so you have to throw that one out. All of the rest of the studies show a differential of less than 1%. However, it is also well known that doctors will check an intact baby for UTIs when they won't check a circumcised baby with the same symptoms and that could easily account for the differential. Also more premature babies escape circumcision because of their fragile condition and that could also influence the results. If you figure in all of the confounders, there is really no statistical difference in UTI rates.

There is also the idea that intactness = an increased risk of penile cancer. However, many non-circumcising countries have lower penile cancer rates than the almost universally circumcised Americans. Penile cancer is also so extremely rare that significant confounders can not be eliminated. There is every possibility that circumcision actually encourages penile cancer. I know, the only man I have ever heard of that had penile cancer had it directly on his circumcision scar and I understand this is a common location for circumcised men to have penile cancer.

There has been much ado about HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases being more prevalent in intact men. However, there has never been a conclusive link made even though there has been much publicity in the popular press that would lead the layman to believe there is.

A couple of years ago, there was an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine that attempted to make a connection between intact penises, HPV infection and cervical cancer. This was not new, groundbreaking research but simply a compilation of previous research. Among the obvious faults of the study was that only women who had more than 6 sexual partners were accepted as subjects so it was impossible to determine where they got the infection. The study also did not account for the two most significant risk factors for cervical cancer, birth control use and cigarette smoking. Either one of those confounders could have skewed the results the other was to show that circumcision caused cervical cancer. I studied this issue in excrutiating detail for about 3 weeks and all of the information I found showed that the biggest risk factor to cervical cancer is the woman being delivered vaginally as a baby. It appeared that the mother was to blame for the daughter having cervical cancer because the mother infected the daughter with the HPV virus as the daughter was passing through the birth canal.

There is the old idea that there are constant infections of intact males. It appears that males have fewer infections than females and in every single case I have seen, they were all easily treatable with the correct antibiotic cream. However, it is also apparent that boys very often do not get the same kind of treatment options that girls do for the very same infection. I have seen several instances right here where totally inappropriate, ineffective and possibly dangerous medications have been prescribed for boys. This kind of thing would not happen for girls. Some of the medications prescribed were so far off base that the only conclusion I could come to was that the doctor wanted to make circumcision become the apparent inevitable last resort and to achieve that goal, gave the child an ineffective medication that had absolutely no antibiotic properties.

Because of this bias toward intact boys, I recommend that anytime there is an apparent infection that a culture be taken and grown to positively identify the infectious agent and then look up what ever medication is prescribed for it's suitability for the pathogen identified This will insure a pathogen specific antibiotic forhte problem. It's a shame that we have to protect our sons from the medical profession when we can trust them to provide the appropriate treatment for our daughters.

There is also the issue of phimosis. This is probably the most over diagnosed condition in all of medicine and 99.9% of the diagnoses are false diagnoses. As a matter of fact, following Scandanavian research, the actual incidence of medically indicated circumcisions because of phimosis is less than 1 chance in 18,000 intact boys. Believe it or not, phimosis is more prevalent in circumcised boys. That's because the way circumcisions are done changed about a decade ago because of all the problems circumcised men and boys were experiencing because of too much skin being removed and now more skin is left. As a matter of fact, a common complaint of mothers of circumcised boys is that they don't look circumcised. That remnant foreskin covers much of the glans and the scar tissue can harden and trap the glans resulting in a case of true pathological phimosis.

Any body else have any "benefits" they want to discuss?

I was thinking that we should probably have a thread that discusses surgical accidents and post op complications of circumcison but then decided against it. I don't have the days of time that would be required to discuss all of them.




Frank

[shelbean91]

On the UTI think- I'm sure someone has numbers to back it up, but even if circ'd males have lower UTI rates (and Frank talked about how that's not really significant, anyway), the UTI rates for girls is higher than either circ'd or intact boys. We're not going to start circing girls to lower their UTI rates, are we. Every girl or woman I've known has had a UTI at some point and it clears up just fine with cranberry juice, water, and antibiotics.

[A&A]

Circ cures bedwetting, masturbation, and anxiety.......oh wait, that's what they used to say.

The "cures" change depending on what our current fears are.



Part of your question seems to be, "Why does the US continue to circ?"

After reading Secret Wounds by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, I'm convinced that the continuation of circ is, in part, a subconscious attempt by a patriarchal society at impairing the mother/son bond.

