Religion? Tradition? Just plain old good hygiene? The issue of circumcision goes back to the days of Moses, but parents still typically put a great deal of time and thought into the decision to circumcise (or not) their sons.
If you decided to circumcise your little guy but are now worrying that this was one fatherly move that didn't quite make the cut, it may make you feel better to consider that many parents are happy and secure in their decision to snip.
Nevertheless, if you're experiencing remorse, you're probably wondering if there's any conclusive evidence to suggest that circumcision leads to better hygiene, or that it has anything to do with not perpetuating generations of tradition-for-tradition's-sake.
Luckily, a 2009 study by the National Institutes of Health found that in addition to previous findings that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV by up to 60 percent, the procedure was linked to a reduced risk of contracting HPV and herpes. All signs are currently pointing to "you did the right thing," so breath easy.
If you're still feeling guilty about altering your son's body without his consent, possibly reducing his future sexual pleasure or even imposing values on him that he may not grow up to agree with, you're not alone. You should consider that how your son ends up feeling about it is ultimately more important, and he may even be glad you did it. Make it a point to have an honest discussion about your decision when he's old enough – you may both feel better having shared your concerns.
This article is ridiculous, and the title is incredibly misleading.
“Many parents are happy and secure in their decision to snip” Really? That’s a justification? What about the sons? Are they happy and secure with it. because I know, like many other men, I’m not. And calling it “a snip” is an outright lie. It’s the removal of 20,000 or so specialized fine-touch nerve endings and muscle and mucosa. The complete annihilation of the protective covering for the glans, which is now doomed to a life of deterioration from rubbing against clothing.
And if all signs are pointing to it being the right thing, why does not one single medical organization recommend it? Because the HIV studies (done in Africa on adult men) were seriously flawed? Because chopping up baby genitals to possibly have a mild effect on STDs is incredibly unethical? Babies don’t have sex, btw.
“Make it a point to have an honest discussion about your decision when he’s old enough – you may both feel better having shared your concerns.”
Of course, he’s still screwed for life regardless, but as long as you feel good about it…
Absolute self-serving hogwash.
Are you feeling guilty about letting a doctor permanently alter your son’s penis? Are you worried that your son might come to hate you because he has to live with a cosmetic alteration on his penis for the rest of his life? Are you worried that reasons of “culture,” “tradition,” and “hygiene” simply won’t cut it when your son grows up?
Don’t worry, here’s a “study” that will make YOU feel better regardless of what your son thinks as an adult.
There are (some, heavily flawed, biased, highly suspicious) studies in Africa that say that circumcision MIGHT reduce his risk of HIV transmission (if he has wild crazy sex with a number of HIV infected female partners).
Even if these so-called “studies” do offer the protection they promise, a condom would do a far better job, not to mention protect from other STDs and pregnancy, but it’s your guilt that needs to be taken care of right?
You could have taken as much time to research this subject of your son’s circumcision as you do in investigating car prices, sports stats or home entertainment, but why wallow in guilt when we’re giving you a flimsy alibi right here?
Don’t bother feeling guilty for making a poorly thought out decision; pat yourself on the back. If your son is not happy with his penis, it’s not YOUR fault, right?
What a half-assed post, with half-assed research, written by a half-assed author for half-assed parents who don’t feel any real resentment.
Instead of looking for ways to let yourself off the hook, why not actually consider that you may have made a mistake, and learn from it?
Why not encourage others to actually research the subject instead of encouraging them to remain in blissful ignorance?
Stupid, pathetic, self-serving garbage.
It seems the anti-circ activists love to promote the idea tha circumcision is dangerous and useless. Well is it? First, if we lived in a perfect world
withought harmful viruses etc.and if body parts such as a foreskin never
caused a person any problems, then maybe we could consider circumcision harmful and useless. Sorry but its not a perfect world. Viruses such as HIV,Herpes and HPV all
have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin either through small tares in the lining or because of the immune response
from such cells as Langerhan. Unfortunately an immune response to a virus such as HIV and Herpes is pretty much the same as the Trojan horse, and once its
in its there to stay.
As we all know, a number of studies show each of these viruses to be more common in the uncircumcised. Circumcision is not a cure all but it is considered
by many to be a preventive measure. Yes condoms provides protection from these viruses, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second
that people always use them.
Have you ever checked into unplanned pregnancies for example, especially among young people, i think this speakes for itself.
