Is circumcision "a bizarre American custom"?

One of my friends is Jewish; her partner was raised Catholic.

When she was pregnant, I asked them, "If it's a boy, are you going to get him circumcised?"
My friend answered "yes" at the same moment that her partner said, "No!"

Then they looked at each other for a minute, and said "We'll have to talk about it."
They are both female, so neither had personal experience to draw on.

It was a boy, and he was not circumcised.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jun 18 2006, 01:03 AM) [snapback]272947[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but I find this hard to believe...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 18 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]273010[/snapback]</div>

it might be hard for you to believe it but that does not mean it is not true

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jun 18 2006, 10:34 AM) [snapback]273019[/snapback]</div>

Of course...

Perhaps a better word would have been "skeptical"...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jun 18 2006, 01:03 AM) [snapback]272947[/snapback]</div>

LOL let me refrase that, what I've HEARD.. :mellow:

 

Does circumcision contribute to greater potential length in the penis? :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 18 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]273211[/snapback]</div>

I think what we may have here is a case of a position strongly held that makes any objection to it untenable. We're used to it in political and religious discussions, but if I'm right, this is the first time I've seen it held by a woman in a discussion on circumcision!

I did have a guy proclaim how much he missed his foreskin, how much he hated his parents for multilating him, and how he really wanted his insurance to pay for restoration (this was before the Internet, on the RelayNet Men's Conference, where some men's rights advocates hung out). He was the only one I remember who held such a strong opinion on it.

I suspect all the differences we're hearing about, from cleanliness to sensitivity are not enough to tip the scales either way. At least not enough to formulate a social policy with the force of law backing it up.

 

12.1inchprius B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TwelveInchPrius @ Jun 18 2006, 08:20 PM) [snapback]273215[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 18 2006, 08:04 PM) [snapback]273211[/snapback]</div>

Evan, my statement was in response to priusguy04 who stated that uncircumcised men "could get yeast infection". My response meant to show that circumcised men could get yeast infection as well. I have indeed read a study on this subject prior to posting my response. I also searched for studies showing that circumcised men get less yeast infections but all I found was that they have less symptoms but not less infections.
Just wanted to point out that his argument in support of circumcision is a bit silly as at best studies might be inconclusive.
I am not an expert in this particular area but here is what I found:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/donovan1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...2&dopt=Abstract

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 19 2006, 12:24 AM) [snapback]273304[/snapback]</div>

Evan,
The link you provided to the Mayo clinic had a statment that uncircumcised men are at higher risk of getting yeast infections. The first link I provided meant to refute that:

"It has been suggested that uncircumcised men are at higher risk of certain sexually transmissible diseases (STDs), in particular genital herpes,1,2 gonorrhoea,1 syphilis,1 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection,3 candidiasis1,2 and chancroid.3 The evidence for male circumcision protecting against most STDs is tentative4 but is strong for chancroid and candidal balanoposthitis (though not necessarily subclinical yeast infection5). In some populations where chancroid and syphilis may be the common causes of genital ulcers, these ulcers and the uncircumcised state of the men (both independently and synergistically) appear to be major risk factors for the female to male sexual transmission of HIV-1.3 The uncircumcised penis is hypothetically at increased risk of STDs because of larger surface area, thinner epidermal barrier, more opportunity for epithelial microtrauma and the warm, moist niche under the foreskin favouring the persistence of fastidious microorganisms. However, none of these hypotheses has been proven. We sought to determine any effect the presence of a male foreskin may exert on the acquisition of common STDs by heterosexual men attending an STD clinic and also its effect on the clinical manifestations of herpes simples virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection."

This goes on explaining about how this study was performed. It does not indeed state that yeast infections are equally common in circumcised and uncimcurcised men, but neither did your link state otherwise. It just said that uncircumcised men are at higher risk of getting yeast infections but nothing about uncircumcised men getting it more often.
And yes, you are right that one study is probably not enough, that's why I stated that this might be inconclusive. Also, I was unable to locate a study study proving your point, but that does not mean that they don't exist.

Anyway, I found this interesting. This is on circumcision in general:

AMERICAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, Vol 54, No. 4, pages 1216-1217,
September 15, 1996.



Letters to the Editor

AAFP Fact Sheet on Neonatal Circumcision: A Need for Updating

TO THE EDITOR: Several recently published studies demonstrate the need for complete revision of the American Academy of Family Physicians "Fact Sheet for Physicians Regarding Neonatal Circumcision."[1] Any physician caring for infant boys should investigate other sources.

