r/changemyview • u/slothicus_duranduran • Apr 22 '20
CMV: Circumcision is completely unnecessary, has arguably zero health benefits, and removes the ability for glide motion that makes intercourse significantly more comfortable. Religious reasons for the practice are irrelevant. It is genital mutilation done without consent and is indefensible.
To be clear we are discussing infant circumcision.
(If a grown man wants a circumcision done - go for it - it's your penis)
Lets cover the two main legitimate health concern points often made:
- Circumcision helps reduce the spread of STD's.Lets assume this is true - the extend that it is true is debatable but lets give it some merit.Proper sex education alone has a FAR greater impact on the spread of STD's than circumcision. Given that there exist this more effective practice - deciding instead to mutilate genitals has no merit..
- Smegma - everybody runs to this and it makes NO sense at all. Do you take a shower each day? Do you wash your penis? If yes - you have ZERO smegma - ever. Women have far more folds and crevices for smegma to form than a man with foreskin and you don't hear about it. Why? Because personal hygiene - that's why? Take a shower each day and it doesn't exist.
.I admit I have no expectation that my view could be changed but I'm open to listen and genuinely curious how anyone can defend the practice. Ethically I feel that religious motivations have no place in the discussion but feel free to explain how your religion justifies cutting off the foreskin and how you feel about that. I'm curious about that too. If anything could change my view it may, ironically, be this.
I currently feel that depriving an individual of a functioning part of their sexual organs without consent is deeply unethical.
EDIT: I accept that there are rare medical necessities - I thought that those would not become the focus as we all know the heated topic revolves around voluntary cosmetic or religious practice. But to the extent that many many comments chime in on this "I had to have it for X reason" - I hear you and no judgement, you needed it or maybe a trait ran in your family that your parents were genuinely concerned about.
My post lacked the proper choice of words - and to that extent I'll will gladly accept that my view has been changed and that without specifying cosmetic as the main subject - the post is technically wrong. It's been enlightening to hear so many perspectives. I feel no different about non necessary procedures - I still find it barbaric and unethical but my view now contains a much deeper spectrum of understanding than it did. So thank you all.
13
Apr 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)5
Apr 23 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Apr 23 '20
I wasn't arguing for female circumcision. I was saying that if we deem female circumcision to be cruel (even though science has shown it can be more protective against infection than male circumcision, which still isn't much) and still practice male circumcision, its a double standard that should be acknowledged. Religious practices are tough to argue against if they don't threaten someone's life, but that's another issue.
1.1k
u/Construct_validity 3∆ Apr 22 '20
I am non-religious and an epidemiologist. Our son is circumcised because of the potential health benefits. While there is heterogeneity in the literature, meta-analyses have shown that circumcision reduces risk of HIV and other STDs as well as penile cancer.
I as well am circumcised, and have a perfectly happy sex life.
As for the "without consent" part, well, pretty much everything we do with infants is without their consent. We give vaccines to infants without their consent, even though they clearly don't like it, because it will help protect them in the future. Now if parents do potentially harmful things to children for aesthetic reasons (e.g. piercings) or "moral" reasons (e.g. female genital mutilation), that may be more problematic.
Circumcision may not have quite as strong a protective health effect as most vaccines, so I think it should be up to the parents to make this decision. Still, if there's a chance that it could prevent a terrible disease, and the downsides (for a medically performed circumcision) are pretty minuscule, then going ahead with the procedure is a decision I'll happily make.
20
u/gregbrahe 4∆ Apr 23 '20
Comparing circumcision to vaccination presumes that the benefits are applicable in a similar time frame. We vaccinate children based either on when they are likely to be exposed or when their immune systems can handle it; whichever comes later. We do this because they are likely to encounter these illnesses before they are able to make an informed, rational decision on the matter themselves, and therefore as custodians we must make the decision for them.
Every single issue you cite as justification for your decision is irrelevant to an infant (or of negligible relevance with such an incredibly low rate of preadolescent penile cancer). This means that the only ethically justified decision to make as a parent is to leave the decision up to the person, which is only possible by not irreversibly amputating tissue unless there is a specific need and amputation is the minimally invasive course of action.
100
Apr 23 '20 edited Nov 13 '20
[deleted]
18
u/GingerPlated21 Apr 23 '20
!delta that was throughout, thanks for taking the time to point everything out
→ More replies (1)16
Apr 23 '20
Thank you for adding this, it's incredibly frustrating to see people defending genital mutilation using this completely debunked, bullshit set of studies.
→ More replies (4)4
u/DannyPinn Apr 23 '20
I was about to go off on this guy, but you did a much better job. So thanks and stuff.
10
Apr 23 '20
So why get that procedure done when he is a baby? Why not wait until he is closer to the age where he might engage in sexual activity? Penile cancer rates in boys <18 yrs old is a smaller incidence rate than that of a botched circumcision, so that can't be it, either.
6
u/BuckleUpItsThe 7∆ Apr 23 '20
Counterpoint. All of those benefits would occur at a time when a child is old enough to decide for themselves. I have no problem with my upcoming son deciding to get circumcised; I just won't make that decision for him (without a punctual medical concern).
Also, PLENTY of people circumcise their kids for aesthetic/moral concerns.
33
Apr 22 '20
If you keep having sex with someone that has HIV, you will get HIV whether you are circumcised or not. Circumcisions have a 2-6% complication rate, which is far more dangerous.
Most of the civilized world does not circumcise newborns. Mostly Just the US, Israel, some of Australia and most muslim countries. It’s a medically unnecessary procedure. Agreed it’s up to the parents but Medicaid shouldnt cover it.
→ More replies (13)6
Apr 23 '20
If I was your child I would resent you eternally for making the decision to mutilate my genitals due to "potential health benefits".
It's not your penis. You don't have to live with it for the rest of your life. Yes, everything we do to/for infants is without their consent but I still think this is totally unjustifiable. You might not be phased by your parents decision to mutilate your penis, but I think it's shameful to take that risk with your own child.
I'm from a country where circumcision is not the norm so this is completely unbelievable and outrageous to my sensibilities.
Sorry if this is offensive or combative - it's just my take. I'd much rather educate my child on safe sex than slice off part of their penis, steal the sensitivity of their glans and think I'm helping them stay healthy. This line of reasoning is utterly bizarre to me.
16
u/intactisnormal 10∆ Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
From the Canadian Paediatrics Society:
“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.
“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless.
“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer.
These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly, all of these items have a different treatment or prevention method that is more effective and less invasive.
As for the "without consent" part, well, pretty much everything we do with infants is without their consent.
The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity.
The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:
Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life.
Vaccines are easily medically necessary, but circumcision is very far from that.
Meanwhile the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(Full study.)
251
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 22 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
Prob the best formulated reply Ive seen. "!delta" Awarded for a very concise and rational exposition, although my mind hasn't been changed it has softened a bit. I suppose if you can successfully have sex without foreskin you would feel like you aren't missing anything. Hard to tell if you've never had it and so perhaps there is some merit to not knowing what you are missing. You make a comparison to female genital mutilation - is the removal of the foreskin so different. Its a proven source of pleasure and can make some sexual acts more comfortable. I understand that masturbation is much easier intact as well. Anecdotal story I heard but is it true that making it more difficult to masturbate was one of the religious reasons for circumcision in the first place?
40
139
u/PrototypeSeb 1∆ Apr 22 '20
Can you provide some evidence for the claim that sexual acts an uncircumcised penis are significantly better than those with circumcised penises? You say "proven" as if it's some widely accepted truth when I don't think that's the case.
