To cut or not to cut?

[Samai139]

After reading the initial post and the responses I am left wondering why we (members of this Forum and by extension, gay men) are so obsessed, for lack of a better word by this phenomenon. Circumcision was first recorded as being done by ancient Egyptian civilization and may have been practised by others, but there is little evidence. Over the centuries the practice has spread for a variety of reasons. Today? Why not accept the fact that there are men who are cut and there are those who are not? Different strokes, or cuts, for different folks.

[Rudynate]

After reading the initial post and the responses I am left wondering why we (members of this Forum and by extension, gay men) are so obsessed, for lack of a better word by this phenomenon. Circumcision was first recorded as being done by ancient Egyptian civilization and may have been practised by others, but there is little evidence. Over the centuries the practice has spread for a variety of reasons. Today? Why not accept the fact that there are men who are cut and there are those who are not? Different strokes, or cuts, for different folks.

 

 

There are men who have strong preferences whether their partners are cut or uncut. I don't. But the impassioned responses are a comment on the practice itself and whether infant boys should undergo the procedure without having any choice in the matter.

[Samai139]

Agreed there are those with strong preferences about what their sex partners have, don't have, look like, don't look like, etc. I personally don't care one way or the other about someone's foreskin. Eliminating potential partners solely on that basis seems arbitrary. There could be a strong connection with a possible partner BEFORE someone's knowledge about "cut or uncut" occurs.

Having to decide whether to circumcise a male baby is a decision I'll never have to make and I sympathise with those who face that choice. But I am happy that in our culture parents have to ability to select and not be forced to one or the other.

As a side note: In several posts the absence of circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa has been mentioned.. With the multiplicity of ethnic groups, cultures, religions, etc. it's misleading to lump the people in that region together as having one practice or another.

Example: In many areas, male circumcision is done either at puberty or just before and is part of the initiation into manhood---granted this practice may be diminishing but it does exist still. With the spread of urbanisation in Sub-Saharan Africa, circumcision may be routine if a mother delivers in hospital.

[+ FreshFluff]

I understand the arguments for circumcision. But something about watching an adult cut off a piece of a newborn's penis that makes me wince. Can you look at the photo below without cringing?

 

If I ever had to make that decision, I'd probably leave it up to my husband.

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/06/article-2515674-19E9479700000578-573_634x450.jpg

[Guest]

The Europeans have access to the same data that you do. They've seen the data and they're not convinced. Apparently, the data tell them something different from what the data tell you. So, it's an open question.

Don't be silly. Do you really think most parents are researching the scientific data in order to come to the decision? Barring religious/cultural dictates, there are probably only two main considerations most parents consider. One is whether the father of the baby had a circumcision or not, and the other is the issue of insurance coverage for the procedure. I work with a mostly indigent population. In their case, insurance typically does not cover the procedure, so it's not done. I would guess that in Europe, since most men have typically not been circumcised, the state health insurance programs of most countries wouldn't cover it either. Very rarely do parents have the education to evaluate study data. Just look at all the crazies who are still convinced that immunizations cause autism, although the evidence is overwhelming that it does not.

These days, circumcisions of newborns is done with local anesthesia, so the only real pain is from the anesthetic shot. No more need to cringe than when the baby gets its frequent immunizations. It's all done with the intention of protecting the baby (even though if, even without the immunizations, it's unlikely the patient will suffer an adverse outcome--it's a matter of weighing the minimal potential harms of the shot with the potential harms of not having the shot).

[+ FreshFluff]

These days, circumcisions of newborns is done with local anesthesia, so the only real pain is from the anesthetic shot. No more need to cringe than when the baby gets its frequent immunizations. It's all done with the intention of protecting the baby (even though if, even without the immunizations, it's unlikely the patient will suffer an adverse outcome--it's a matter of weighing the minimal potential harms of the shot with the potential harms of not having the shot).

 

It's not the pain that makes me wince. It's the idea of permanently removing part of part of the baby's penis without his consent. I'd prefer that he make the decision for himself as as teenager or adult, even though the expense and recovery time would be greater.

 

My male friends, most of whom are circumcised, tend to agree with you though.

[+ Funguy]

These days, circumcisions of newborns is done with local anesthesia, so the only real pain is from the anesthetic shot. No more need to cringe than when the baby gets its frequent immunizations. It's all done with the intention of protecting the baby (even though if, even without the immunizations, it's unlikely the patient will suffer an adverse outcome--it's a matter of weighing the minimal potential harms of the shot with the potential harms of not having the shot).

 

From almost 40 years of practicing pediatrics, I absolutely agree with Unicorn when he says that the 2 main considerations that parents consider: whether or not the father is circumsized and whether or not insurance plans cover this (and most do not yet parents still do it.)