[mahogny]

When my MIL was trying to convince us that circ'ing was the right choice she said, "oral sex is better with a circ'ed guy." Yes, she said that! Holy blush-a-rama, batman!! Her husband (FIL) is intact and she said that it's "unpleasant" to give him....um...oral pleasure. (Geez, I'm just blushing at the memory of her telling me this! )

However, she never gave us any "medical" reasons to circ, and just mainly cited the oral sex issue, as I remember. I was too busy crawling into a hole to remember the whole conversation...

She may have even conceded that there's no "medical" evidence to circ, but was just very concerned that my son gets bj's when he grows up!

[Mommiska]

I really think that the 'there are arguments on both sides' line is what parents say when they want to circ, no matter what arguments there are against it.

Sad to say, there are many, many parents out there who just don't have the guts to do something they perceive as 'different'. So they circ so their son will be the 'same as everyone else' (no matter what that son might want himself, when he grows up and has an opinion on what his parents chose to do with HIS penis). :

Sorry - a little annoyed right now. As Frank said - there is no medical justification. And a lot of parents will admit that, and circ anyway, for 'social' reasons.

Sadly, the insecure teenager lives on in many adults. What ticks me off is that it their children who pay the price.

[MelissaEvans]

Originally Posted by loving-my-babies

...but I want to know if any of you find ANYTHING, even the slightest, positive thing about circumcision. there has to be SOMETHING if even doctors here in the US circ their babies, or is it truly, 100% cosmetic?

The only "benefit" is that a cut father doesn't have to be reminded of what he's missing. He can "prove" that he's just fine because his son is the same. He doesn't have to face the fact that when he was small and helpless, someone took him away from his mom, strapped him down, and amputated part of his favorite thing in the world without his permission. So I don't know if it's 100% cosmetic or just 100% emotional - either way, it's wrong.

[Mommiska]

Originally Posted by MelissaEvans

The only "benefit" is that a cut father doesn't have to be reminded of what he's missing. He can "prove" that he's just fine because his son is the same. He doesn't have to face the fact that when he was small and helpless, someone took him away from his mom, strapped him down, and amputated part of his favorite thing in the world without his permission. So I don't know if it's 100% cosmetic or just 100% emotional - either way, it's wrong.

I totally agree with this.

And I think that for Moms who want to circumcise, despite knowing it has no medical benefits - the social reason IS a benefit for them (sadly). They aren't able to stand up to society and say 'This is a harmful thing, and I won't allow you to cut my baby boy'.

It's easier for them to just 'do what everyone else' does. That way - they might feel guilty for the 15-20 minutes their little boy is down the hall being circumcised, but then (they think) they can forget about it.

Because their son is just the same as everyone else's son. So no one will question them about it.

But if they leave their son intact - then they know there are going to be questions. Why didn't you have him circumcised? Isn't it cleaner/healthier/etc? Won't he be teased?

And they don't want to answer those questions. So the social reason to circumcise IS a benefit - to the parent.

Either because the parent doesn't want to have to answer questions/deal with the reality of making a 'different' choice. Or because the parent doesn't want to face what happened to him as a tiny baby.

But that's the thing - when a newborn is circumcised, all the benefits are for the PARENT. It is, essentially, selfish. It isn't about the child at all, or what is best for him.

It's all about the parents.

[Acksiom]

Originally Posted by MelissaEvans

The only "benefit" is that a cut father doesn't have to be reminded of what he's missing.

Alas, no; I'm afraid that one isn't real either.

Because if he knows enough in the first place for that to qualify, then he'll be reminded of it anyways when he handles or even just thinks about his own RoLM.

[Ilaria]

I'm sure there are arguments on both sides for female genital mutilation as well.

[Acksiom]

Originally Posted by A&A

After reading Secret Wounds by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, I'm convinced that the continuation of circ is, in part, a subconscious attempt by a patriarchal society at impairing the mother/son bond.

Oh, I thoroughly disagree. There's just too many significantly relevant aspects that such a premise fails to cover, and too many too dubious presuppositions behind its contextualization as such.

For one thing, it's my consistent observation that routine and ritual child genital amputation has far more to do with the behavioral and attitudinal control and manipulation of both children and their parents in general by the community and/or elite ruling class, regardless of gender. And increasingly so where the parents are concerned, while less so the children, the younger the age at which it's commonly performed.