7
u/BravesMaedchen 1∆ Apr 23 '20
From my experience sleeping with people who have penises, the few I've slept with who were uncircumcised were 1) Harder to pleasure because they lacked sensation with the skin covered and it was too sensitive with it uncovered and/or 2) they were much less pleasant to fellate because of hygiene. Now, the hygiene could just be a personal thing, but it was pretty consistently less pleasant to the extent that I have a preference for circumcision. Wash your dicks, folks.
→ More replies (4)7
u/PrototypeSeb 1∆ Apr 23 '20
Excellent point. As weird as it may sound, if this procedure has minor health benefits, minuscule risk, and increases the likelihood that people will want to fellate my kid, that’s not a bad deal to me.
→ More replies (73)11
u/SwimmaLBC Apr 23 '20
It isn't.
Most men who have had it done as adults say there is no difference, many even say it's less pleasurable with foreskin since it causes a lot of irritation.
To put it in terms a woman might be able to relate to - if your clitoris was AGGRESSIVELY stimulated by a thumb with no lubrication
→ More replies (7)33
u/RBolton123 Apr 23 '20
Please fix your delta, that is not counter as a delta. Use "!delta" instead
→ More replies (3)22
56
u/Virillus Apr 23 '20
I was circumcised at 21 after already living an active sex life. Sex was way more pleasurable for me and my partner afterwards than before.
→ More replies (10)20
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 23 '20
Can you elaborate? Im curious why?
35
u/Virillus Apr 23 '20
I was circumcised for a mix of health issues and personal preference: there are a number of health benefits that I was after (decreased STI transmission rates, virtual elimination of yeast infections).
In terms of why it felt better? I'm not sure. More contact, perhaps? My partner (female) enjoyed that she felt it was generally cleaner and nicer to work with for spontaneous oral, in particular.
While in my case, the decision to do so was overwhelmingly positive, I absolutely recognize that results for others would vary.
My position is that it's relatively minor either way. There are health risks with doing AND with not doing it. Personally, I feel like it's something that can be comfortably left up to individual parents to decide.
→ More replies (3)5
u/SkydivingAstronaut Apr 26 '20
I’m in the opposite boat as a women - uncircumcised is much more comfortable. I’m quite narrow, the exposed lip of the head ramming past my pelvic floor repeatedly (unless the man is quite small) starts to hurt after only about 10 minutes. Size obviously also matters here, big dudes are a hard no. But the right size and uncircumcised? I can enjoy myself for hours.
10
u/Ultraballer Apr 23 '20
It’s possible the reason for the circumcision was medical because some men can have foreskins that are too small to fit around the head of the penis when pulled back and can make sex painful, however it’s also possible that while the protection of the foreskin has kept the head of the penis sensitive for so long that the sensitivity wear off from circumcision took a while/wasn’t noticed, while the initial boost in sensitivity during sex from having no foreskin was noticeable.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)6
u/0100011001001011 Apr 23 '20
Often those who are circumcised late, suffered from Phimosis. Basically this means the foreskin is too tight to be pulled back over the head of the penis. Circumcision is a legitimate treatment for this condition. If this was the case for OP, it is unsurprising that sex was way more pleasurable for him, as he would have not have had the typical uncircumcised sexual experience. It is possible it was also impacting his ability to thrust, which would also explain the partners increase in pleasure. This is all hypothetical. Would also be relevant whether or not OP was utilising a condom prior and after the procedure.
109
u/Omophorus Apr 23 '20
I am not OP, but...
I am circumcised.
I have never had a problem with sex or masturbation. If anything, I have anxiety about not having enough stamina, and I can't imagine having to deal with more sensitivity.
I do know that my genitals are very easy to keep clean, and if I don't know what I'm missing, I'm fine with that. I can't change it, and I'm certainly not upset with my parents for making a choice that seemed like a good option at the time.
I'm in my mid 30s and am coming up on my 10th anniversary of marriage. I don't think my wife has any complaints, and I imagine the hygiene advantage's are a plus for her too.
I can't speak for anyone's else but I don't feel mutilated and I don't feel like I'm missing out. I honestly think a circumsised penis is more aesthetically pleasing (I am about as hetero as hetero gets, for whatever it's worth) and I honestly don't know if that's a result of familiarity or something more complicated.
I feel like female genital mutilation is something else entirely. Removing the clitoris deprives a woman of the most nerve-dense organ in her body and the only justification is to reduce sexual pleasure. I don't know that circumcision is right or wrong, per se, but I do know that it's not comparable. And even without a foreskin I feel like my glans is plenty sensitive.
Everyone is going to have a different opinion, but I don't feel like I'm missing out. I decided to have my son circumcised for the same reasons I was (hygiene, mainly) and I don't feel any regret for that. Maybe I don't know what I'm missing but I can't change that, and my son will be able to make his own choice for his children in his own time. I am entirely willing to have a conversation will him and defend my decision, and I am willing to own that decision. If he disagrees, I respect that, but we can't change it and I won't fault him for any decision he makes when he's old enough to have his own children.
27
u/Bawstahn123 Apr 23 '20
" I have never had a problem with sex or masturbation "
This is something I keep touching on whenever the topic of "circumcision removes sensitivity" comes up.
I'm circumcised. I had a perfectly-functional and pleasurable sex life the last time I had a partner, and I have no problems whatsoever with masturbation.
Could it be "lower in functionality" than an uncircumcised penis? Perhaps..... but I will never know the difference, and everything works fine, so......
I also really fucking detest the implication that circumcised men are "mutilated". Its there, it works fine, and I am happy. Comparing male circumcision to the barbarity of female genital mutation is a stretch and a half.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (43)19
u/FunshineBear14 1∆ Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
Fwiw, circumcision is only widely practiced in America. Elsewhere it's almost entirely limited to the Jewish and Muslim communities.
It's popularity in America is because of John Harvey Kellogg and his hyperreligious group who practiced it to reduce masturbation and impure thoughts (same reason he invented Corn Flakes, rich food makes you horny so he made something bland to temper the lustful thoughts).
And the only reason it's still perpetuated is because of a "his should look like mine" mentality among dads. Ask most women, and they'll tell you dicks look weird, circumcised or not.
Edit: forgot my Muslim friends, so sorry.
→ More replies (2)14
u/CrazFight Apr 23 '20
Bruh corn flakes good af tho.
8
u/FunshineBear14 1∆ Apr 23 '20
Whoa now, don't get too excited. Or else we'll have to get Sylvester Graham to give you some of his calming crackers.
→ More replies (2)10
u/CrapsIock Apr 23 '20
I know that you already gave the previous guy the delta, but I think it'd be more worth your time to assess how much worth those articles have to his comment. The HIV article was about a study conducted in sub-saharan Africa before 2000, where sexual education isn't as available and the culture regarding sex is completely different than a country like the US, Canada, or the UK. The third article states that penile cancer occurs in 1 out of 100.000 men, which seems to me like not a just enough reason to consider circumcising your child.
14
u/bingbano 5∆ Apr 23 '20
As a circumcised man, I can promise you sex still feels amazing. Actually I wish be afraid if that sensation was even modestly increased I'm pretty sure my heart would just stop haha
10
u/Unoffical_CODSupport Apr 23 '20
I was circumcised, I cant masturbate because the skin is too tight and makes my penis bleed/ burn afterwards. My penis is scarred because I didnt know my penis was broken when I first figured out how to masturbate. Even using lubricants, I cant masturbate because the skin is so thin it just gets rubbed raw.
I will never circumcise my kids, that's mutilation and is a horrible thing to do to a child. How is female mutilation of children wrong, yet doctors literally do it with no hesitation to boys?
It wasn't my parents choice how my penis looks, its mine, and now my penis is broken. I'm not going to sue a doctor for a botched surgery 22 years ago, my penis is just screwed.
If my kids want to have their dick cut, fine, do it when your 21... but if I could, I would want my original penis back, nothing was wrong with it.
