Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

[earthgirl]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Bull. Show me the peer reviewed scientific studies.

Okay. Here are two. The first has been cited numerous times in other papers and journals. The second was reviewed before the university added it to their digital library.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/pdf

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs

[Corvus]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I'm a teenager, so obviously not a parent, but ever since I figured out what circumcision is I've been pretty angry that it had been done to me. I feel that it should be up to the person and a choice to be done at a time when they understand it. As many people have said in the thread there's no real benefits to it,though many of the people having it done are uninformed. It should only be done if it's needed for medical reasons (religious reasons maybe but then I still think it should be the person's choice since it's not only their body but their faith). I'm an american so most of my male friends are cut and I've only ever seen one person who was not during a gym class where we were swimming. We're in high school so he wasn't like made fun of (though he did get a lot of looks). It bothers me that this was a choice I had no part in.

In my mind there's no reason to do it. I don't know if anyone has really looked into it but there's a process where men can 'regrow' foreskin. The resulting foreskin would be looser than normal and not as large though but does offer increased sensitivity. I don't want to post any links to any articles since I'm afraid many of them have pictures. Just google foreskin restoration. I don't know anything really about it but they claim it works, though I don't think I would do it.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Just putting this out there. You know my views: typical biased European.. I think it's weird as hell (and I hear Hell is a pretty weird place). BUT to those who are against circumcision. Would you feel so strongly about operating on a baby born with an extra toe, or cauliflower ears? Neither of these things would physically harm the child if left alone, but parents may feel it would be better to do the operation on the infant, rather than wait until he or she is older and can choose for themselves. If you're not in favour of circumcision, you might not see it as the same thing, but to parents who think it's normal and want their child to fit in and be like everyone else, can't you at least partially, understand where they were coming from? It will always, because of my own social background, seem bat shit and perverted to me, but I can at least to some extent, see the other point of view and don't believe anyone would make any decision about their child that they didn't believe was in their best interest.

Well, I wasn't born with an extra toe, but with two toenails on each of the two smallest toes - it seems to be a genetic thing. And nobody did anything about that. I suppose I could have had it seen too when I got older, but it wasn't really a problem. Nor was the really prominent 'witches' mark' on my arm. I've still got that too.

But I think Jembru puts up a good and compassionate argument here, that whether we circumcise a child or not, then the parents are acting in good faith. They want what they believe is best for a child.

What intrigues me (because before I got the internet I didn't realise that snipping was commonplace unless it was for religious reasons) is that it is so popular in the US and not in Europe.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

What intrigues me (because before I got the internet I didn't realise that snipping was commonplace unless it was for religious reasons) is that it is so popular in the US and not in Europe.

I do find it bizarre. I didn't think too much about it before I moved here, because I'd barely been with anyone before I moved here and the guys I was with were uncut (I think it tends to be more half and half in Canada), and it's not really something people talk about or seem to care about. But people over here are very against it, and people in the US are very for it. The hygiene argument does make me laugh, because it's so misinformed. If that were the case (that it's cleaner) then why isn't cleanliness a problem in Europe (it's not, btw)? I also don't think there are a higher rate of STDs over here. That in itself is argument enough for me haha.

I'm kind of torn on the controversy in Germany at the moment, to be honest. I kind of do support banning it, because it's not a cultural norm, it's not widely practiced, and it carries extra risks (especially since it is -not- a routine procedure here). It came about because of several very public cases of botched circumcisions. BUT it's a Jewish practice, and of course if you do anything that could limit or be seen as limiting the religious freedom of Jewish people in Germany, you're in a bad position. To be honest I think in this particular case, it's not really quite fair. If this had been a ban in Sweden or the UK (and neither would be unlikely...it could happen there), it would have some controversy but people would have let it go. But because it's GERMANY people are crying Nazi.

[Medusa]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I think it's up to the parents. And I can absolutely see both sides of the argument. Being not circumcised doesn't make you dirty etc. Being circumcised doesn't mean your parents are DEMONS FROM HELL. But I'll tell you what. If I hear one more person imply the parents that choose to circumcise their children do it without thinking about it all willy nilly, I'm about to throw down. Stop being so fucking hysterical.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I do find it bizarre. I didn't think too much about it before I moved here, because I'd barely been with anyone before I moved here and the guys I was with were uncut (I think it tends to be more half and half in Canada), and it's not really something people talk about or seem to care about. But people over here are very against it, and people in the US are very for it. The hygiene argument does make me laugh, because it's so misinformed. If that were the case (that it's cleaner) then why isn't cleanliness a problem in Europe (it's not, btw)? I also don't think there are a higher rate of STDs over here. That in itself is argument enough for me haha.

