WHO in their right mind would encourage parents to mutilate the penis of their newborn? The World Health Organization would, that’s who, and they just did. They figure that just because efforts to convince sex partners to use condoms have failed, our best hope at slowing the spread of AIDS is to perform minor cosmetic surgery on every new guy, simply on the theory that he can’t be trained to use prophylactics.
So I drove through Melville listening to an arrogant sounding granny explaining that all of her descendants have been and will be circumcised because that’s just how it’s done in her family. John Gormley was talking on the radio, taking a poll, and the majority of callers were in favour of cutting the foreskin off their kids’ penis, even though the procedure costs ~$1200 ($50 in at least some places), is not covered by health insurance, and carries risks beyond what males face from urinary tract infections due to poor foreskin hygiene.
The facts are that a circumcision doesn’t prevent a male from developing infections from the end of the penis up through to their kidneys. It also doesn’t stop the spread of HIV, it only seems to lessen the transmission rate enough to be statistically significant in reducing the spread. Sexual intercourse is no doubt affected by lacking loose skin on a moving part. Saskatchewan remains a province where more infants are circumcised than anywhere else in Canada (if I remember the radio read fact right).
Is any cut to the spread of AIDS worth permanently disfiguring a boy’s penis? If we were talking about clitoral skin removal, I’m pretty sure people in most Western countries would think the process barbaric. My opinion is that we’re giving circumcised people a false sense of security about protection from HIV, while there are oodles of other risks from unprotected sex, including many other Sexually Transmitted infections which may (or may not) like cut penises better. So don’t get on the WHO bandwagon just yet. If your son really wants to, he’ll commit to the procedure when he’s old enough to decide for himself, and it will be one less thing he can blame on his parents.
-Ukranian Church in Melville, seen while listening to this story on the radio.
-More discussion is here.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Scruffy dan | 30-Mar-07 at 12:49 am | Permalink
Having been circumcised when i was only 8 days old (if you are a jewish male you really have no choice in the matter) I can tell you that it really isn’t that bad… I can honestly say that i don’t miss my foreskin at all. Not even a little.
Anything thing that can lessen the rate of HIV infection should be seen as a good thing.
obviously condoms are a better alternative, since they provide more protection, but the fact is that men for a viriaty of reasons don’t always use them.
It is important to remember that circumcision and condoms are not mutually exclusive, and are both part of an effort to reduce the amount of people are infected with HIV.. at least until Bill Gates finds a cure
mandarine | 30-Mar-07 at 1:02 am | Permalink
I am not astonished. The WHO is the same organisation which advocates worldwide immunization against e.g. measles, when we know measles primarily kills underfed children. Doing something with an unknown risk to healthy people in order to reduce the prevalence of something that might happen to them later (unknown risk too) seems to be their primary thought pattern. Vaccines and circumcision in replacement of food and hygiene — what a nice prospect…
Ashley | 30-Mar-07 at 1:36 am | Permalink
“If we were talking about clitoral skin removal, I’m pretty sure people in most Western countries would think the process barbaric.”
Actually, this process was once recommended to me, and I was in Canada at the time. Actually, it was recommended that I remove my clitoral hood, which sounds like it would be similar to removing the foreskin of a male. The only reason I didn’t seriously consider the option was because I would have been embarrassed at the time to ask questions about the procedure (and the thought of someone cutting such a sensitive area makes me nervous about pain).
If you wish, I could tell you many horror stories from men who have had to have their foreskin removed in their adult years due to health reasons. They all wished it had been removed from them as infants. Really, its not that bad. I’m sure its no worse than having your clitoral hood removed, which I’ve heard isn’t all that terrible either.
beepbeepitsme | 30-Mar-07 at 3:31 am | Permalink
This is off topic but just a reminder if you are going to participate. There is going to be a Blogathon - Blog Against Theocracy
Just post something related to, and in support of, the separation of church and state each of these three days. ( April 6th through the 8th. )
For details see:
Blog with the best. Blog Against Theocracy.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2007/03/21/blog_with_the_best_blog_agains
April Reign | 30-Mar-07 at 5:13 am | Permalink
if they were serious they would advocate cutting it off completely.
