I need help explaining why circumcision is bad...

BinaryShadow · 2011-10-11T05:07:15+00:00

and then proceeded to tell me the only reason why guys are against it is for the sex.

God forbid a man be able to enjoy sex to the potential of his natural body.

kanuk876 · 2011-10-11T04:57:18+00:00

men only want to not be cut so they can enjoy sex.

Whisper · 2011-10-11T05:30:09+00:00

told me that she would "be a good mother and have her boy circumcised", and then explained how men only want to not be cut so they can enjoy sex.

That's funny, it's also the main reason why women don't want to be "cut".

Those crazy heathens, wanting to enjoy sex...

neurorex · 2011-10-11T14:14:01+00:00

It seems more like "look at all the books I have, I'm right!" more than the issues of citation. I mean, you have a penis, isn't that enough credibility?

foerthan · 2011-10-11T05:08:58+00:00

The single best "reason" that circumcision is wrong is that it's a permanently disfiguring operation performed upon a child who is unable to consent. That alone should be enough for anyone who actually claims to care about human rights.

That aside, in the US, roughly .6% of the population is infected with HIV (roughly 1.2 million people Here) . Even if we assume 20 lifetime partners (the lifetime average is 7), and 100% infection rate (it's not), your chance of being infected by a completely random stranger (not specifically in a high risk or low risk group) is less than 6%. If we actually took average number of partners, it's right at 2%. For perspective, that's about the chance of giving birth to a child that has a serious illness (average case; women over 40 would have a higher chance). Now, assume that circumcision reduces chance of transfer of HIV by 60%. The chances are now ~2.3% and ~.83%. A decent change from the higher number, not so much from the lower.

But again, this isn't even considering the fact that HIV transmission isn't 100% in the first place, or the effectiveness of condoms. When you consider both of the factors, the chance of contracting HIV is incredibly small, and circumcision would make at most a few tenths (more likely a few hundredths) of a point difference.

Note: The math might be a bit off, I admit. But the point stands that the while 60% sounds like a huge number, even if it turns out to be true, the actual difference is incredibly small in the western world.

STD prevention is just a bullshit excuse to try to justify circumcision. If what you really want to do is prevent the spread of HIV, teach kids how to use condoms. Much more effective, and doesn't require cutting off a piece of someone's genitals.

pcarvious · 2011-10-11T05:23:26+00:00

You could always show her a video of circumcision and remind her that the foreskin doesn't separate from the glands until the teenage years.

Also the sti prevention is junk science. Lastly, circumcision is a dying operation, that should only be done when mandatory.

I would let her know as well, that the risks of circumcision, permanent damage to the penis are far greater than what people realise.

mikesteane · 2011-10-11T07:20:41+00:00

Take all the "pros" she found and apply them to female genitalia. See what her answer is to it being cleaner having no labia to get dirty, no clitoral hood for smegma to collect under etc.

wufoo2 · 2011-10-11T12:26:28+00:00

Why does it take a medical degree to understand that cutting healthy tissue off healthy bodies is a bad idea?

Seriously. No other medical procedure fits that description. Unless you're talking birth defects, or cosmetic surgery.

Sit down with her and watch one of the circumcision videos online (links on the right side). The screams will tear at any mother's heart.

memymineown · 2011-10-11T04:13:21+00:00

http://www.cirp.org/library/

Edit: Make sure to mention that if she doesn't do it he can always choose to later if he doesn't like it.

But if she does do it and he doesn't like it he can never get it back.

hopeless_case · 2011-10-11T14:55:21+00:00

and then explained how men only want to not be cut so they can enjoy sex

She seems to be conceding one of the strongest arguments in favor of not circumcising: circumcision blunts a man's sexuality.

Why would she want to do that to her son?

If she retreats to "it doesn't blunt a man's sexuality, but men think it does, which is the only reason they resist getting cut", then I have to ask what makes her so sure that removing the foreskin doesn't blunt a man's sexuality. There are strong common sense reasons to think it does, and no significant, valid research showing that it doesn't.

American doctors have done studies in which they claim to show that circumcision doesn't reduce sexual enjoyment, but they have obvious flaws. They either survey men who were circumcised as adults and ask them if they are satisfied with their sex life, or they attempt to measure how sensitive the glans is by lightly stimulating it with a feather or other hard to detect sensation to see if they can feel it. They note that circumcised and uncircumcised men can both detect very faint stimulation and then conclude "no harm done".

The men who were circumcised as adults would typically have problems with their foreskin that were so severe they had to have the foreskin removed. Of course they are going to be more satisfied with sex after circumcision. Such men are very rare and say nothing about the average case.