 

I do, however, disagree with his statement re: immunizations and potential adverse effects. The level of herd immunity (immunity confirmed on an unimmunized individual just by being surrounded by those who are immunized) is dropping for almost all vaccine-preventable illnesses due to the "crazies" and more and more kids are coming down with these diseases. A simple example: do you think chicken pox is a benign illness? Every year there are deaths due to chicken pox in otherwise perfectly healthy individuals. "Chicken pox parties" are NOT a thing of the past. Whooping cough is an epidemic in Southern California as is Hepatitis A. Polio is coming back in areas where it was thought to have been eradicated. All because of the decrease in immunization rates. Unfortunately there are adverse outcomes.

[Rudynate]

Don't be silly. Do you really think most parents are researching the scientific data in order to come to the decision?

 

 

No, but their doctors are.

[Guest]

No, but their doctors are.

I hate to tell you, but doctors don't make the decision on whether or not to circumcise. Parents do. Rarely do doctors make strong recommendations to circumcise. In Europe, it probably almost never happens.

[Guest]

Unfortunately there are adverse outcomes.

 

I'm definitely no poo-pooing immunizations. I agree that they should be mandatory in order to enroll in school. But let's get real, although whooping cough causes misery, the largest number of people who've died from whooping cough in the U.S. is 20 (in 2012) over the last 60 years, and most of those were babies.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html

 

Strangely, over 100 times that number die of cervical cancer, anal cancer, penile cancer, and HPV-related throat cancers, yet HPV vaccines are NOT required for school. They should be required by the 7th grade.

[+ quoththeraven]

Conceptually, I'm agnostic on the issue. Assuming that the studies regarding sexual satisfaction and sensitivity dealt with men who were circumcised before puberty rather than those (who I suspect are only a handful anyway) who experienced sex pre- and post-circumcision, all they can prove is that circumcision doesn't prevent sex from being enjoyable. They can't possibly prove that the level of enjoyment and sensitivity are the same because there's no basis for comparison. Yet the opinions of those who've experienced sex both ways are subject to the vagaries of memory and confirmation bias. So who knows? I'm willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that it reduces sensitivity in some people and that there is no medical reason to do it other than issues of hygiene and STD transmission.

 

In the best of all possible worlds, I would rather leave this to the child to decide for himself when he is old enough. But in addition to being riskier (I'd love to know how and why, though), who thinks that decision is going to be made for strictly rational, scientific reasons? What about the boy who can't be bothered to clean himself sufficiently? Or who wonders why he doesn't look like his friends or his father and wants to undergo surgery at an age well before puberty?

 

It's impossible to know at birth whether a boy will be motivated enough to keep an uncut cock clean. More importantly, if his father is circumcised, how is the son going to be effectively taught how to clean it? This is not just a matter of parents educating themselves. As a baby, his primary caregiver will need to keep it clean for him. As he grows older, he can be shown how to do it himself. But handling their son's penis for the purpose of keeping his foreskin clean is going to look and feel (emotionally, not necessarily physically) a lot like jerking him off. The older he gets, the more uncomfortable and inappropriate such touching will become. And how do his parents monitor his hygiene? "Johnny, pull your foreskin back for me?" As a parent (of a girl, so this issue never came up), I can tell you that what isn't or can't be checked often doesn't happen.

 

On the other hand, an uncircumcised dad can show his son how to keep it clean and motivate him to follow through by example with little or no need to touch his son's cock. As far as I'm concerned, this is the primary reason to follow a "like father, like son" policy.

 

Also, while I'm willing to concede some degree of reduction of sensitivity for at least some people, that does not put circumcision on a par with clitoridectomy or other forms of female genital cutting that go even further than that. Other than in case of disease or infection, such interventions have no medical or therapeutic value and come with their own risks. Their effect is to remove or render ineffective an organ whose sole purpose is sexual pleasure.

 

That is a far cry from circumcision, which, unless there are complications, which happens, but at a low rate compared to other surgical procedures, leaves men well able to be sexually satisfied. I have yet to hear of a circumcised man who doesn't find sex enjoyable for reasons that have to do with circumcision. It seems to me that the source of regret is a feeling that by their making the decision for them, their parents have robbed them of an important part of their identity, something they missed out on. That's why the term "mutilation," which itself implies that circumcision serves no purpose and is always the wrong choice, is used.

 

But as a practical matter, infancy is when that decision will be made, meaning it will be made by the parents. If it is not done then, it's unlikely to ever be done, rendering any thought that this is being left up to the child laughable. There's a reason why the early Christians decided not to require new male converts to be circumcised: while they still considered themselves Jews, they realized that forcing pagan converts to follow Jewish ritual practice like circumcision and dietary restrictions would drastically reduce the number of converts, male ones especially.

 

Along those lines, I'd love to know whether any uncircumcised men regret not having been circumcised. Do they ever opt to have it done later? Is it a possible "treatment" for the complications Unicorn has identified? What are other ways such conditions are dealt with?