But since they are unwilling to carry their theory to it’s proper extreme they need to leave baby’s penis’ the hell alone.
Yes some people have to have procedures when older A)it is often because when they were babies some stupid doctor told their mothers to retract the foreskin for cleaning when in fact it isn’t properly retractable for a couple of years and B) at least if they are adults they can give full consent. It isn’t as if the babies don’t feel the pain.
sheena | 30-Mar-07 at 6:17 am | Permalink
Stephen Lewis would agree with you. In case anybody missed his keynote at the AIDS conference in Toronto last summer, take a look at this.
http://sheenavision.blogspot.com/2006/08/tmi.html
I always regret watching this. There is such a thing as “too much information”. Ick.
CTV Video clip here…
Rosie | 30-Mar-07 at 6:45 am | Permalink
I agree with AR. Babies should be able to decide the fate of their penises. Since they cannot, then the decision should be left until they are old enough. I’ve heard girls say that uncircumcised penises are “gross”. But they are the same girls that say the same thing if they see a vagina.
Amanda | 30-Mar-07 at 8:11 am | Permalink
Just a quick note: you said the procedure costs 1200 bucks or so… both my boys were circumcized at birth. Total cost to me: $50.
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 8:47 am | Permalink
I was only repeating what I heard as the price on the radio. Thanks for the information Amanda.
Todd | 30-Mar-07 at 8:55 am | Permalink
Well I’m guessing we know how you are ‘down there’ Saskboy. ;-)
I agree with Scruffy Dan though. I was circumcised and it hasn’t done anything to make me unhappy or unsatisfied in any way. It’s a complete non-issue. If it makes people safer, in spite of themselves, I say do it. It is definitely not ‘disfiguring’ and I don’t feel disfigured.
There’s also a difference between this and a clitoral procedure. From what I understand, the clitoral procedure basically removes most if not all of the organ and makes it insensitive to sexual pleasure. That has *not* been the case for me I’ll let you know. ;-)
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 9:03 am | Permalink
“I can honestly say that i don’t miss my foreskin at all. Not even a little.”
If I had had my appendix removed as a baby I’d not remember it or miss it, but as April said I’d certainly have felt unnecessary pain and required healing time.
==
Mandarine, I think there’s are important but small differences between measles and HIV. One can be transferred through touch and coughs, and it also happens to have a vaccine that works - as seen by the huge fall in measles cases in developed countries. We could wipe that bug out, with Gates’ money!
==
AR, A) hurts like heck, and it’d be nice if every parent knew to explain to their kid that fact, B) and an adult could in theory get local anesthetic for the procedure too. And since we’re dealing with “potential” infections in the future, who knows there won’t be either a pain free way to remove foreskin in 5 years or otherwise CURE HIV? Then won’t all the foreskinless (who didn’t do it for accepted religious reasons) feel a might silly. We could remove children’s ear lobes at birth, or brand them on the theory that they are babies and won’t remember the pain or realize the disfiguration anyway…
==
Sheena, AbandonedStuff strives to dig up too much information (although not typically about genitals I must admit).
==
Rosie, I agree it tends to be more about a fear of differently shaped genitals, than it does with logic.
–
Side note: Saskatchewan has a very small Jewish population, so the reasons the cut rate is so high here is anyone’s guess. Probably there is a good reason it’s been so popular, but I don’t know it.
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 9:13 am | Permalink
“was recommended that I remove my clitoral hood, which sounds like it would be similar to removing the foreskin of a male.”
It would be the biological equivalent, no doubt.
” The only reason I didn’t seriously consider the option was because I would have been embarrassed at the time to ask questions about the procedure (and the thought of someone cutting such a sensitive area makes me nervous about pain).”
I hope those aren’t the only reasons. It also sounds like something a quack would suggest, just so something is done about a problem, rather than the right thing. Like prescribing antibiotics for a virus — it makes the doctor and patient feel like they did all they could, when it really does very little to nothing.
