I have one thing to ask before you continue on with this article. Open your mind, read the information without defenses. I have had my own personal journey with circumcision, my son is circumcised, and I will admit I thought the idea of not circumcising was just…weird. So I get the resistance to the culture shift, I really do.
We are the only country that routinely circumcises our infants at birth for non religious reasons. This is not the norm in other countries. In fact when speaking with a European friend of mine who was expecting a boy, she said she would not only not circumcise her son, but that she would never stand for it. When you live in a culture that does not routinely circumcise, the question becomes why would you.
So, do Europeans and their intact penises have mystery penis problems? Are they dirty? Do they have a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases? The answer is no. Really? Are these not the main problems that we are trying to avoid?
First let’s examine some of what is lost after a circumcision is performed in the United States (In the US, most hospital circumcisions are done to the Bris Periah standard of removing every ounce of foreskin and, in a large percentage of cases, some shaft skin).
Foreskin: The foreskin comprises around 50% of the movable skin system of the penis. In fact the average foreskin if spread out, would be about 15 square inches. The average adult foreskin has three to four feet of blood vessels and amazingly between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. All of this is removed.
Ridged Band: The ridged band is comprised of soft ridges near where the inner and outer foreskin meet. This is the primary erogenous zone in an intact male penis.
Meissner's Corpuscles: Meissner’s Corpuscles are thousands of coiled fine touch receptors. This is arguably the most important sensory component of the foreskin.
Other losses include:
- Gliding Action
- Frenulum
- Dartos Fascia
- Immunological System
- Lymphatic Vessels
- Estrogen Receptors
- Apocrine Glands
- Sebaceous Glands
- Langerhans Cells
- Natural Glans Coloration
- Length and Circumference
- Dorsal Nerves
So while the adult penis "works" when circumcised, it is arguable that it doesn't come close to the experience it is designed for. I was always under the impression just a little extra "flap" of skin was removed -- such an old myth.
One of the first defenses to circumcision I always here is that a cut penis is cleaner. In reality the opposite is true in infancy. The intact infant penis does not retract so care is so much easier. You just wipe and go! And when the boy is older and the foreskin separates from the glans I am positive they can learn to pull back the foreskin and rinse. We teach our girls proper hygiene and our boys are just as capable. In fact world wide female circumcision is a much more practiced procedure. And the main reason cultures site is that a circumcised vagina is cleaner. Things that make you go hmmm...
Let's tackle sexually transmitted diseases. This is a big one and I will to be brief and clear. The study done in Africa regarding circumcision and HIV has caused much undeserved buzz. The study says circumcision decreased the transmission of HIV. While this may be true, the study was never finished. Time for the circumcised group to heal was not factored into the equation, and they stopped mid study to circumcise the control group.
Just pause to really think about whether routine infant circumcision decreases STD's in the united states. We have the highest rates of circumcision and we do not have lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases. Also, why don't countries that do not routinely circumcise, and are on the same level socially as America, have much higher HIV rates than us? The data is out there, and it just does not support this theory.
This just barely scratches the surface but my hope is it will give you pause -- and prompt some investigation into the issue on your own. Here is a great article on what can happen when a circumcision goes wrong. Is it worth the risk?
.jpg)
For more information visit:
http://www.noharmm.org/home.htm
http://www.stopcirc.com/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/STD/health-disparities/default.htm
Comments
Circinfo is incorrect. I would love to see where he or she is getting their figure of 1/3 of intact men will have problems.
The first site (circinfo) mentioned should NOT be used as medical information. Any site that includes circfetish sites as "references" is NOT an appropriate source of information.
The reason why STD/HIV rates are high in the US is rather complex. One point you have low rates of circumcision amongst immigrant, black and Hispanic patients. These groups also have the highest rates for STD/HIV infection. Another point is the lack of standardized sexual health education. Each state & local school boards do their own thing with very little result to the typical hormonal/horny teenager. A third point would be the level of mass media/marketing aided at using sex to sell products, which feeds into point two.