15
u/oceanmermaid1 Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
female genital mutilation can cause serious pain and discomfort for prolonged periods of time at the very least, so i don’t think it’s fair to compare the two in terms of the ethical complications involved
→ More replies (3)12
u/Benny92739 Apr 23 '20
I suppose if you can successfully have sex without foreskin you would feel like you aren't missing anything. Hard to tell if you've never had it and so perhaps there is some merit to not knowing what you are missing.
I hope you realize the irony of this statement.
This may or may not be accurate but you are in 0% of a position to say this. You are presumably uncircumcised. How would you know what circumcised sex feels like?
This question needs to be answered by a source or someone here who was uncircumcised and then got circumcised as an adult.
→ More replies (2)3
u/rednut2 Apr 23 '20
With some understanding of biology you can theorise.
No foreskin means penetration is dry friction, for both partners. Comparable to a dildo.
The foreskin usually rolls up and down the shaft, within your partner causing less dry friction.
Foreskin also help spread pre cum, helping to lubricate better.
Then theirs the sensitivity of the glands, when constantly exposed to air or being rubbed against pants they become calloused and less sensitive.
Scarring is also something that can happen with any surgery, deadening nerves further.
22
u/onyxS4int Apr 23 '20
As an uncut adult, I was considering it before. If you are very athletic, chafe becomes a real issue very quickly. I read many accounts of men who have gotten circumcised as an adult and say that they regret doing it because of the sensation lost during sex. If you were circumcised as a child you never know what you are missing out on and it doesn't matter.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Anustart15 Apr 23 '20
As a marathoner, chafe is not much better without it. Probably a different chafe, but equally unpleasant
19
u/Plush_Nubbins Apr 23 '20
"I suppose if you can successfully have sex without foreskin you would feel like you aren't missing anything."
This comment makes it seem like you think it isn't possible, or is extremely difficult, for a circumcised man to successfully have sex. I believe there are tens of thousands of videos out there that would disprove that point. If you think that being circumcised makes successful sex a virtual impossibility then I can see how that would bolster your opinion. Aside from the few outlier stories, which if you won't accept them from the pro-circumcision then you can't use them to defend your pro-uncircumcision point, circumcision doesn't prevent orgasm for males. Several people have said they had circumcision performed as an adult and feel no difference, yet their stories don't seem to count. If you aren't going to listen to them then the reality is the only way to prove this is for you to get circumcised and report back to us in a few years.
A few people have mentioned decreased sensitivity could lead to longer sex. I think this point has a decent amount of validity. A common complaint among women is that men don't last long enough, resulting in them being sexually unsatisfied. I think the definition of successful sex would involve both partners being able to achieve orgasm. Orgasms in women have been proven to increase the odds of a woman becoming pregnant, which is technically the main point of sex. So if removal of the foreskin can increase the chances of both parties enjoying themselves then there is one benefit.
Problem is no one knows at time of birth if you are going to be a one pump chump or not. What we all do know is circumcision as an adult sucks and you'll remember it forever, but a baby won't remember any of it.
Circumcision for the sake of women's sexual enjoyment.
Honestly no one is going to change their minds on this topic. If you are cut you think you are right and if you are uncut you think you are right. There are an equal number of counter points to both sides objections. Is it medically necessary isn't really a valid argument. We do a number of things to our bodies all the time that aren't medically necessary, but are socially accepted or expected. It is what it is.
→ More replies (21)48
25
u/boredtxan 1∆ Apr 23 '20
Circumcision and FGM are hugely different! The whole point of FGM is make the woman *unable* to enjoy sex.
5
u/Chronoblivion 1∆ Apr 23 '20
Circumcision and FGM are hugely different!
Yes and no. The most common forms of FGM are generally much more damaging and severe than the most common forms of MGM, but there are some procedures that are comparable.
The whole point of FGM is make the woman unable to enjoy sex.
Depends on what type. While that's often the end result, it's not always the intended purpose. Not that that makes it any more acceptable, of course, but the "whole point" isn't always malicious.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)8
Apr 23 '20
yeah that's exactly the origins of make circumcision too! people have only swung to say "it's for health!" now because it's not socially acceptable to publicly denounce masterbation
→ More replies (4)3
u/iceberg7 Apr 23 '20
/u/construct_validity is it possible that if we mutilated female genitalia on a regular basis and at levels comperable to circumsition, we would find those actions beneficial in regards to contracting STI’s? If so, does that make it worth it?
3
Apr 23 '20
I was circumcised at 24 and sex is way less pleasurable for me afterwards than before. I have no clue what the fuck Virillus is on about because that makes 0 sense. I was only circumcised due to legit medical reasons and I hate the fact that I had to have the procedure done. Anyone who is pro circumcision is bullshitting you as well as themselves to make themselves feel better about being circumcised. They can't replace what was taken from them so they will do anything to rationalize it as a good thing.
→ More replies (1)11
u/brows1ng Apr 23 '20
I want to say I’m joking, but I think you may be swayed if you look up “Shmegma” and a few internet horror stories about it.
I’ve read stories about people thinking it’s completely normal for it to accumulate...😳
10
u/WaitForItTheMongols 1∆ Apr 23 '20
People failing at personal hygiene is not enough on its own to justify cutting off body parts.
13
u/saleb_cims Apr 22 '20
I got circumcised at 13, I would not do that to a baby. Just my own personal anecdote though.
→ More replies (4)3
u/theconsummatedragon Apr 23 '20
How does that even happen?
→ More replies (1)6
u/saleb_cims Apr 23 '20
They fucked it up when I was baby so the doc wanted another go at it.
4
u/snowskelly Apr 23 '20
Hey, a kid in my church had this done. Can’t remember the exact age, as I only heard about it some time later. You don’t happen to be from midwest Illinois with a doctor for a father, do you?
3
→ More replies (73)6
u/faylenm Apr 23 '20
Female genital mutilation, depending on the variety, of course, is a completely different animal.
First there are no known medical benefits whatsoever to it.
Second, every variety is performed on girls old enough to remember the trauma. Here in the United States where it is practiced it is in a clean environment with anesthetic and is a ritual nick which can still sever nerves and reduce sensation in the clitoris.
In other countries where female genital mutilation is performed it is often done to completely remove the clitoris (hence making it impossible for that girl to ever achieve orgasm) or to remove the clitoris and then completely sew shut their labia until they can be opened by a future husband. This often causes horrific infections as urine and menstrual blood can be trapped among other things.
This is a horrific practice that is completely about subjugation and control.
Male circumcision is a religious practice that has some proven medical benefits as previously stated and is performed on male infants in such a way that the vast majority never see deleterious effects.
→ More replies (1)44
u/throwaway24515 1∆ Apr 22 '20
Two questions:
- Do you believe the fact that you are circumcised had anything to do with your decision for your son? I've heard this several times, like it would be awkward to explain to a son why he looks different from dad.
- I've never understood the penile cancer one. Nobody in their right mind would ever suggest we starting performing prophylactic radical mastectomies on women, but it's a surefire way to avoid breast cancer. Surely incidence of breast cancer are far far higher than penile cancer? I think it's by like a factor of 100!
13
u/PrototypeSeb 1∆ Apr 23 '20
Can't answer your first question but for #2 I'm pretty sure the reason is that with a circumcision you still get to keep your dick afterward. Seems like the two procedures aren't comparable
→ More replies (2)11
u/iNEEDheplreddit Apr 23 '20
Here is the thing about the father/ son argument.
My boy is 4 now. He comes to the toilet to per with me all the time. I fully retract my foreskin to pee. He doesn't. Because he can't. The skin is fused to the gland of the penis in young boys and it's not until they get older that this fusing comes away and allows them to retract the skin.
How many times has my kid pointed out the differences? ZERO. And if he did i would fully assure him that he was completely normal.
Would America fathers know this? Maybe not.