“If you wish, I could tell you many horror stories from men who have had to have their foreskin removed in their adult years due to health reasons. They all wished it had been removed from them as infants. Really, its not that bad. I’m sure its no worse than having your clitoral hood removed, which I’ve heard isn’t all that terrible either.”
There were men like that on the radio. I wish I had my teeth pulled when I was an infant, so I didn’t have to lose them when I was a kid :-/ Of course they wish they couldn’t remember it, but hindsight is always 20/20, and the grass is almost always greener on the other side. I’d wonder why we’d subject kids to a procedure that “isn’t all that terrible”, when there are alternatives to body modification for the problems its supposedly preventing.
If we removed earlobes from children, then the likelihood of pierced ear infections would drop significantly. Who wants to sign their kid up for that one?
Lord Kitchener's Own | 30-Mar-07 at 9:33 am | Permalink
Gee, I never thought of myself as “disfigured” before.
Now I feel kinda sad.
TGIF.
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 10:05 am | Permalink
“It is definitely not ‘disfiguring’ and I don’t feel disfigured.”
You don’t feel that way because it’s normal in your daily experience. I have a disfigured finger tip from a car door incident, but since it happened before I can remember, it’s just a normal bump to me.
“There’s also a difference between this and a clitoral procedure. From what I understand, the clitoral procedure basically removes most if not all of the organ and makes it insensitive to sexual pleasure.”
That’s female circumcision, as practiced in some cultures, and that’s the point of it. Hood removal would be more roughly equivalent to foreskin removal. Removing the glans would be like the procedure you described.
” That has *not* been the case for me I’ll let you know. ;-)”
Yet you won’t know what it’d feel like otherwise. Someone on the radio said yesterday it wasn’t really different, having experienced both ways sexually. That leaves a survey of women needed for what they prefer. It will probably all boil down to “different strokes for different folks” (is that what that expression started out meaning anyway?).
“Now I feel kinda sad.”
LKO, don’t define yourself through your disfigured penis then :-) Problem solved. I’m technically disfigured by chicken pox scars, my finger tip, mild scoliosis, and an enlarged heart, but I never think of myself as disfigured! :-)
Todd | 30-Mar-07 at 10:52 am | Permalink
Saskboy, I guess the only way to resolve this is to have yourself circumcised so you can comment first hand on the ‘disfigurement’ and how it feels in ‘activity’ afterwards.
Feel free to drop into Saskatoon. I’ll have my scissors waiting. ;-)
leftdog | 30-Mar-07 at 11:12 am | Permalink
“WHO in their right mind would encourage parents to mutilate the penis of their newborn?” …. oh i dunno, maybe GOD!!
Genesis 17:
9And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
canuckistanian | 30-Mar-07 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
“disfigured”??? “theory”??? “cosmetic”???
stupid post! this was a hypothesis years ago which has been empirically verified to reduce rates of HIV infection through research….it is not a “theory”. it is hardly a “cosmetic” surgery given the health implications. nor does it lead to disfigurement. reading this post was about as informative as listening to rish limbaugh.
leftdog | 30-Mar-07 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
There are other possible medical benefits of male circumcision. Incidents of cervical cancer are almost NONEXISTENT in Israel and Muslim countries where almost all men are circimcised. Medical researchers believe there is a connection and further research is continuing.
Lord Kitchener's Own | 30-Mar-07 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Well.
I wasn’t really being too serious in my comment, but I did (kinda) expect my expressed sadness to evoke some kind of (less than totally serious) “sorry I called you disfigured” response from Saskboy.
Instead, I got “You ARE disfigured. Deal with it.”
I’ll try not to define myself through my “disfigured” penis.
Of course, that would be a lot easier if there wasn’t a blog post out there defining my penis as disfigured.
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
Todd, you’ll have to get me at the SaskBloggers BBQ in Regina on July 8th. See you and your scissors there.