For another, it's far more likely that if it impairs bonding, then it impairs the child's bonds with anyone, period -- patriarch included.

For a third, in a patriarchal society, it would be even more important for the mother/daughter bond to be impaired, but not only does routine and ritual female genital amputation occur at approximately only one-seventh the rate of routine and ritual male genital amputation, we don't even know of a single culture where routine and ritual female genital amputation is perfomed exclusively.

And so on.

[MelKnee]

Originally Posted by mahogny

When my MIL was trying to convince us that circ'ing was the right choice she said, "oral sex is better with a circ'ed guy." Yes, she said that! Holy blush-a-rama, batman!! Her husband (FIL) is intact and she said that it's "unpleasant" to give him....um...oral pleasure. (Geez, I'm just blushing at the memory of her telling me this! )

However, she never gave us any "medical" reasons to circ, and just mainly cited the oral sex issue, as I remember. I was too busy crawling into a hole to remember the whole conversation...

She may have even conceded that there's no "medical" evidence to circ, but was just very concerned that my son gets bj's when he grows up!

Sarah, I don't want to embarrass you further, but this makes me laugh (in an I-want-to-cry sort of way). Your MIL has decided for HERSELF that she prefers cut, but she wants to take away that choice from your ds and his future partners!

[mahogny]

Originally Posted by MelKnee

Sarah, I don't want to embarrass you further, but this makes me laugh (in an I-want-to-cry sort of way). Your MIL has decided for HERSELF that she prefers cut, but she wants to take away that choice from your ds and his future partners!

EXACTLY! Based on what she prefers, she made the decision when my husband was born that *I* would also prefer it, and wanted to convince me that my future DIL would prefer it, too!

I really don't think that they know the sexual benefits to the guy of being left intact, and unfortunately, neither my husband nor I will ever know. And before anyone says, "You should educate her", there's no way on this planet I'm going to talk about sex with my MIL!

(I'm reminded of the episode of Friends where Phoebe tells her boyfriend's mom that he's a gentle lover, but he can also rock the headboard like a sailor on leave!)

However, I would LOVE to know what FIL would think if he was presented with the evidence of sex while intact vs. sex while circ'ed. As he's intact himself, I wonder what his reaction would be?

[My2Matthews]

EXACTLY! Based on what she prefers, she made the decision when my husband was born that *I* would also prefer it, and wanted to convince me that my future DIL would prefer it, too!

Agreed... it's like having your MIL in bed between you and DH every night! :Puke Now there's a thought!

[Teresa]

<<As he's intact himself, I wonder what his reaction would be?>>

Did his wife actually say this in front of him?
And is she experienced with providing oral sex to men who are not intact?
That's what I'd want to know if I was FIL.
I can't imagine what's different unless the intact man is not retractile.
A great benefit is the wonderful sensitivity of an intact man's body!
But then, there are women, and maybe men, who just do not enjoy oral sex, so it could be that that is her issue regardless of intactness.

[mahogny]

Originally Posted by Teresa

Did his wife actually say this in front of him?
And is she experienced with providing oral sex to men who are not intact?
That's what I'd want to know if I was FIL.

No, he was not around at the time this conversation was being held. Which is interesting - he NEVER said one word to us about circ'ing - it was all MIL.

But I've often wondered - does FIL know that MIL does not like him intact? Geez, how does that make him feel? "My wife doesn't like my equipment!" That's a blow, isn't it?

MIL, in her crusade to convince us to circ DS, enlisted the help of her SIL, who is FIL's sister. My DH received an email from his aunt stating that his dad, (her brother, my FIL) was impotent because he was intact, and that's why we should circ. Yes, I know that circ'ed men actually have higher rates of impotence, and I won't go into that tirade here, b/c that's preaching to the choir. But this comment made me think of several things.

1.) Why does FIL's sister know that FIL, her brother, is impotent? This is assuming, however, that MIL wasn't just telling her tall tales so that she'd have some ammunition against us, IYKWIM, which is actually what I strongly suspect.

2.) If FIL really was impotent (which again, is NOT something I ever need to know!!) and if he really thought that he was impotent b/c he's intact, don't you think that he'd do what he thought was best to remedy the situation, since sex is so important? IE, don't you think he'd get circ'ed, since he's "impotent b/c he's intact?" The fact that he's never done it convinces me that he's NOT impotent, and that he has NO desire to be circ'ed!