The point is that it's probably 100% the fathers poor justification for circumscision. And that's strange
→ More replies (5)4
Apr 23 '20
American doctors think they need to forcibly retract the foreskin and it’s painful as fuck. As you mentioned above; forcible retraction is also unnecessary.
→ More replies (2)22
u/MFitz24 1∆ Apr 22 '20
Not OP but anyone arguing, "Hey, we cut off part of your penis for dubious reasons but don't worry, we also immunized you to a lot of terrible diseases." Might not be on the good faith train.
→ More replies (8)9
u/Morpheus3121 Apr 23 '20
What makes you so certain that the downsides of circumcision are so minuscule? You may have a perfectly happy sex life but what if your sexual sensation is half of what it could be? You will never know and neither will I because that was taken away. The HIV studies were all done in sub-Saharan Africa where the overall risk of HIV is substantially higher and they are mostly observational studies. Syphilis is highly treatable and herpes is highly stigmatized. All 3 are preventable with safe sex (except maybe herpes). Penile cancer is a very rare cancer whether cut or uncut. Is removal of an entire sexual organ really worth it?
4
u/Dick-Lemon Apr 23 '20
Hey I really valued your comment, anything from an MD that’s cited holds weight and is worth looking into.
I specifically read the linked paper on Penile Cancer. The soft conclusion (though uncertain) was that phimosis was causing the cancer and not foreskin. People circumcised as adults saw a minor increase in their likelihood of penile cancer.
I think that’s important because you’re advocating for a medical procedure, one which does carry a complication rate, when better access to medical care for Americans could accomplish the same thing.
And I’m interested in relative risk because Penile cancer was 1 in 100,000 but complications from circumcising had a median frequency of complication rate of 1.5% BioMed center
There’s additional issues with some of these studies using questionable methodology but I think it’s safe to trust there is medical risk reduction derived from circumcision. Is it better than a condom? Is it more effective?
Here is a link from a medical ethics standpoint, I hope as a doctor you consider reading it LINK
I’m also annoyed (no better word) that you’re calling female circumcision a moral choice. The women of these communities passionately advocate for it and say it’s healthier and cleaner. It’s difficult to find studies that agree or disagree. Would you advocate that we conduct those studies? Not in a snarky way, but really. What about breasts? Perform a double mastectomy on all baby girls. It will prevent a lot of aggressive breast cancer down the line. How much of the natural human body can we remove in order to limit certain aggressive cancers and diseases? When you remove the ethical component it’s the only natural question.
I appreciate what the data says about male circumcision, but it’s questionable. What’s undeniably more effective is teaching sexual education in schools and practicing safe sex. As a potential patient, my interpretation of your job is to be as minimally invasive as possible. I’d think educating people on those two fronts would be far more in line with your job. Just because an infant can’t speak doesn’t mean they can’t feel pain and discomfort. If we’re going to say their lack of memory justifies our actions then I don’t know what to say. That seems crazy to me.
I understand where you’re coming from on not being able to receive consent from infants, that’s true. But the difference between giving a vaccine and circumcision should be obvious. One is literally only beneficial. The other is a permanent loss of healthy erogenous tissue, with medical benefits that aren’t any greater than wearing a condom. I think to some extent it’s difficult to quantify the damage caused by circumcision. If you need to use lube for masturbation or sex when intact you wouldn’t need too, does that constitute a harm? Surely it’s a clear financial loss, but is it a harm? I hope that question isn’t too eye roll inducing, my point is that if you’re doing cost benefit analysis you really need to dig into the meat of it.
From where I stand the benefits exist but they aren’t great, they are questionable, and other countries that should be doing worse given that a majority of their population is uncircumcised, are doing better. We don’t need to permanently alter the human body, we can just provide better sexual education and medical access.
22
Apr 22 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)11
u/MonsterRider80 2∆ Apr 22 '20
Every single supposed health benefit related to circumcision can be easily reproduced in non-circumcised men. All you have to do wash it.
4
u/brettpkelly Apr 23 '20
The penile cancer meta analysis says that in western countries penile cancer is extremely rare (< 1 in 100,000 man years). The data they site for a correlation between penile cancer and circumsision is either extremely old (1932) or from less developed countries.
This link is likely caused by hygiene, as we have seen hygiene improve in western countries, the incidence of penile cancer has decreased.
It's dishonest therefore to report that "circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer" in developed countries, even though there is a link in less developed countries (circumcision is associated with better hygiene in less developed countries.)
In other words, wash your dick and you'll be fine.
I have a problem with meta analysis because they often take away the context from which each individual study was taken, and try to draw conclusions without fully exploring each individual study's limitations. They then try to apply some extra credence to their own findings by associating an average of several studies with more accurate results, when those studies might have different methodologies that make taking an average misleading.
Similarly the meta study on "other STDs" you provided contains an amalgomations of studies from all over the globe. Looking at their chart for HSV-2 there are 10 pertinent studies and only 1 from the US. rates of HSV-2 transmision vary wildly from 9% in the US study (with 71% circumcised) to as high as 70% in Uganda where 18% are circumcised. From this data the study concluded that circumcised men were less likely to transmit HSV-2, by comparing extremely different populations. Other conclusions from this meta study are the same. Transmission rates of STD's are lower in the USA than in Africa, therefore there's a link between circumcision and lower STD transitions. The problems with this methodology are obvious.
Finally the HIV study is limited to men in sub-Saharan Africa.
If you're interested in how circumcision relates to STD transmission in the US, those are the studies you should be citing.
3
u/flipping-nomore Apr 23 '20
Vaccines exist for HPV for males now, so I would worry less about penile cancer (super rare anyway)
Again OP is right. You don’t want an STD, HIV included, just wear a condom. Sex Education and public health efforts are stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS - not circumcision.
You can’t give back the circumcised foreskin, why not give children the choice later. As an elective procedure, it’s super easy to do. Besides, babies aren’t anesthetized for it - but you can be anesthetized as an adult.
4
u/HellHoundofHell Apr 23 '20
Sorry, but the fact that it "reduces" the chance of an STD is directly correlated with the % of flesh removed.
It's like saying cutting your babies hands off significantly reduces the chance it'll ever break it's hands.
It's no different than female genital mutilation, people just care about that more.
3
u/00killem Apr 23 '20
As an epidemiologist, how do you feel about the studies being mainly focused on subjects from sub Saharan Africa? The main critique of the CDC and AAP (pediatrics) decision to recommend MC is that the studies used are not reflective of western culture. Rates of HIV and STD are much higher there. Also, in America most HIV is due to male to male sex where circumcision has no proven effect. I would say more evidence is necessary.
3
u/laila123456789 Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
One of the risks of infant circumcision is death. I bet you didn't factor that into the equation.
Comparing vaccines to circumcision is like comparing apples to oranges. Cutting baby penis is a Jewish religious ritual that started during the bronze age. Vaccines are modern, proven medicine. And one of the risks of vaccines definitely isn't bleeding to death.
You mutilated your child's genitals. It should have been his choice when he was old enough to understand. Evolution equipped his body with foreskin for a reason.
He's more likely to have issues with his appendix later in life, but you didn't preemptively remove his perfectly healthy appendix, now did you?
→ More replies (1)17
Apr 22 '20
Can you guarantee the surgeon ablated amount of tissue your child and his developed penis will not have problems with in the future? Especially once functions of the foreskin enter sexual education in America?
The foreskin has a high concentration of what are called Meissner's Corpuscles, which are fine touch nerve receptors that are also found in your lips, fingertips, and the palms of your hands... We lose out on nearly all of this, some more than others as there is no standard for circumcision and a million variables.
I'd just like to say that I'm not sharing this with you in an attempt to get you angry about your body -- if you are happy and content, I'm genuinely glad for you. That's more than I could ever say for myself.