==
Leftdog, that’s funny, comparing WHO to the almighty ;-) Obviously God put the foreskin there as a religious test, instead of just leaving it off in the first place in Creation.
canuckistanian it doesn’t “lead to disfigurement” it IS disfigurement. You start out with a perfectly good penis, and end up with a usually good penis without all of its original parts.
==
LKO, I know you expected that, so that’s why I gave you a radical’s response instead. You’ll just not have to define yourself based on what you read on blogs ;-), now.
Paul Raposo | 30-Mar-07 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
Clearly, those of us who are intact, have a higher level of sensitivity, than those who are cut. We’ve been trying to get people to understand this for years, but unfortunately some choose not to listen. Here’s a link discussing this fact:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
From the British Journal of Urology April 2007
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf
To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data,
controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last
ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS
The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P 3D 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of
underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P
Paul Raposo | 30-Mar-07 at 2:54 pm | Permalink
RESULTS
The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g
(P 3D 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P
Paul Raposo | 30-Mar-07 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
lefdog, what has been learned about cervical cancer, is that is is the only cancer caused by a bacterial infection; namely HPV. Fortunately a vaccine has been created which can wipe out any chance of a women contracting this infection from any male, cut, or not and completely remove the risk of cervical cancer.
Paul Raposo | 30-Mar-07 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
A new study demonstrates that women are MORE susceptible to HIV infection from a circumcised penis, that one which is not. Unfortunately, the people who used small numbers to justify mass cosmetic surgery in Africa, are claiming the numbers in the study are too small to be significant.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=2929554
Paul Raposo | 30-Mar-07 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
And lastly, these studies purposely ignore homosexual men, women, sex workers and IV drug users. I never thought it would become PC to ignore gay HIV. But I guess it’s easy, when the country in question, routinely imprisons, punishes and even kills those “convicted” of being gay.
http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=70516
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070301/hl_afp/usafricagaysaids_070301232110
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
Paul, thanks for the links.
However, “bacterial infection; namely HPV.” isn’t correct it’s a virus thus the V in the acronym. You’re right it has a vaccine now, recently approved for use in Canada. Unfortunately only young women are targeted for the vaccination, and not also young men [as the virus infects both genders, and if it causes cancer in women, there is probably similarly vulnerable tissue in males].
Tanya | 30-Mar-07 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
Men that are circumcized are missing a lot of nerve endings that affects sexual function. An uncircumcized guy literally does not know what he is missing. Advocting circumcisions is really stupid. Safe sex is the only way to go. Unfortunately, the global gag rule and the Catholic church have stood in the way of promoting safer sex, which would be much more effective in reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the prevention of unplanned pregnancies and abortion.
Ashley | 30-Mar-07 at 9:28 pm | Permalink
“It also sounds like something a quack would suggest, just so something is done about a problem, rather than the right thing.”
since you didnt ask what the problem WAS, i’ll pass this off as Saskboy’s uninformed judgment.
If you would feel disfigured from a circumcision, then may I suggest that you put too much emphasis on your penis. GROW UP!
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 9:30 pm | Permalink
Not “feel”, just “would be”. I realize it’s not that big of a deal, unless it becomes a state sponsored effort to coerce parents into removing a normal part of their sons’ body.
Ashley | 30-Mar-07 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
Sorry Saskboy, but that lump on your figure already makes you disfigured. Should I judge you by that the way you judge circumcised men? You don’t need this attitude of “I’m better than you because I am not circumcised.” For the record, MANY women prefer circumcised men. YOU, Saskboy, are generally NOT preferred. Stop placing so much of your worth on your penis.
Artemis | 30-Mar-07 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
A very informative look into circumcision was done by Penn and Teller for their show “Bullshit.” Saskboy, you asked why Saskatchewan, with it’s small Jesish community, would have such high rates of circumcision. According to the show, circumcision became popular in Christian groups in the 1800s after Christian ministers decided that removing the baby’s foreskin would keep infant boys from touching themselves (which all Christians know leads to physical weakness, hairy palms, and a paved road to hell). *** WARNING - GRAPHIC CONTENT*** They also pointed out that when an uncircumcised penis is erect, the foreskin becomes little ridges on the shaft of the penis, under the glans, which is essentially the same as buying condoms that are “ribbed for her pleasure.” So all those girls who think that an uncut penis is “gross” just don’t know what they’re missing.