I think it is actually a throwback from Victorian era American sexual repression, Which I know was a big seal in the US, my european history of the period is a little less sound though. While running through some information online I found a refrence to some work by a man named Kellogg, (yes the cereal guy.) It appears to have been referenced as a basis for reduction of sexual response in males. I cannot find the original study, but I have found so many refrences to it it becomes hard to discount. "Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. ." This is in response to masturbation, which I have learned from the wonderful internet is not prevented even a little by infant circumcision.

I'm kind of torn on the controversy in Germany at the moment, to be honest. I kind of do support banning it, because it's not a cultural norm, it's not widely practiced, and it carries extra risks (especially since it is -not- a routine procedure here). It came about because of several very public cases of botched circumcisions. BUT it's a Jewish practice, and of course if you do anything that could limit or be seen as limiting the religious freedom of Jewish people in Germany, you're in a bad position. To be honest I think in this particular case, it's not really quite fair. If this had been a ban in Sweden or the UK (and neither would be unlikely...it could happen there), it would have some controversy but people would have let it go. But because it's GERMANY people are crying Nazi.

I think you may be right about that one, because the few American articles I have read havent mentioned that the circumcisions were botched at all, so yeah. I have trouble saying that Jewish people should not be allowed to circumcise, I know so many circumcised males, without problems. I didn't know that my husband was one of the people who has sexual dysfunction from a botched circumcision, until I brought it up. He never mentioned it because he says it never seemed important, I was ok with his issue, I just never knew the cause, but the cleanliness thing I cannot find good evidence in this country one way or another for but I have heard some interresting theories about why results could be skewed. I think if a boy child is what I get I won't be able to get him done, but if he asks me one day why e doesn't look like all of the other boys at school or whatever then we will at least be able to talk about it a little.

P.S.
On another note, I work in a hospital (in no sort of medical capability) and asked the nurses upstairs in maternity what they thought, and when I left they were having a fight about the whole thing. Apparently it is a very touchy subject in the medical community and there is no apparent clear winner. My boss is gonna be so unhappy when he finds out I started it....

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I think the other issue here was the lack of choice. It's a pretty permanent decision, and it's not really seen as "normal" over here. So religious or not, it's seen as kind of unfair. You can always choose to get circumcised as an adult. It may hurt more and all that jazz, but you can still choose it; whereas you cannot choose to become uncircumcised when it's already happened.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Cordin, I have to completely disagree. Cutting a piece of a baby's body just for the sake of local tradition isn't something you can really defend.

Yes it is. I just did.

No first world nation should be doing it....

In your opinion, which differs from mine.

As for the merely cosmetic difference, you could say the same thing about cutting off the pinky toes or ear lobes. Those have even less possible uses than the foreskin but if anyone suggested doing that to a baby, we'd all think they're crazy.

Yes, I could say that, but I'm not.

I'm talking about an actually existing custom, not one you've imagined to make a point. Let's stick to reality, if possible.

[thalassa]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

I think the other issue here was the lack of choice. It's a pretty permanent decision, and it's not really seen as "normal" over here. So religious or not, it's seen as kind of unfair.

See, this is just a pretty silly argument. Almost everything one does as a parent has the potential (and statistical reality) of being a pretty permanent decision in determining their life of their child. Not teaching proper nutrition, not taking a child to the dentist and teaching them proper dental hygiene, being poor, not teaching them to value education, not teaching them to manage money, etc. Certainly, these things are potentially reversible, but statistically speaking, they have more impact than removing a foreskin or not.

...for the average person, having or not having an extra flap of skin is pretty minimal actually. And, in this country, has the potential for health and health care cost benefits beyond the individual involved.

You can always choose to get circumcised as an adult. It may hurt more and all that jazz, but you can still choose it; whereas you cannot choose to become uncircumcised when it's already happened.

Its not that it hurts more, its that the potential complications are more severe...and that when a person *needs* a circumcision, its either due to trauma or illness...both of which can complicate healing and increase infection risk. It takes about a week for an infant to heal from the procedure, where it takes about 3 week for an adolescent or an adult. Due to the procedure used for babies, they also only need a local anesthesia, where as adolescents and adults are usually put under a general anesthesia, which has more associated risks.