Interestingly, since MIL was enlisting the help of all the relatives to get DS circ'ed, I think it's worth noting that since she tried to get her DH's relatives involved, that it's also likely that she tried to get HER family involved, as she's very close to her sisters. However, one of her sisters is a doctor, and as I know her and know things about her, I doubt she'd be pro-circ. So, I always thought it was interesting that the doctor aunt NEVER mentioned one word about it to us, and never said we should get him circ'ed!

[Breathless Wonder]

I think alot of people are still basing their decisions on the medical studies that said circing was better. Those studies are pretty readily available. But the critiques that rip the studies apart are not. OR they give less weight to those critiques and opposition.

I always hear- but look at who funded the study- well okay, who are you going to believe? The docs who fund the study saying circ is better, and then make money off the circ, or the docs who say intact is better, and get ??? in return? Do they beleive that only studies funded by large universities, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies have validity? Is it a case of being blinded by the "experts", not being able to believe anyone that doesn't have a string of letters after their name, or a huge list of titles has anything worthwhile to say? Then there are the government agancies, or doctor/nurse orgainizations, who have members on staff with conflicting interests... why do their opinions count more? Specifically when it can be VERY difficult to get funding for a study that MIGHT have an outcome that hurts the bottom line? Yes, maybe all of the mainstream medical studies say that circ is better, cleaner, etc. but do these people stop to ask themselves why? Do they ever wonder what studies DIDN'T get done, and why? Using vax as an example, there have been no studies comparing vaxed populations to unvaxed because the doctors beleive it would be medically unethical to deny a child the medical life saver that is vaccination. So the end result are a bunch of studies that give us a lop sided view of the issue.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by shelbean91

On the UTI think- I'm sure someone has numbers to back it up, but even if circ'd males have lower UTI rates (and Frank talked about how that's not really significant, anyway), the UTI rates for girls is higher than either circ'd or intact boys. We're not going to start circing girls to lower their UTI rates, are we. Every girl or woman I've known has had a UTI at some point and it clears up just fine with cranberry juice, water, and antibiotics.

The UTI rate for boys less than 1 year old is 1% or less and it drops off drastically after the first year. For girls, the rate is about 4.5% and remains close to that their entire life. The cause is believed to be that females have a significantly shorter urethra and smaller bladder for less flushing action. In children over 1 year throughout life, the differerence is something in the range of 5% to 22% higher UTI rate for females. There is some justification for elective prophylactic surgery. There needs to be a documented reduction of at least 30% for whatever is being reduced by surgery for it to be appropriate and infant male circumcision does not come even remotely close to that for UTIs.




Frank

[KellyB]

On the subject of UTIs, I believed the info I posted earlier was fact at the time I decided not to circ my ds. (Good to know it isn't ,though.)
I'm of the opinion, though, that UTIs are caused by not drinking enough water. At least, that's what I've found myself, being a girl that has had them periodically over the years. In fact, I think if caught early (which isn't hard to do) simply drinking lots of water for a day or 2 will cure them before they ever even really take hold.
Either way, if a labia-ectomy was proven to decrease UTIs in women, I don't think people would start doing that to their daughters, and I doubt a lot of women would go have the procedure done to themselves.

OT...but here's my theory on why Americans circ their boy babies.

It started with superstition. But, most every parent that allowed this to be done to their child still probably sensed the vague "wrongness" of it. I think there must be at least moments of the shadow of guilt felt...some lurking cousin to remorse...
for reasons that are hard to pinpoint.
So, over the years, these parents have taken solace in the "new medical findings" that support circumcision. It's a way for them to tell themselves they did the right thing...a way for them to to quiet the the lingering empathy they felt for their newborn boys.
For these people, to not encourage their daughters and the wives of their sons to do
the same thing to their children would require:
1)they see that they were lied to, themselves
2)admit that, on some level, they always sensed that it was wrong to have done to their boys
3)accept the reality of their own decisions
4)forever give up the security blankets of the fictional justifications that they've used for so many years to quiet their own aching consciences.
Just my theory...but that's how I see it...

I remember when I was 6 and my little brother came home from the hospital. I remember seeing the bandage, and the horror I felt when my mother explained to me what it was...even at 6, I just felt repulsed, and glad I'd been born a girl.
I remember her saying "It's one of those things that has to be done...it's not a big deal...babies this little don't really feel pain like other people."
In retrospect, I wonder if she was telling herself this as much as she was telling me...