Recent retrospective studies[2] have estimated the neonatal circumcision complication rate to be more than five times higher than reported in the fact sheet. The complication rate is significantly higher than that reported for postneonatal circumcision.

The number of circumcised men developing penile cancer has been increasing. Of 110 cases of penile cancer, 41 (37 percent) were circumcised, with 22 (20 percent) having been circumcised in the newborn period.[3] Genital warts and smoking were the strongest predictors of penile cancer. Data from Denmark indicate that the incidence of penile cancer is lower in Denmark than in the United States. Approximately 1.6 percent of Danish men are circumcised. The incidence of penile cancer has been declining for the past 50 years in Denmark.[4]

The statement "Virtually all sexually transmitted diseases occur more frequently among uncircumcised men" may no longer be true. Recent studies have demonstrated that circumcised men are at increased risk of contracting gonorrhea, syphilis and genital warts.[5,6] Men are at equal risk for developing human papillomavirus lesions and herpesvirus infections regardless of circumcision status.[3,7] At least four studies have shown human immunodeficiency virus infection to occur more commonly in circumcised men.[8]

If linear regression analysis is applied to the relationship between circumcision rates and the prevalence of acquired immunodeficency syndrome in industrialized countries (using 1994 World Health Organization data) and weighted for population, a strongly positive correlation between circumcision and the prevalence of AIDS is found. While this does not prove that circumcision is a risk factor for AIDS, it is clear that the circumcision experiment in the United States did not prevent the spread of the infection.

It is now believed that neonates perceive stimuli to be more painful than older infants. The impact of a painful experience may have long-term ramifications. A recent study demonstrated that boys circumcised in the neonatal period cried longer and harder after their first set of immunizations.[9]

Finally, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics recently cast doubt on whether a physician can ethically perform neonatal circumcisions.[10] Since a newborn is not competent, neither informed consent nor patient assent can be obtained. Likewise, parental permission is only accceptable in situations where medical intervention has a clear and immediate necessity, such as disease, trauma, or deformity. Routine circumcision does not satisfy these requirements. The committee suggests that in nonessential treatments, which could be deferred without substantial risk, the physician and family wait until the child's consent can be obtained. Without proper consent, the delineation between performance of neonatal circumcision and assault and battery becomes indistinct.[11]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jun 18 2006, 11:42 PM) [snapback]273290[/snapback]</div>

maggieddd':
statement was in response to priusguy04 who stated that uncircumcised men "could get yeast infection". My response meant to show that circumcised men could get yeast infection as well. I have indeed read a study on this subject prior to posting my response. I also searched for studies showing that circumcised men get less yeast infections but all I found was that they have less symptoms but not less infections.

MY statment was that uncircumcised men are more likely to get a yeast infection than a circumcised man

Some just like to argue their point, I'll stand behind or becide a certified Doctors word regarding this subject. <_<

Its kinda like the lie that Condoms protect you from stds, yes they may protect your wrapped member but what if the other person is having an out break in their pubic area see they dont tell ya about that in class in school.. I have a friend that caught HPV that way.. :blink: :huh:

 

And an intact woman is more likely to get breast cancer than one who's had a mastectomy. But that's a long way from an argument that one should start chopping breasts off routinely without consent as a preventative measure.

(Although some women do this of their own choice where they've got a high probability of breast cancer due to their genetics).

I find some of these arguments a little odd. It's like you're starting from an a priori position that you want to chop bits of your children's genitals off, without being stuck on a sex offenders register, so you start rooting around for tenuous medical advantages for your little perversion.

Anyway, if you want to modify their genitals, why not something less drastic? How about a nice piercing? That way you could be equal opportunity and do it to your female children too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 19 2006, 06:45 AM) [snapback]273347[/snapback]</div>

how does this statement:
"But seeing an uncut one was different and the guys would say they had to clean it do to oil build up, residual urine & sweat or else it would smell and or they could get yeast infections"
show that uncircumcised men are more likely to get yeast infection?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 19 2006, 09:00 AM) [snapback]273364[/snapback]</div>

Evan,
Sorry the first part was directed to you. The rest was just to extend on the topic. I should have put it in a separate post.

 

I guess one could see the argument from both sides of the coin, below is several links regarding infections and diseases surounding uncricumcised penis's.... B)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19058

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/balanitis.jsp

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook1/

http://patients.uptodate.com/topic.asp?fil...le=Circumcision

http://parents.berkeley.edu/advice/health/circumcision.html

http://ces.ca.uky.edu/metcalfe/news/June_2...th_Bulletin.pdf

 

So American men are a dirty group? J/K.

Guess some parents need to be taught how to clean their boys little "p" before chopping it off. )