Okay. Here are two. The first has been cited numerous times in other papers and journals. The second was reviewed before the university added it to their digital library.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/pdf

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi...ntext=hss_pubs

Honestly, I've actually never read a study with so many unscientific statements--"some people", "very common", "sometimes" and "occasionally" that wasn't a humanities study. That was so awful in methodology and conjecture-based conclusions and citing studies with such poor numbers--comparing 30 kids crying does not make a study.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

See, this is just a pretty silly argument. Almost everything one does as a parent has the potential (and statistical reality) of being a pretty permanent decision in determining their life of their child. Not teaching proper nutrition, not taking a child to the dentist and teaching them proper dental hygiene, being poor, not teaching them to value education, not teaching them to manage money, etc. Certainly, these things are potentially reversible, but statistically speaking, they have more impact than removing a foreskin or not.

...for the average person, having or not having an extra flap of skin is pretty minimal actually. And, in this country, has the potential for health and health care cost benefits beyond the individual involved.

I'm not saying that those are my views, just why the decision was made over here. I've read a lot of articles (mostly American) being all like "ZOMG lack of freedom!!!" about it, and I think it's hard for people to understand that in some places, circumcision just isn't standard practice and that people there have as much (and often more) issues about it as people do about -not- doing it in the US. It does tend to be seen as pointless and barbaric.

Personally, it's not a big deal to me. I'd never do it to a child, because it's just not done and I don't see the point. I prefer guys who are not, because it's what I'm used to (otherwise it feels like something is missing!) but it's not like I'm weirded out by it if they are either

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Honestly, I've actually never read a study with so many unscientific statements--"some people", "very common", "sometimes" and "occasionally" that wasn't a humanities study. That was so awful in methodology and conjecture-based conclusions and citing studies with such poor numbers--comparing 30 kids crying does not make a study.

I"m glad you said it, Thalassa ' cause I'd have been harsher.

That second one was published by "Humanities & Social Sciences papers," so it's not surprising that it is long on theory and short on any actual experimental data. The Social Sciences will be much more scientific when data drives the threories. I don't want to spend a lot of time ripping that paper up, but I have to point out a few things that made me laugh -

Let's see - 12 year old Turkish boys who were circumcised felt like they were the victems of violence and powerlessness. ERGO, it must follow that infants feel the same way - I guess that this is despite the fact that the cognitive develpment of an infant is radically different from the cognitive development of a 12 year old. Did these people never study developmental psychology?

This one I have to quote, because I can't believe myself that I actually read it -

"Richards, Bernal, and Brackbil (1976) found that circumcision may impact adversly on the developing brain, and that reported 'gender differences' may actually arise from behavioral changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision."

LMAO - I act like a boy because I've been circumcised. I thought it was like my moustache - the product of mix between hormones and choice. Does this mean that uncircumcised men are indistinguishable (except, I assume, physically?) from girls?

And why are gender differences treated as if they were a bad thing????? I actually enjoy the differences - exploring them with my wife has been an enjoyable occupation of ours for the past 30 years.

The authors even trot out Freud and castration anxiety. Seriously? I haven't seen a serious citation of Freud (outside of hisotrical surveys) in thirty years. Everything he got right (the unconcious as source of motivations) has been superceeded by 100 years of experimental research, and everything he got wrong (most everything else) has been about as thouroghly disproved as creationism.

On the other hand, maybe the castration anxiety I didn't even know I had prevented me from bonding with my mother, and thereby avoid the Oedipal complex...

Oh, and "heterosexual intercourse is less satifying for both partners when the man is circumcised." Thank God! Otherwise I'd have died the first time I had it! The author's also imply, in the same paragraph, that this reduction in sexual pleasure is the cause of the present high divorce rate. I wonder if the authors bothered to check divorce rates for circumcised and uncicumsized men? If they did, they didn't seem to feel like it was important enough to mention.

It's also responsible for erectile dysfunction... Oddly, the treatments for erectile dysfunction (Viagra, Cialis, etc.), which are very successful, affect blood flow to work thier magic - indicating an organic cause which is not circumcision (unless circumcision has an effect on bloodflow which takes 30-40-50 years to manifest).

I don't know which is worse - that "professionals" write this crap, or that they are able to convince people to believe it.