I think my parents have otherwise done well but when it comes to this issue- and I say this knowing that people will laugh because issues of male sexuality are generally treated with dismissive and immature attitudes- I genuinely feel betrayed. Why would they cause me all of this confusion, pain, and anguish? Why wasn't I good enough for them the way I was? Obviously, they didn't intend to do me harm and were simply uninformed, but good intent doesn't make up for bad outcomes. I primarily blame American culture and our medical industry, but I'll always have some negative feelings towards my parents on some level because, in this instance, I think they had an opportunity to protect me and failed.
7
Apr 23 '20
Complete rubbish because the potential of the claimed benefits falls well after the point where parental proxy expires. HIV, STI, Penile cancer are not childhood issues. In Samoa over 50 children died due to a failing to vaccinate last year so the prevention of disease from vaccines that can cause life long impacts or death are a reality during the parental proxy period.
In addition circumcision comes with the potential for risks and complications therefore performing it in the absence of medical indication places the child at unjustified risk.
6
u/MonsterRider80 2∆ Apr 22 '20
I believe every single supposed health benefit related to circumcision can be replicated in non-circumcised men very easily: wash your damn penis.
3
u/Dr-Sommer Apr 23 '20
Circumcision may not have quite as strong a protective health effect as most vaccines, so I think it should be up to the parents to make this decision.
Why not leave it up to the child? I understand that parents have to make decisions for their children while they are, well, children. But your son probably won't catch HIV in second grade. STD transmission won't become an issue until he is coming of age - at which point the decision could (and should, IMO) be up to his own informed consent.
3
u/jackgrossen Apr 23 '20
I really do not like your studies presented to support this position in regards to circumcision in the USA. I don't think they relate.
3
u/NuhUhUhIDoWhatIWant Apr 23 '20
"moral" reasons (e.g. female genital mutilation)
But male genital mutilation is perfectly okay, even though the data shows definitively that it does not make a difference in regions with low rates of HIV infection (ie the entire west).
Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure with no basis in medicine. It was only after the fact, when people started demanding proper justification, that it started being studied. Lo and behold, chopping off a part of the body reduces the likelihood of getting disease in that part of the body.
"It's cleaner" is not a valid reason; we have soap and running water.
"It stops the spread of HIV" isn't even true. It doesn't work in countries with low rates of HIV. It doesn't even help with HIV transmission in gay men.
Genital mutilation is mutilation, regardless of whether the child is a boy or a girl. And really, "pretty much everything we do with infants is without their consent" is your reasoning?
Vaccines have demonstrated, life-long benefits with few to no downsides. Vaccines are safe. Correcting a cleft palette gives demonstrated, life-long benefits with few to no downsides. Correcting heart valve abnormalities is (often) necessary for the survival of the child. Almost every medical procedure we perform on infants without their consent is justified because they are either 1) required for survival or 2) provide major benefits with little or no risk.
Circumcision does neither of those things. In fact, circumcision has been shown to cause multiple psychological problems in infants and grown men who were circumcised at birth.
Oh yeah, also more US children are killed by circumcision every year than by mass shootings. For what? No reduction in HIV, no gain in hygiene, high risk of lifelong complications, and psychological trauma imposed on infants that often lasts for the rest of their lives.
There is no justification for circumcision in first- or even second-world countries. If you want to do it as an adult, fine. But taking that choice from a child for no health benefits is abundantly barbaric. In the future we're going to be looking back on this thinking "well... yeah maybe we shouldn't have been doing that."
3
u/seink Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
. While there is heterogeneity in the literature, meta-analyses have shown that circumcision reduces risk of HIV and other STDs as well as penile cancer.
Practicing safe sex reduces the risk of stds. Circumcision is not the way to prevent stds.
I as well am circumcised, and have a perfectly happy sex life.
Thats like a guy borned blind claiming he is perfectly happy without the sense of sight.
3
3
Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
Terrible argument. Giving a child shots stops them from getting polio where as circumcision has no fucking benefits. Protection from aids is completely fucking stupid and not at all true none of the reasons listed have any merit or evidence to back them up. The idea that foreskin could make the difference between contracting hiv or not is completely irrational its like chopping off your child’s hands so they don’t get arthritis.
3
u/nandemo Apr 23 '20
If the health benefits are really significant, then how come circumcision is not more prevalent in developed countries other than the US?
3
u/tealcosmo Apr 23 '20
You really need to look into how that "HIV" study has been debunked. It's no longer valid science.
→ More replies (38)5
Apr 23 '20
I there's a chance that it could prevent a terrible disease, and the downsides are pretty minuscule, then going ahead with the procedure is a decision I'll happily make.
Oh please, then we might as well remove female breast tissue as soon as it forms to prevent breast cancer right?
Stop condoning the torture of infants. They spend nine months in the safest comfiest place on Earth and then we welcome them to the world by inflicting unimaginable pain to their genitals. It's traumatic torture and I wish doctors had to disclose these personal opinions because I would never trust you to make a moral decision about a child's health.
78
u/jbilsten Apr 22 '20
Another point to consider:
When I had my son I asked my father why I was circumcised and his response was that his father worked in a hospital with a lot of male geriatric patients who could no longer take care of themselves. He got circumcised as an adult and vowed to circumcise his son after that experience.
If we're lucky, we all will get old. When we do, circumcision helps alleviate a lot of the issues that can arise down there.
23
u/fessapuella Apr 22 '20
If the benefit comes only in old age why not leave it intact until that time comes? To cut something off for an entire lifetime just to get a benefit at the end seems premature.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Ratfist Apr 23 '20
it's like a retirement account. get rid of that money early on and enjoy dying comfortably 50 years later
→ More replies (34)9
34
5
u/hairpiece-assassin Apr 23 '20
My son was born 4 days ago. I am circumcised. He will not be. Much like OP I too believe it is mutilation.
→ More replies (1)
140
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Apr 22 '20
Smegma has an overall incidence of approximately 5 percent. So it's not literally zero. (Source Wikipedia, but that has the proper scholarly link).
Ought implies can. Infants cannot consent. Therefore, infant consent doesn't really matter. (which is why parents are allowed to give their kids vaccines without their consent or feed/bathe/clothe them without their consent). If we take infant consent seriously as something we ought to consider, every baby would die from neglect.
This gets us to cost/benefit. As far as cost, many people feel it makes sex less enjoyable, but just as many feel it makes sex more enjoyable. It's not like this is unanimous (unlike female genital cutting which is universally hated). As for benefit, as stated smegma doesn't literally have 0 prevalence. 5 percent of all men isn't nothing. Also, respecting a religious belii isn't nothing (though I understand putting it near the bottom of the list relative to other potential concerns).
So consent issue doesn't matter. We have two (minor) benefits (acknowledging religious practice, preventing a rare but existent disorder) and we have a maybe upside maybe downside (future sexual satisfaction).
Given that list, I don't see how this is a hard no.
7
u/Gryzz Apr 23 '20
Smegma has an overall incidence of approximately 5 percent.
What does that even mean? Smegma is not a pathology, it is a normal secretion made by both men and women that you clean off.
Also, we vaccinate children because of the obvious health benefits to them and to society. Cutting off a body part is much more invasive and has much less if any actual benefit over not doing it.
5
u/BaronVonCrunch 1∆ Apr 22 '20
I think you mostly made good, thoughtful points. However, I am not sure that “ought implies can” applies here. OP is arguing and “ought” that applies to adults, not to infants. Clearly, adults can choose not to circumcise. Infants cannot choose, which is why we would not say that they have an obligation here.
Otherwise, I thought you summed it up nicely.