From day one after an infant is circumcised, benefits start. UTI’s are less frequent for the first year of life, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, thrush,
cancer, frenulum tares (which can be very painful involving a lot of blood ) can all be either reduced or eliminated for a lifetime. As for ceanliness,
well, thats a no brainer.
Smegma, and fermented urine can form under the foreskin within a couple hours especially if small amounts of urine get trapped and start mixing with oils
and shedded skin. Many reports describe the smell as
repulsive.
If anything can be done to help give someone and better defence against all these problems then maybe it should be considered more and parents should start
requesting it more often.
It seems pro-circ activists love to promote the idea that circumcision harmless, if not medically beneficial, if not medically necessary. Additionally, they love to promote the idea that the foreskin is useless, dangerous and a mistake of nature. Well is it?
Mike says:
“First, if we lived in a perfect world withought harmful viruses etc. and if body parts such as a foreskin never caused a person any problems, then maybe we could consider circumcision harmful and useless. Sorry but its not a perfect world,” suggesting that if a part of the body causes problems and is infected by viruses, then its pre-emptive destruction is justified.
Well I have news for Mike; all parts of the body are susceptible to disease. I’m afraid that of all of the parts of the body, the foreskin is one of the least susceptible to disease and medical conditions. If one cared to do the research, one would find that diseases in the foreskin are actually vanishingly rare. If we went by Mike’s logic, then we would remove the toes because they could pose a threat to a diabetic. Or the prostate, because 1 in 6 men get prostate cancer (as opposed to 1 in 100,000 who get penile cancer). We would remove the teeth because they can cause cavities, etc. etc…
Mike continues:
“Viruses such as HIV,Herpes and HPV all have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin either through small tares in the lining or because of the immune response from such cells as Langerhan. Unfortunately an immune response to a virus such as HIV and Herpes is pretty much the same as the Trojan horse, and once its in its there to stay.”
I would like to challenge Mike to produce the scientific paper that demonstrates that this is precisely what happens. HIV and herpes slips through the surface of the foreskin? The foreskin gets “small tares?” Really? Show me! Regarding the Langerhans cells, studies show that they are actually quite efficient at REPELLING HIV. They release langerhin, which DESTROYS the virus on contact. Clearly Mike doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
He does spew one nugget of truth however; once HIV invades the body, it’s in, and it’s there to stay, and when it invades the body, it makes absolutely no difference whether one is circumcised or not. The same principle applies to wearing a condom.
Mike says:
“As we all know, a number of studies show each of these viruses to be more common in the uncircumcised.”
Well. At least the “number of studies” that Mike is willing to consider. There are other studies that show that there is little to no difference, if not in the direction of circumcised men; HPV, for example, is shown to be more prevalent in circumcised men in some studies.
He continues:
“Circumcision is not a cure all but it is considered by many to be a preventive measure.”
Who is “many?” Who are they? Is it the same group of circumcision advocates who also happen to come from circumcising cultures? Because people who circumcise girls also consider it to be a “preventative measure.”
Mike argues:
“Yes condoms provides protection from these viruses, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second that people always use them. Have you ever checked into unplanned pregnancies for example, especially among young people, i think this speakes for itself.”
Mike seems to think the red herring of unplanned pregnancies is relevant: Let’s look at the rates of HIV in countries that circumcise vs. the ones that don’t. Can he explain why, even though 80% of US men are circumcised, HIV rates are higher than countries in Europe, where it is rare? Can he explain why, according to USAID, HIV was more prevalent among circumcised men vs. intact men in 10 out of 18 countries?
Mike says:
“From day one after an infant is circumcised, benefits start. UTI’s are less frequent for the first year of life, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, thrush, cancer, frenulum tares (which can be very painful involving a lot of blood ) can all be either reduced or eliminated for a lifetime.”
False. Actually, the AAP put the UTI myth to rest back in 1999. The studies that are used to make this claim, the ones conducted by Thomas Wiswell, were debunked and dismissed. UTIs are rare and easily treatable with anti-biotics. Circumcision is actually known to CAUSE uti. Phimosis is actually quite rare, paraphiosis quite preventable and curable. Balanitis is also rare and easily cureable, as is thrush. Cancer is vanishingly rare, and it is more associated with old age, smoking and bad hygiene, all of which do not need circumcision to change. Frenulum tares (spelled TEARS by the way) are also rare, and a condition that does not need circumcision.
It makes no sense to circumcise a child in order to “prevent” conditions that circumcision doesn’t even prevent, and which are already easily treated without surgery. One would never choose to eliminate toe fungus by cutting off the foot for example. Appendicitis, more common in people with appendixes, are never routinely removed “in order to prevent appendicitis.”