 

On the other hand, I strongly believe medical intervention affecting the genitals and gender identity of intersex children and those with ambiguous genitals, all of which is performed for social and cosmetic reasons rather than therapeutic one, should be postponed until the child is old enough to decide. That includes boys whose circumcision went awry as well as girls with unusually large clitorises. The potential for lasting, long-term psychological harm if surgery, hormone treatment, and forced gender assignment are permitted is just too great. Something that drastic and basic to personal identity should not be done without the informed consent of the person involved.

[Rudynate]

I hate to tell you, but doctors don't make the decision on whether or not to circumcise. Parents do. Rarely do doctors make strong recommendations to circumcise. In Europe, it probably almost never happens.

 

 

Of course they don't make the decision, but they make their views known. I think most people, even when they disregard a doc's advice, give it careful weight. I know I do. Of course docs influence the process. In Europe, there is an obvious societal bias away from widespread circumcision. But guess what, the docs are part of that, they aren't off somewhere in a vacuum with their thumbs up their behinds not participating. If there were a strong bias for circumcision among the medical profession in Europe they would be promoting it and advocating for it and trying to influence their patients to say yes to circumcision. But they appear to consider it a non-issue. As I said upthread, they are unimpressed by the data you find so compelling.

[mike carey]

I've checked on the Australian Health Department's web site and it appears that there are some rebates for circumcision from the public health system here, but they don't cover the full cost. I didn't see whether private insurance covers it but it usually covers elective procedures.

largest number of people who've died from whooping cough in the U.S. is 20 (in 2012) over the last 60 years, and most of those were babies.

On the tangent of immunisation, whooping cough cases can usually be attributed to gaps in herd immunity with infants too young to be immunised being especially vulnerable. Some of that is due to anti-vaxxers but here it's in part due to 'busy' people forgetting to have their children vaccinated. Because of the lower herd immunity, the Australian Health Department offers free whooping cough vaccinations to new parents and grandparents and to child care workers, to cut off that infection path.

[swallows22]

Look, this subject will never have universal agreement. To each their own, From my point of view, I spend roughly $15,000 a year on escorts. And if you aren't cut, you do not see any of that money. Just my preference.

[BaronArtz]

I read all the scientific arguments pro and con. The bottom line is this: I am uncut and absolutely love it.

[+ quoththeraven]

I think the bottom line here is that there's no "right" answer, just the answer that's right in one's eyes. Either is a reasonable option.

 

Ruminate: I think you're overestimating the likelihood that European doctors advocate one position or the other. For one thing, advocacy, rather than laying out the facts, is more likely to land them in hot water if something goes wrong. It's far more likely that they leave it up to the parents. Just the fact that it isn't common, and thus the physicians who perform the procedure don't do it that often, would be a discouraging factor for parents who aren't already committed to the procedure for other reasons.

[geminibear]

I read all the scientific arguments pro and con. The bottom line is this: I am uncut and absolutely love it.

 

Bragger

[BaronArtz]

Bragger

 

It is what it is ... (born/raised in Europe).

[Rudynate]

 

Along those lines, I'd love to know whether any uncircumcised men regret not having been circumcised. Do they ever opt to have it done later? Is it a possible "treatment" for the complications Unicorn has identified? What are other ways such conditions are dealt with?

 

 

Men do occasionally get circumcised as adults, usually for one of the health reasons that Unicorn listed. I actually knew a gay man who had what you could call a "cosmetic" circumcision. I knew him when I lived in Europe. He was British and , like most British men, was uncircumcised. He worked for a British government agency and was going to be posted to Canada. He decided to get circumcised because he wanted to "fit in" on this side of the pond. At the time, it seemed excessive, but now, thinking about it, it seems truly nuts.

[geminibear]

Men do occasionally get circumcised as adults, usually for one of the health reasons that Unicorn listed. I actually knew a gay man who had what you could call a "cosmetic" circumcision. I knew him when I lived in Europe. He was British and , like most British men, was uncircumcised. He worked for a British government agency and was going to be posted to Canada. He decided to get circumcised because he wanted to "fit in" on this side of the pond. At the time, it seemed excessive, but now, thinking about it, it seems truly nuts.

 

Did he go to Canadian parties and show everybody his circumcision?

 

Truly NUTSo_O

[Rudynate]

I read all the scientific arguments pro and con. The bottom line is this: I am uncut and absolutely love it.

 

 

And yours is the typical attitude of men who haven't been circumcised. A great big "Why?"

[Rudynate]

Did he go to Canadian parties and show everybody his circumcision?

 

Truly NUTSo_O

 

 

Actually, believe it or not, I ran into him years later in a bar in Toronto.

[geminibear]

It is what it is ... not my choice (born/raised in Europe).

 

Lucky European birth rites.

[+ quoththeraven]

Lucky European birth rites.

 

More like an absence of birth rites.

[+ quoththeraven]

Actually, believe it or not, I ran into him years later in a bar in Toronto.

 

So did he show you his circumcision scar?