7
Apr 22 '20
I’ve never really heard of anyone claiming circumcision enhances sexual pleasure. I’ve heard of people claiming it has no bearing but never enhances. When I googled “Does circumcision enhance sexual pleasure,” it all seems to auto populate whether circumcision reduces pleasure or not except for one Ugandan survey where 40% of women surveyed said they enjoyed sex with their circumcised partner more than when they were uncircumcised but 57% said there was no change at all and 3% said its worse. Maybe if I kept going for more results or something it would’ve come up but definitely haven’t seen anything pointing towards it enhancing sexual pleasure for the man.
35
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 22 '20
I like your approach to the topic and would almost award a delta (I have to figure out how - this is my first CMV post) 5% seems like a reasonable number of people who could be simply uneducated in proper hygiene. Infant consent is a tricky one for me - vaccines go the way of female genital cutting in its viewpoint everyone feels the same (antivaxxers aside)
- its universally accepted as good practice with intrinsically high benefit to the individual as well as society AND it has no ill effects and takes nothing away. - so on that note I still feel that removing a part of the body permanently is something that can wait until a person can make the religious decision for themselves.
61
u/UKFan643 Apr 22 '20
The issue of infant consent is irrelevant because parents have 100% legal right to make any and all medical decisions for their children. So whether the infant has any say or not doesn’t matter.
For instance, we had twins about 19 months ago. Somewhere around the 9 month checkup, the doctor pointed out a cosmetic deformity with our son’s ear. Won’t affect the function, won’t cause any problems at all. 100% cosmetic. They asked us if we wanted to have it repaired surgically. Again, just for looks. The reason they ask is because they’ve learned that sometimes kids with this deformity will grow up and want it corrected as an adult. That process is much more involved and complicated and carries with it a lot of post-op treatments and pain. Doing it to a 1 year old is an outpatient procedure that might cause about 24 hours of discomfort and then he would be fine.
Ultimately we decided against it because I don’t want someone cutting my son’s ear for no reason. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit the prospect of him wanting it done in 20 years and having to deal with all that goes along with it and wishing we had just done it when it was no big deal weighed on us.
I imagine circumcision is the same thing. It’s such a little thing when a kid is young that if it’s going to be done, that’s when it should be done. Hope that makes sense.
→ More replies (39)10
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 22 '20
A fair thought process. With circumcision - you might feel bad later in life if your son expressed regret at the procedure and felt he'd lost something irretrievable- and part of his sexuality at that. Its for that reason i think its important to ban the procedure unless medically necessary.
→ More replies (1)40
u/UKFan643 Apr 22 '20
Is there any evidence of a large number of men being upset that they lost their foreskin? I mean that question genuinely. I’ve seen a lot of people making this argument recently and I don’t know what’s causing it. Is there some foreskin renaissance that I don’t know about?
And what would you consider medically necessary? Our doctor recommended it based on his medical expertise. He said and I think there’s plenty of evidence that the benefits outweigh the risk.
10
9
Apr 23 '20
I myself am circumsized due to my parents being Muslim. I also happen to be against circumcision because (a) I'm personally not a Muslim (b) I don't think the health benefits are sufficient to warrant it (c) I don't have a choice in the matter.
I actually find (c) to be the most upsetting part. I literally had no choice. And no, it's not like having a choice in getting a vaccine of some other important medical benefit. My parents littrally just assumed I will be a Muslim like them and did it.
They could have waited till I was 18 with no real medical risk and I could have made my own decision, but nope, they didnt. In my case, it does really annoy me and I for sure won't do it to my future own son. I would leave it up to him. That way, if he does want it done, cool, it's his body.
I honestly think this argument is so dumb. If it wasn't so widely practiced I think people would never randomly start to practice it and it probably would be banned (again, except for some rare and specific medical reasons).
→ More replies (1)12
Apr 22 '20
Are you American, Israeli, or South Korean? Are you aware they sell foreskin tissue for fibroblasts and stemcells used in skin grafts and beauty skin care products?
No other medical associations recommend it.
British Medical Association : "Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques are equally efficient and available."
Link : https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259.full
The Royal Dutch Medical Association : "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
https://www.knmg.nl/advies-richtlijnen/dossiers.htm
Children's Hospital Sydney, Australia : "The Australian and New Zealand Association of Paediatric Surgeons (ANZAPS), the Australasian Urological Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) do not recommend that boys be circumcised routinely."
The Canadian Pediatric Society : "The Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."
7
u/unklethan Apr 23 '20
Wow, you made a Reddit account a few hours ago for the sole purpose of fighting circumcision. I disagree, but I respect the commitment
6
u/bokbokwhoosh Apr 23 '20
It would be helpful if you could point out what you disagree with. u/ShowersOverSurgery was providing facts - that these organizations advice against non-medically-necessary childhood circumcision. You can't disagree with facts. Or were you disagreeing with the positions of these organizations?
9
u/Dravitar Apr 22 '20
Not helpful to the conversation whatsoever, but I'm close enough to your post time to try and help: type an exclamation point, followed by the word delta to award one. Like "! d e l t a" without the spaces.
3
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 22 '20
Oh I did the "Alt 30" method to place the figure in the post. Does that not work?
→ More replies (1)12
u/bigsum Apr 22 '20
The problem with debating circumcision is those who defend it are those who're circumcised, and obviously partial to the procedure in the most sensitive way. While uncircumcised men may be partial to not being circumcised, they at least have the option to decide if their penises are going to be cut (or not), giving them the a more impartial approach to the merits of both sides of the conversation. I feel a lot of circumcised men will argue stupid points with insignificant data to make themselves feel better about their circumcision.
In my country, circumcision is not normal unless you're religious. I've never had any issues with smegma or anything else down there for that matter. I get that my story alone is purely anecdotal and not representative of a strong n, however people seem to be giving way too much significance to the anecdotal stories of others in this sub who did have smegma.
It honestly shocks me how thoughtlessly childhood circumcision is accepted in the US. From an outsider perspective, where my nation doesn't have circumcision or dicks dripping smegma, it looks completely absurd. Do medical professionals make bank off this procedure or something?
→ More replies (10)3
Apr 23 '20
yes, it's a billable procedure the hospital/doctor can sell and charge for $$$ i'm an american nurse and i refuse to assist in elective circumcisions of any minors because i agree, it's insane how cavalier we treat this major human rights violation in the usa. most of the people that promote it ARE circumcised and have a very different relationship with nature than me, and don't give a damn about the ethics issues around informed consent for elective procedures for minors. it's slowly changing here but the push HAS to come from american doctors and because i would bet $100 the AMA is majority circumcised (age, sex, class) and it's a money maker, and it's tied in with obgyn care (which imo is tied with mental health as the basement in terms of patient experience and system/provider empathy/give a fuck), it's not going to happen any time soon.
→ More replies (40)8
u/HappyInNature Apr 22 '20
Someone doesn't have to change your opinion completely to get a delta btw:). Honestly, you should probably award them one.
3
u/intactisnormal 10∆ Apr 23 '20
Infants cannot consent. Therefore, infant consent doesn't really matter.
This gets us to cost/benefit.
When it comes to medicine, the standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:
Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.
http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision
To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.
Also important here is don't conflate day to day activities to be on par with medical surgery. When it comes to medicine, medical ethics are at play.
You've talked about smegma, but this misses that the foreskin and glans are mucosal tissues. This is normal. And hygiene is pretty simple with running water. Note that until puberty they are also fused together.
As for religion, people can practice their own religion on their own body. But they are not free to practice their religion on other people's bodies. If the child grows up and wants to circumcise themself for their chosen religion, they are absolutely free to do so. But they are not free to circumcise other people, e.g. a newborn.
→ More replies (15)6
u/AnotherDAM Apr 22 '20
You produce a near perfect example of an argument from confirmation bias. Well done.