Mike says:
“As for ceanliness, well, thats a no brainer. Smegma, and fermented urine can form under the foreskin within a couple hours especially if small amounts of urine get trapped and start mixing with oils and shedded skin. Many reports describe the smell as repulsive.”
According the “Circumcision Policy Statement” produced by the “Task Force on Circumcision” appointed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was published in Pediatrics in 1999 and reaffirmed on September 1, 2005, “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene”
Smegma does collect under the foreskin, and yes, it can be “repulsive,” if not kept in check. This is not a problem remedied by surgery, but a normal, healthy part of the human condition. Smegma collects in more copious amounts in women, and women are known to have a fishy smell to them, IF they don’t practice good hygiene and take a shower. The suggestion that boys need to be circumcised to alleviate a normal part of living which does not need surgery is simply irrational.
Mike continues:
“If anything can be done to help give someone and better defense against all these problems then maybe it should be considered more and parents should start requesting it more often.”
No, if there are better, less invasive, more invasive solutions to problems, doctors need to be suggesting THOSE to parents, and reserve surgery for when it is actually medically indicated.
Bottom Line:
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent’s sense of entitlement.
If cutting parts off the genitals of baby girls reduced the risk of something, would that make it acceptable? The longest running study of circumcision and STI’s showed a very slightly *higher* rate in the circumcised men anyway.
And stop calling it a “snip” – it’s genital surgery.
It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but how that’s how they thought back then, and that’s how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don’t believe me, then google “A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians’ Own Words”.
Heck, they even passed laws against “self-pollution” as it was called.
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
Correction:
If there are better, less invasive, more *effective* solutions to problems, doctors need to be suggesting THOSE to parents, and reserve surgery for when it is actually medically indicated.
It is extremely sad that this author is both very on-sided and that he blatantly ignored the facts. The other posters have done a wonderful job of setting him straight. And, that 2009 study dealt with the transmission of HIV from women to men in Africa where hygiene and sexual habits for both sexes can be poor. Remember, in the USA, nearly 80% of adult men are circumcised, but we are way ahead of all other westernized countries when it comes to HIV infection. Again, very sad how this author spreads myths and plays loose with the facts.
As a dad who made the same mistake, I thought the article would have more insight. Instead, it is bragging. Circumcision prevents nothing, and robs the male of 1/2 his genital skin. If you don’t want to believe me, check with NIH, by searching for NIH+Navy+circumcision+study, or “Circumcision and Acquisition of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Men”. Why do the French and Danish have foreskins, and 1/10 the infections of Americans? It’s easy to bend statistics. How much did being circumcised, help all the guys who died of AIDS in the US? If you have to wear a condom to be safe, why amputate some of the finest tissue ever on a human being?
A greater dad, would have recognized his mistake, and not be bragging about, “Oops, it was wrong, but all’s well that ends well”. The kid is still missing a great deal of what nature intended him to feel.
Kind of turns my stomach, both when I read what he has to say, and when I think of what I let anatomically ignorant doctors do to my kid. We didn’t make the same mistake twice.
Why do girls get the washcloth, and boys get the scalpel. The US is totally sexist. It shows a religious bias as well. People are using more common sense, which is why the circumcision rate is dropping so quickly. We are the only country who still pretends that there is a medical benefit. The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand learned years ago.
Read what the Dutch Royal Medical Society has to say about it. Then, search for circumcision+wrongful death, or “Injuries linked to circumcision clamp”, or “botched circumcision”.
Circumcision is an emperor who has no clothes.
The anti-circ activists are always pointing to the figures that HIV rates are higher in U.S.A than they are in some European countries, where circumcision is not commen.
But what they don’t tell you is that the USA was third in line to be hit by the HIV virus . The origin of HIV started in Africa, then it spread to Haiti and from there
it hit the USA.. as far back as the 1960’s this virus was spreading mainly among the U.S.A gay community withought anyone ever knowing it exsisted.. For the next 20
and more years it was spreading and like wild fire ..It was as high as 5% among the gay male community before any knowledge of this desease existed..
Some reports show some gay individuals averaging over 11 unprotected sexual partners per year.By the time the first reported cases of AIDS were found
in large United States cities, the prevalence of HIV infection in some
communities had passed 5% .
HIV slowly spread to other countries and once it started to spread not long after (in the 1980’s) the virus was found and precautions were
finally taken to help slow the spread.