As for prenventing the spread of HIV in undeveloped countries - I think the money on this campaign could be better spent by empowering women. When women have equal power, then it’s not only up to the men to decide if they want to wear condoms. Remember - No glove, No love.
Tanya | 30-Mar-07 at 11:03 pm | Permalink
I really get annoyed by the “women prefer circumcized penises” argument. This is as stupid as suggesting that because most men prefer large breasts all women should be required to get DD implants to placate their men.
Having had a number of partners that were both circumcized and uncircumcized I can assure you that uncut men have a different sexual response. They “last” longer and require less lubrication. The extra skin contains a lot of nerve endings that improves a mans’ sexual response. No genitalia should be mangled to conform to some misguided idea about what a penis should look like.
I can’t believe I am revealing my sluttitude to win an internet argument.
I completely agree with you about female empowerment. It will be a lot easier for women in third-world countries to insist on condom use when things are more equal.
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
“I can’t believe I am revealing my sluttitude to win an internet argument.”
And if this were My Space, and you were a guy, admitting to several partners would be something even virgins would say… on purpose… to increase status. Odd the double standard society creates, isn’t it?
Don’t worry, What’s said on Abandoned Stuff Friday Night Fight Night, stays on Abandoned Stuff :-D
Saskboy | 30-Mar-07 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
“Should I judge you by that the way you judge circumcised men? You don’t need this attitude of “I’m better than you because I am not circumcised.””
Not better, just different. And I’m not judging circumcised men, I’m judging the WHO for making a serious recommendation based on some pretty frivolous research, as Paul pointed out for instance. It’s too late for men who are cut to go back, so why would I judge them — it’s just a part of who they are now, like anyone with scars.
My logical mind tells me that if guys are told that they have a “harder time catching HIV” if they are circumcised, their human nature will take that to mean that they can get away with unprotected sex “just that one time”. The WHO should be putting that promotion money into condoms and female empowerment like Artemis suggested.
Adrian MacNair | 31-Mar-07 at 11:05 am | Permalink
I’m not Jewish (obviously), and I was cut. Naturally, having grown up this way, I thought it was better, so when my son was born I ensured he was done within days of birth as well. I have no opinion either way since I don’t focus on penises, but I’ve heard from several women that they like men who are cut. It isn’t just an urban rumour that uncut men have various problems with cleanliness and odour.
Amanda | 31-Mar-07 at 11:26 am | Permalink
I’m staying out of this debate as much as possible, but I would like to point out that my HPV test was a negatory, yet I am still battling cervical cancer…. whereas HPV is the culprit in many cases, it is not responsible always. I am proof of this.
As for the whole “god” thing… Jesus technically wiped out all those wack laws when he said “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” and declared himself to be “the end of the law”. The law he is ending is Mosaic Law, of which the circumcision issue is a part. Mosiac Law included not eating pork, etc etc. The sociologist in me has concluded that Mosaic Law was handed down because people of the time did not have the basic sanitary knowledge needed to keep pork edible or, obviously, keep their foreskin un-infected. So. Problem #1 with that argument: Jesus ended that Law a while ago now, and Problem #2: we now have the medical knowledge required to properly educate boys in hygiene.
With ALL of that said, I left the issue up to my husband when it came to our two boys. I don’t have the equipment.
Tanya | 31-Mar-07 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
Yeah my ex and I battled over the circumcision thing. I said that if we have a boy there aint no way he is being cut over my dead body. He insisted that it was necessary. Luckily we had girls and found other things to fight about.
Buford Winfrey | 13-Apr-08 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
I am 72 years old and was circumcised 6 months
ago. It has still not healed. Does anyone know
anything about the healing time for older men?
randy | 10-May-08 at 2:50 am | Permalink
never