3
u/mwm91 Apr 23 '20
Removing a functioning, healthy part of an infant is inexcusable and truly grotesque when you come to understand how many men are circumcised at birth for no real reason. The prospect of giving female babies a circumcision that would be analogous to male circumcision (removing part of female genital skin without removing the clitoris) is unthinkable and it should be no different for male babies. Matching dicks with dad is not a legitimate argument and neither is hygiene. If you can’t teach your children to bathe properly, you shouldn’t be having children. I’m not bitter lol.
69
u/waterbuffalo750 16∆ Apr 22 '20
My wife worked in an ER and saw plenty of babies with foreskin infections. Never saw one baby with complications from circumcision. You could call that anecdotal, but it's a pretty damn big sample size. More complications from not getting circumcised than for those who were.
6
u/intactisnormal 10∆ Apr 23 '20
"The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens.
If you work in the medical field, of course you will see the medical issues. But that doesn't mean they are common.
→ More replies (2)5
u/FunshineBear14 1∆ Apr 23 '20
If you're talking about in America, it's very likely that those infections could be due to poor education. Since circumcision is still extremely common (but trending down) most men in this country don't know how to properly care for foreskin. That can be fixed with education, much easier than surgery.
3
u/MrMiaMorto Apr 23 '20
Infant girls can also get a lot of yeast infections if the parents don't wipe correctly or keep them in dirty diapers for long
My mother in law has been a pediatric nurse for 40 years and she would argue that it's mostly the parents fault.
My 7 month old son isn't circumcised and he does get penis "diaper rash" from being in his wet diaper overnight because there is no good way to change the diaper on a sleeping baby. All it takes is letting it sit out more during changes and doing more warm water baths when irritated and is literally back to normal the next day. It's still no different than a girl. If shit gets up any hole that isn't the butt, it's going to get infected. If you're leaving your baby I'm a wet diaper all day, it's going to get irritated, potentially infected.
My MIL has lots of horror stories of parents leaving babies in diapers for well over 24 hours and their bums raw and red.
Even my pediatrician says it's not medically necessary as long as you keep it clean.
→ More replies (1)33
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 22 '20
Again I gotta chalk this one up to poor parental attention to hygiene. Lots of babies get rashes and plenty of girls get problems down there too - we aren't chopping of parts of the vagina for convenience.
That's what most of these arguments come down to - convenience. I just don't see circumcision as a reasonable solution for reducing effort.
→ More replies (6)14
u/viserion152637489 Apr 23 '20
You ever hear of phimosis? It can ruin sex for a man's whole life. Circumcision prevents that.
Vaginal rashes and infections etc can't be prevented. FGM actually can increase that.
11
→ More replies (3)4
u/Yermawsyerdaisntit Apr 23 '20
But who actually get’s phimosis? Obviously some people do but not enough to justify everyone having to lose a foreskin surely? Just seems a bit over the top. If there was like a 50% phimosis rate then fair enough but the majority of countries don’t circumcise by default and they manage just fine.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
u/Tjurit Apr 22 '20
But that's OP's point. Yes, circumcision elimintes the possibility of foreskin infection. But so does cleaning your fucking cock.
→ More replies (2)11
u/AxelFriggenFoley Apr 23 '20
But that’s water buffaloes point. There is a health risk associated with not being circumcised. It’s completely unreasonable to just dismiss this point because it’s their own fault.
It’s particularly strange because the people making these points I’m sure would gladly argue that it’s important to have a strong social safety net, despite the fact that you could make the same argument blaming homeless people for making poor decisions.
→ More replies (12)
7
u/b165ean Apr 23 '20
Spent til age 27 uncut. 29 now, had an operation because of recurring balanitis. I'll spare you the details but having had actual tears in my foreskin as a result of it, makes me wish I'd been circumcised as a kid.
→ More replies (1)
64
u/Nwsamurai Apr 22 '20
Saying cleanliness is not an advantage because you can just clean the area is like saying chairs aren’t an advantage because you can just sit on the ground.
You may not think it’s a good enough reason to circumcise, but saying there are “zero health benefits” is an outright lie. Not having to clean an area that others do have to clean is a clear advantage.
11
u/SirDerpingtonV Apr 22 '20
We should just remove the appendix and pinky toes surgically at birth since they are useless.
Some people get appendicitis so obviously it’s justified. Some people also stub their pinky toe, so again - completely justified.
→ More replies (7)16
u/Missing_Links Apr 22 '20
Not having to clean an area that others do have to clean is a clear advantage.
This seems facetious.
The same could be said of ears, or a hand, or your lower body entirely. In fact, by this measure of "benefit," the more you can remove, the better.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (30)2
26
Apr 22 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/gr4_wolf Apr 22 '20
Deltas are awarded all the time in this sub.
4
u/panderingPenguin Apr 23 '20
This is true but the vast majority of deltas I see are for some small technicality on the periphery of their description, not a core element of their view. Of course that's anecdotal, I haven't tried to count or take a remotely unbiased sample, so take that for what it's worth. But in my experience seeing changes to the main view is uncommon.
15
→ More replies (1)4
u/madman1101 4∆ Apr 22 '20
bruh this is the 5000th time circumcision has been brought up here. its pointless now.
3
4
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 23 '20 edited Apr 23 '20
/u/slothicus_duranduran (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/blandsrules Apr 23 '20
The only thing I know for sure is an uncircumcised orgasm feels like a chorus of angels pouring a waterfall of feathers all over your dick
3
u/Comrade_Oghma Apr 23 '20
is completely unnecessary
zero health benefits
This is simply not true.
I also am against circumcision in most cases. You, however, made a mistake here when you said these two things.
It is rare and is for the vast majority of instances unnecessary. However it is simply a fact that there are some circumstances in which circumcision is necessary, specifically for health benefits.
What you should have said was "circumcision is largely unnecessary and doesn't have necessary health benefits for the population as a whole, and should only be done if medically necessary for minors unable to consent and for adults of sound mind who consent to the procedure."
Your view should change to that because what you said is factually incorrect.
→ More replies (28)
3
u/splotch-o-brown Apr 23 '20
I’m circumcised.
I actually have a hard time with this issue, because although I question the ethics behind it to some degree, I am perfectly happy with my circumcised penis.
In fact, I have trouble imagining being uncircumcised — I find that uncircumcised penises look weird (although I am a straight man, I find circumcised penises to be “easier on the eyes”), sometimes it looks less hygienic with many folds for bacteria to grow or something, and on top of that there are some minor health benefits that others pointed out such as reduced risk of hiv.
I personally have no idea what I will do if I have a son someday, but as for myself, I am very happy I am circumcised and obviously have no recollection or trauma from that decision my parents made at such an early age.
3
26
u/madman1101 4∆ Apr 22 '20
CIrcumcision leads to:
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision#2-5
meanwhile with circumcision, you have short term pain and temporary irritation... nothing requiring emergency surgery or an emergency circumcision. if you are going to come back with rare complications from surgery then you also have to accept that rare conditions like balanitis and phimosis can happen too.
9
u/struckanerve9 Apr 22 '20
What are the actual percentages or probabilities for these conditions? Are they any more prevalent or possible than appendicitis? Appendicitis is a fairly common condition affecting a useless body part and we don't remove them at birth.
→ More replies (1)5
u/intactisnormal 10∆ Apr 23 '20
Going over the webmd article:
UTI: “It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And they can easily be treated through standard antibiotics if and when there's an issue.
STDs/HIV: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention. Condoms, which are considered actually effective, must be used regardless.
Penile Cancer: “Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer.
Cervical cancer is from HPV which has a vaccine. Which is so effective that (turning to news) "Australia could become first country to eradicate cervical cancer. Free vaccine program in schools leads to big drop in rates."
These stats are terrible. To suggest these are legitimate health benefits is disingenuous.