Being third in line and allowing the spread of this virus to go unchecked for so long allowed a strong hold and obviously infecting so many. If circumcision
had not been a large part of the American culture already then the spread of the virus would have been a lot worse than it is today in the USA.
Perhaps those who are unwilling to learn the facts need to visit Europe and you’ll find out that all the myths regarding the male prepuce are false! European men, predominantly intact, are left intact because Europe, South America, Japan, and including other civilized first world countries DO NOT routinely practice this barbaric procedure. These countries believe in genital integrity. There’s no medical necessity to remove healthy functional tissue from a non-consenting individual! And all those intact men do not have diseased foreskins. These men are not contracting HIV just because they are intact. Females have more folds in their vulvas; Americans don’t go cutting those off girls at birth.
Who is this “Mike” guy? He is in dire need of some serious education. I was circumcised as an infant and I KNOW I was robbed of something that belonged to me. I KNOW I was violated in the most disgusting way possible. Now, I am in the process of restoring and the feeling is amazing! By the way, my first girlfriend had multiple UTI’s throughout our 2 year relationship. My partner of nearly 5 years is INTACT, has NO foul odor, has NEVER had a UTI or other related infections. He was born in the Netherlands in 1985. He and I both are beyond thankful that he wasn’t born in America, where people like “Mike” fill peoples heads with false & bias information. ANYONE that may be even thinking of having a little one, PLEASE to the proper research. The information is at your finger-tips. -Will
The study by the National Institutes of Health has already been shown to be a flawed study with no control group. They took two groups of mean, cut one, and left the other intact. Then they gave the cut men a long time to heal with no sex, and condoms. The intact men, they let go with no condoms and no safe sex education. Then through fuzzy math and rounding up they came up with the 60% number. But the number keeps floating around to justify circumcision, and no one questions it. See the facts by searching on YouTube- African circumcision study fail
Mike – interesting that you would bring up the widespread HIV infection of gay men in the U.S. when even the flawed, refuted African studies you seem to love to promote show NO preventative effect on men who have sex with men (and also no protection for women, either).
And while it’s true not everyone uses condoms every single time, you have to realize not everyone is having sex with diseased partners every single time, either, and that a condom is much more effective in those situations rather than the (incorrectly) claimed 60% reduction which essentially amounts to little more than a coin flip. That hardly seems wqorth removing a huge portion of someone’s genitals when they aren’t even sexually active.
To respond to Robert:
“It’s the removal of 20,000 or so specialized fine-touch nerve endings…” — that’s just propaganda, I’m afraid. This figure appears on many anti-circumcision websites, but in fact no study has ever counted the number.
“The complete annihilation of the protective covering for the glans, which is now doomed to a life of deterioration from rubbing against clothing.” — presumably you’re referring to keratinisation, which Szabo and Short showed in 2000 affects circumcised and uncircumcised men equally?
“And if all signs are pointing to it being the right thing, why does not one single medical organization recommend it?” — most medical associations that have updated their positions in recent years have adopted a more positive position (the AUA, for example, added the words “the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits”). VIrtually all support parental choice.
To respond to Moon:
“The study by the National Institutes of Health has already been shown to be a flawed study with no control group.” — well, first of all which study are you talking about? The most frequently cited studies are the three randomised controlled trials in Africa, of which two (one in Uganda and one in Kenya) were funded by the NIH.
“They took two groups of mean, cut one, and left the other intact.” — well now you’ve contradicted yourself. A group not exposed to an intervention (circumcision in this case) is a control group by definition.
“Then they gave the cut men a long time to heal with no sex, and condoms. The intact men, they let go with no condoms and no safe sex education.” — I guess you’re not talking about the RCTs, then, since condoms & education were provided to both groups.
“See the facts by searching on YouTube- African circumcision study fail” — yes, because YouTube videos are well known for their unfailing accuracy in scientific matters. Better still, why not actually read the studies?
Those who think of the removed foreskin as merely a “flap of skin” should consider that the foreskin is the home of millions of nerve endings, the whole collection of which comprise the male “clitoris”. Indeed, in Islamic cultures, in mostly rural areas females are still routinely circumcised at puberty, in many instances this means removal of the clitoris. Males are also circumcised at puberty in Islamic cultures. The Taliban are infamous for their forced circumcisions of all members (all ages) of villages that they took over in their Afgan revolution.
Unfortunately for those in denial, I have my whole penis intact, uncircumcised, and know exactly what this sexual mutilation destroys. It is a very big deal both in terms of the quality of the tissue and how that tissue works with the penis at large and the vagina. I wouldn’t be “circumcised” for anything.