The sensitivity studies likewise make no sense. They are like claiming that someone who is color blind is not missing out on their visual experience because they can detect a faint light just as easily as someone with normal vision. The nerves that are a part of the foreskin are stretch receptors and the stimulation they provide has nothing to do with the glans and its sensitivity and sensations.

One way to attempt to answer the question yourself is to ask adult men who were never circumcised about the sensation the foreskin provides during sex. While you won't have to look far to find men (and women) for whom sex is not all that important in their life, and may not even be conscious of any particular sensations from the foreskin, you also don't have to look far to find those for whom sex is a significant source of joy in their lives, and to find men that are very aware of the particular sensations the foreskin provides during sex.

Even if only 1 in 20 men are so conscious, how dare someone amputate a sensory sex organ that provides pleasure and joy. The full facilities of the human body are the right of the person born into that body. To delete any of them, without clear medical cause, is a grevious harm.

If there were not such a strong societal taboo against people openly discussing their sexual experience, the medical establishment would never have been able to get widespread circumcision off the ground, because the pleasures of the foreskin, even if only 1 in 20 people really cared about them, would be common knowledge.

You might wonder why the american medical establishment keeps trying to prove that circumcision is beneficial or harmless, given that the problems it supposedly fixes are so rare to begin with. They are in a bind. They aided and abetted widespread circumcisions of boys with no clear evidence of medical necessity. So once society wakes up to the harm they have done (at its height in the 80's, close to 90% of boys were being circumcised; that rate has now fallen to 50% or less), the flood of lawsuits threatens to annihilate the medical profession. So they really have no choice but to keep confusing the issue and hoping they can discover a valid medical reason to circumcise. That day of reckoning is fast approaching.

Another point your sister may want to consider is that circumcision is on its way out. Her son may be the odd one out in the locker room by the time he reaches high school if she has him cut. Does she want to be the one explaining why he has something extra, or the one explaining why he is missing something? So far, very few mothers have been deeply resented by their son's for circumcising them, because of the taboos on discussing sexual experiences, and the fact that so high a proportion of american men are circumcised. Both of those mitigating factors are rapidly falling away, and she may find herself with an adult son who deeply resents her making a choice like that for him, instead of allowing him the birthright of an intact body.

abk0100 · 2011-10-11T17:50:36+00:00

"then explained how men only want to not be cut so they can enjoy sex."

You don't need help explaining why circumcision is bad, she seems to already understand that completely. You need to explain to her why having a small amount of compassion and empathy is a good thing.

2011-10-12T07:27:07+00:00

I have said this before and I'll say it again.

INFANT male genital mutilation is wrong. It's the boy's body. It's the boy's penis - not the parent's. The boy has the rights over his body, not his parents. For the parents to mutilate the boy without his consent, is a gross violation of the boy's human rights. The boy can himself decide what is best for him when grows up. Foreskin is not a birth defect. It's a birth right. A child has a right to genital integrity.

venereveritas · 2011-10-11T04:17:40+00:00

http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/

hopeless_case · 2011-10-11T19:51:16+00:00

but she told me she only wants sources from people with a degree in human health/biology.

Interesting position. Does she consider a practicing pediatrician, of OB/GYN, to be someone with a 'degree in human health/biology'? Or did she pick that description because she's taking a source in biology and read about circumcison in her text book?

It occurs to me that she is trying to bring the weight of the amercian medical establishment to bear with her "only wants sources from ..."

Two points.

First of all, the American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that, while there may be some benefits, they don't outweigh the risks clearly enough for circumcision to be routinely done. If she values professional opinion so much, that should override her 'I only want qualified opinions' stance (that is, she's got some text book talking up the pros and minimizing the cons leaving the impression that circumcision is preferred; the AAP, every decade, pours over and debates hundreds of studies and delivers a medical concensous and concludes that circumcision should not be routinely done).

My second point is that the European medical establishment is very anti-circ. Circumcision is unheard of in Europe (except among muslim and jewish communities), and the incidence of the problems that circumcision supposedly makes more rare (AIDS and other STDs) are less prevalant there than in the U.S.

So her appeal to authority is both selective and uninformed.

2011-10-12T07:25:15+00:00

Circumcision removes: 1) Foreskin 2) Frenulum 3) Ridged bands. They are not useless and have functions.

Foreskin - Wikipedia article

Penile Frenulum - Wikipedia article

Penile Ridged Band - Wikipedia article

Title	I need help explaining why circumcision is bad...
Author	venereveritas
Upvotes	10
Comments	32
Date	October 11, 2011 3:36 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/l7v1j/i_need_help_explaining_why_circumcision_is_bad/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-need-help-explaining-why-circumcision-is-bad.1033352 https://theredarchive.com/post/1033352

Comments