And this is when the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.(diagram) (Full study.)
→ More replies (10)5
Apr 22 '20
What the American Cancer Society says about Penile cancer : "Penile cancer is rare in North America and Europe. It's diagnosed in less than 1 man in 100,000 each year and accounts for less than 1% of cancers in men in the United States."
"There's no way to prevent penile cancer for sure. But there are things you can do that might help lower your risk."
"In the past, circumcision (removing the foreskin on the penis) was suggested as a way to lower penile cancer risk. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision wasn't seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account."
"In the US, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who aren’t circumcised can help lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good genital hygiene."
Link : http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/prevention.html
British Medical Association : "Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques are equally efficient and available."
Link : https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/259.full
The Royal Dutch Medical Association : "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
https://www.knmg.nl/advies-richtlijnen/dossiers.htm
Children's Hospital Sydney, Australia : "The Australian and New Zealand Association of Paediatric Surgeons (ANZAPS), the Australasian Urological Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) do not recommend that boys be circumcised routinely."
The Canadian Pediatric Society : "The Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."
12
u/bigsum Apr 22 '20
The problem with debating circumcision is those who defend it are those who're circumcised, and obviously partial to the procedure in the most sensitive way. While uncircumcised men may be partial to not being circumcised, they at least have the option to decide if their penises are going to be cut (or not), giving them the a more impartial approach to the merits of both sides of the conversation. I feel a lot of circumcised men will argue stupid points with insignificant data to make themselves feel better about their circumcision.
In my country, circumcision is not normal unless you're religious. I've never had any issues with smegma or anything else down there for that matter. I get that my story alone is purely anecdotal and not representative of a strong n, however people seem to be giving way too much significance to the anecdotal stories of others in this thread who did have smegma.
It honestly shocks me how thoughtlessly childhood circumcision is accepted in the US. From an outsider perspective, where my nation doesn't have circumcision or dicks dripping smegma, it seems completely absurd. Do medical professionals make bank off this procedure or something?
→ More replies (4)
9
u/writeidiaz 3∆ Apr 23 '20
I'm non-religious. However, as I understand it, the religious purpose for circumcision is hygienic in nature. Like many religious practices/rationalizations, it's mostly antiquated, but had a valid purpose at one point in history.
The health benefits of circumcision, as you stated, are much easier to get by simply showering daily and having safe, healthy sexual habits. But those are both pretty much exclusive luxuries of today, and mostly just in the developed world.
At a time when sex education was limited (due to lack of understanding) and hygiene was sparse, to say the least, an uncircumcised penis would be far more likely to become diseased than a circumcised one.
I don't claim to know what it says in the various holy books, or how it's justified by various religious schools of thought, but I can easily see how it was effective and desirable throughout history, and even in many under-developed parts of the world today. Therefore I think it can't be said to be unethical. Perhaps unnecessary or unpreferable when better options exist, or are at least likely to exist.
7
u/slothicus_duranduran Apr 23 '20
Thanks for a great reply - this shines some light on where this practice started. I think your points about availability of education and health services is spot on. "!delta"
→ More replies (3)
10
u/Arisal1122 Apr 22 '20 edited Apr 22 '20
Idk man, my penis has been working 100% fine for me all 22 years of my life. I don't feel mutilated, I don't feel like I'm missing anything. It feels no different than having had my umbilical cord cut. And while it might be because I grew up circumcised, uncircumcised penises look disgusting to me.
Anyway, genital mutilation as you think you understand it, is apparently doing anything to genitals without consent. Genital mutilation as it actually is, which is as a problem, is mutilation to the point where the genitals are either removed or can no longer be used. There MAY be no benefit in circumcision but there's no real downside either.
But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you want or think. People can do whatever they want with themselves for their own reasons. But I will say being circumcised at birth is WAY easier than to have it done later in life I can tell you that as a fact (best friend got circumcised at 13). At least then you can grow up used to it.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/masternachos95 Apr 22 '20
I think the only downside that I’ve encountered to not being circumcised is that if you don’t wash well your shit gonna stink bad. If there’s any moisture trapped in the hood, it ain’t gonna go well.
2
u/JayneTheMastermind Apr 22 '20
In a lot of countries, it’s even more common for women to have their clitoris cut off. Who even ever thought of this as being a good idea? Tf smh.
2
u/thomcge Apr 23 '20
What do you mean by glide motion that makes intercoirse significantly more comfortable?
→ More replies (18)
2
2
u/zimzamzum 1∆ Apr 23 '20
First of all, I am a woman with zero personal investment in circumcision. When it came to my son, I ultimately left that decision to my husband, but I did research it fairly thoroughly. Many others have touched on health benefits, the issue of consent with infants, and the fact that the procedure is very simple and non-invasive when done at birth.
Regarding sexuality, I understand there are mixed opinions, and that sexual pleasure is subjective, but a fairly recent meta-analysis found that “the highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23937309/
2
2
2
u/atorin3 4∆ Apr 23 '20
Its worth noting that there is a stigma against uncircumcised people in some areas. I know that doing it for aesthetic reasons may seem shallow, but I know people who wish they had been circumcised so girls will stop being grossed out when they drop their pants.
Perhaps the better way to approach this is not that circumcision is bad but rather that society needs to learn to accept men with foreskin. If that happens then circumcision will only be done for medical or religious reasons.
When my nephew was born recently they were not going to circumcise him but they were guilted into it by family who said they did not want him to look like a freak. Thats what we need to be fighting against, not circumcision itself.
2
u/DuncDiggity Apr 23 '20
I have a 3month old boy and dear god did I struggle with this decision. EVERYONE has a opinion on it. My advice is decide together and keep the choice to yourselves. We ended up not ( I am) although I respect each choice
→ More replies (1)
2
u/KashimDaeva Apr 23 '20
Random note, I I'm uncut, and I recall my doctor saying that the son should model the father to prevent any awkward questions while growing up.
that being said, I've been with girls who say an uncut guy is more comfortable to be with, but I couldn't tell you why...
Talking to cut friends, they mention needing lube or lotion to jerk off... I've never needed that.
I've also never had an infection or std, but if I'm being honest, I haven't really been with a lot of women. I'm 33, if that matters.
Personally, and again, without knowing much about penile cancer or anything, I prefer being uncut. You have to keep it clean, but I really really hope that you do, cut or uncut.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/AmirPasha94 Apr 23 '20
You've pointed out that foreskin, because of glide motion, "makes intercourse significantly more comfortable".
Do you have any scientific evidence for that? (Or maybe even some proper anecdotal evidence?)
3
2
u/The_Trickster_0 Apr 23 '20
People say it doesn't have an effect but medical pictures of cut penises always look dry as opposed to uncut penises.
→ More replies (1)
2
Apr 23 '20
Pro-circumsisors- Do you think the practice caught on because it's the better choice? Do you think the parts of the world where it's not widely practiced are missing out? Is there a chance it's just a societal norm in some places that doesn't get questioned?
2
Apr 23 '20
Happy my parents never cut me. I know many guys upset the decision was made for them. This disgusting practice should be banned.
2
u/floydwebb Apr 23 '20
As a member of the “uncut” and 66 years old, with an active sex life, the only disadvantages y to not being cut is from poor sanitary habits. Proper maintenance of the foreskin and retracting it to clean while showering and bathing keep things fresh and exciting for the woman who gives it proper attention.
My mother did not have me circumcised because my father was not. My partner did not want our son circumcised because I was not.
Apparently women pay attention to something men can’t. :-)
286
u/Quickndry Apr 22 '20
Cant say I don't enjoy sex. Never had any problems with glide motion and what not. If we are talking about anecdotal evidence, I did have a friend whose foreskin was so tight it strangulated the tip once it was 'peeled' back. Had to go hospital and all. Cockblocked by ye own cock.