[earthgirl]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Honestly, I've actually never read a study with so many unscientific statements--"some people", "very common", "sometimes" and "occasionally" that wasn't a humanities study. That was so awful in methodology and conjecture-based conclusions and citing studies with such poor numbers--comparing 30 kids crying does not make a study.

You asked for peer reviewed, published, accepted work. I gave it to you. If your only response to it is to poo-pooh it, that seems to be your problem and not mine.

Even without whatever your standard for evidence is in this case in regards to negative impact on the health of the child, there is still a profound lack of agreeing evidence that circumcision has any real health benefits. And I have already cited an independent survey in a previous post that shows a complete lack of correlation between circumcision or not and HIV transmission or not. In fact, no two studies seem to find the same facts, which implies strongly when considered altogether that a man's penile health is largely dependent on other factors than foreskin presence; that basically means that there is no inherent benefit to circumcision, which in turn makes it medically unnecessary in almost all cases. Which leaves the question, when has it ever been wrong to err on the side of not causing unnecessary pain to a defenseless infant with a most likely completely unnecessary medical procedure? Unless all of a sudden the personhood and well-being of actual living breathing infants fall outside of the realm of ethical consideration.

[Corvus]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Studies on Foreskin and HIV transmission: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2502151

Here's one to the contrary:http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

You asked for peer reviewed, published, accepted work. I gave it to you. If your only response to it is to poo-pooh it, that seems to be your problem and not mine.

I'm not going to speak for Thalassa, but, since this could just as well have been said to me, I'm going to give my own response.

Yes, you gave the information which was asked for. But that doesn't end it. There are people here on the forumn who have enough of a background in various sciences, experimental design and protocol, statistics, logic, etc. to be perfectly capable of reading, understanding and anylizing a scientific paper.

When you present the paper, we get to do that. If I find that the paper has enough serious flaws, I have no problem saying it. That second paper is entirely without merit, and would never have been selected for a peer reviewed journal.

Do you care to respond to the points I raised about the paper?

A. The cognitive difference between 12 year old boys and newborn infants is so enourmous that you can not draw sound conclusions about the psychological effect of circumcision on newborns by comparing them to 12 year olds.

B. Gender differences are obviously NOT created by circumcision, because if it were true, uncircumcised men would be the same as women. And what's wrong with differences in the genders anyway?

C. The authors cite a paper by Freud, written in 1920, dealing with castration anxiety and a possible link to circumcision. They do not provide any additional CURRENT research on the subject. Has there been no additional work done on this subject in the last 90 years? This is like citing Galen to prove a medical theory.

D. The claim that pleasure is reduced for both partners is... silly. It ain't the size of the bat, baby, it's how you swing it.

E. Erectile dysfunction - I'd have let this one go by if the authors hadn't implied that this is a major cause. But, since the cause of erectile dysfunction, in most cases, is understood well enough now that effective treatments exist, and there does not seem to be any link between that cause and circumcision, it's unlikely that circumcision is a major cause of the problem.

that basically means that there is no inherent benefit to circumcision, which in turn makes it medically unnecessary in almost all cases. Which leaves the question, when has it ever been wrong to err on the side of not causing unnecessary pain to a defenseless infant with a most likely completely unnecessary medical procedure?.

The answer, which you won't like, is: When I choose to do so. In your opinion, the pain is unnecessary. However, I may feel that the pain is necessary. Since there is no long term lasting harm done, and it is generally accepted by people in my culture, I get to choose.

I ain't you, and you ain't me.
My kid ain't yours, your kid ain't mine.
You leave mine alone, and I'll leave yours alone.

Unless all of a sudden the personhood and well-being of actual living breathing infants fall outside of the realm of ethical consideration.

Very tacky. Everybody here has been considering the ethics of circumcision. Some people have arrived at conclusions different from those you have arrived at. That does not mean that those who disagree with you are evil, callous, sadistic or even just plain uncaring.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Parenting Debate: To Snip or no?

Studies on Foreskin and HIV transmission: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2502151

Here's one to the contrary:http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

I'm skeptical. If that were the case, then you'd think the rates of HIV would be higher in Europe and Canada than the US, which it isn't. I highly doubt it's a big risk for health or STDs when you practice safe sex and have proper hygiene. People over here are just as clean and the rate of STDs is actually lower, and almost no one is circumcised.