Jake is the name of someone considered by the rest of the world to be a circumfetishist, meaning that is how he gets his sexual jollies. He re-edits the Wikipedia circumcision page almost daily, resulting in something like 13,000 edits.
He had himself circumcised, yet the last I heard, was living with a man with a foreskin.
You decide.
search for circleaks.org+Jake
Jake,
A control group gets treated identical to the experimental group except for the parameter being tested (presence/absence of foreskin). In the case of the African circumcision studies, this would have meant that, besides being placed randomly in one of the two groups, the members of the control group should have been advised on condom use every time the experimental group was, should have had their preop tests done, should have had a sham circumcision done ( preputial incisions), should have received the same medication, should have received the same postop care, etc. as the experimental group. But what does a computer geek know about a “real” control group!
Jake says, re: nerve endings” “that’s just propaganda, I’m afraid. This figure appears on many anti-circumcision websites, but in fact no study has ever counted the number.”
So what if it’s 20k, 10k, or 100k? They are gone forever. And I do believe there is a good figure out there, but I’m not wasting time looking it up for you.
Jake says, re: the foreskin protecting the glans: “presumably you’re referring to keratinisation, which Szabo and Short showed in 2000 affects circumcised and uncircumcised men equally?”
And a simple look at any intact man versus a circumcised one (once it’s been exposed long enough) will prove that wrong. And by “long enough” I mean a few years at least, which is well within the time from a neonatal circumcision and sexual maturity, so don’t bother playing word games.
Jake says, re: no medical organization recommending RIC: “most medical associations that have updated their positions in recent years have adopted a more positive position (the AUA, for example, added the words “the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits”). VIrtually all support parental choice.”
You’re assuming that parents should have some sort of say in removing healthy tissue from a non-consenting minor. And yes, many medical organizations do claim that, but every single one also says THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT. And what about the Royal Dutch Medical Associations latest statement? I’m also curious about the “many” medical organizations that have become more favorable. The AAP hasn’t changed their opinion in over 10 years, and you’d think they have the biggest financial incentive, what with their members making millions off the “discarded” tissue.
The bottom line is the baby doesn’t need it, Who else has surgery forced on them, when it is not life threatening? The AMA admits it makes $270 million a year off of circumcision. That is like Wall St. admitting to nothing, and paying a $500 million dollar fine. You *know* the figure is closer to a billion. Who wouldn’t lie to get more money, especially when they can point to the WHO, and say, “well, they approve”. Of course, they approve. “Only about 10% to 20% of doctors use the Mogen clamp, according to Dr. David Tomlinson, who teaches family medicine at Brown University in Providence, R.I., and serves as the World Health Organization’s chief expert on circumcision.”
He also invented the “improved” Gomco, the “improved” Plastibell and the “Accu-circ”. Tomlinson doesn’t need an advertising budget, he’s got Jake, and his buddies at the CDC, not to mention the LA Times exposing problems with his competitor’s clamp. I’d wager he hears a big “ka-ching” every time a clinic in Africa believes his story, and purchases 100 clamps. Not to mention the domestic business. A regular penile guillotine.
Big business is playing on the ignorance of people, and in too many cases winning. The boy deserves to feel all that 120 million years of mammal evolution intended. He needs a circumcision as much as his sister. What happens when you circumcise him, and then a real vaccine comes out the next year. Do you tell him, “sorry about the other half of your penis skin, son”? If anybody thinks circumcision doesn’t damage a penis, ask a guy with a foreskin. He knows what he would be missing. The Jewish physician Maimonides described it accurately 400 years ago. “The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him.”
Why write an article to try and justify it to yourself? It happened. In hindsight it was unnecessary, but what’s done is done. End of story. No need to make yourself feel better about the decision, because that somehow makes circumcision more acceptable in your mind than it was before. There’s a bit of cognitive dissonance at work here.
Circumcision makes sex less enjoyable and only was introduced as a routine procedure in the U.S. in the late 1800s in an attempt to stamp out masturbation.
Today, it’s being promoted by Jewish people for cultural reasons and a doctor’s lobby that makes nearly a billion dollars every year off the procedure.
FACT.
I just want to tell the people that you are not alone even when you have an STD! There are so many people who have the same situation as you.
Also, there are many online communities for you to find support and dating! I recommend you to read the STD inspirational stories on the largest STD support and dating site STDpal. com. Hope that you find the stories helpful and informative.