The WHO & UNAIDS are recommending circumcision for HIV prevention based on evidence. The AAP & CDC are reviewing their policies on circumcision. It isn't a complete answer for safe-sex practice, but circumcision should be part of safe-sex (along with use of a condom and choosing the best partner).
The HIV studies are contradicted by other studies that looked more closely at the issue. www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#bailey
For example, see http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2...
And this recent study found no association between circumcision in Kenya and HIV rates. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00155...
A recent report in Uganda says circumcisions are INCREASING HIV rates because the men think it makes them immune. http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050159.html
This is exactly what Dr. Dean Edell warned about when he called the African/HIV conclusions "silly" and warned, "it will backfire." www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE
There is also research showing female circumcision also reduces the changes of contracting HIV. Stallings, R. Y., and E. Karugendo. “Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: For Better or for Worse?” Abstract of paper given at Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Rio de Janeiro, July 25–27, 2005. But even the least intrusive form of female circumcision is illegal to perform on an infant girl.
Surgical complications from circumcision range from 0.2% to 0.6%. One study, conducted in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985, found that for 100,157 boys who were circumcised in the first month of life, there were 193 complications (0.19%). The largest study, of 354,297 male infants born in Washington State from 1987–1996, noted a complication rate in the 130,475 who were circumcised during their newborn hospital stay of only 0.21% (1 in 476).
There has been no major difference in sensitivity & function between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
Circinfo, the latest research shows circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. w w w.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html It is gynecologically equivalent to removing the clitoral foreskin, one of several types of female circumcision all of which are illegal to perform on girls despite similar purported health benefits. The Dutch Medical Association, representing 46,000 physicians and students, recently issued a report backed by 7 other medical associations declaring male circumcision an infringement of a child's right to bodily integrity and debunking the myths that it is justified by medical benefits and that it significantly differs from cutting the clitoral foreskin. That report is available at w w w.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306 No matter you slice it, male circumcision is an abhorrent double standard and human rights violation. You can't tattoo your child or cut your girl's genitals. Where is the same protection for boys?
Article
Excellent article! You've managed to lose the US cultural blinkers and see the truth about this practice. I come from Australia and it's not even debated like this. Well done!
Great article! It's so good to see that parents out there are starting to wise up! I work at a hospital Labor unit, and I have assisted with hundreds of circs. WORST part of my job. It is always such a horrible experience for these little ones to go through.
I have seen 2 babies end up in the NICU after almost bleeding to death after their circs, and MANY other complications that are just plain scary. We make parents sign papers that say they acknowledge that this is a COSMETIC surgery only. So pathetic to put a baby through this for such a petty reason as "looks".
Any claimed "medical benefits" are outdated and over-exaggerated. Even IF they were true, the terrible risks from the procedure itself are worse than any minimal benefit from it.
Thanks for writing the article. I hope a lot of parents read it, and maybe some day I won't have to even worry about doing that part of my job anymore! :)
Thanks for the article Rachael! I have become passionate about this issue since researching it and finding out the truth. It is scary. I only have girls and I would NEVER consider circumcising them, so WHY ON EARTH would I consider circumcising my boy? People can say all day long that it's not the same thing, but IT IS!! If you step back and take a look at what you are actually doing, you are taking a PERFECT newborn baby and cutting off a piece of their body. Seriously. Cutting it off! I do have to say, though, that with my first child, I would not have known any better because I hadn't researched things like. My motto is research, research, research!!
Great Article. I so wish I had this information 16 years ago before I circumcised my son. I know I would of never had it done.
Great article Rachel! Thank you for being brave enough to talk about something many people would rather avoid.
Don't worry about Circinfo- he (or she) is a troll. 85% of the world's male population is uncircumcised (plus every male mammal on earth) and the vast majority of them do not have problems.
In Response to CircInfo.
Quote "These groups also have the highest rates for STD/HIV infection"
There are also far more likely to be poor, which also makes them more likely to be infected. Asians have a very low circumcision rate, and they have the lowest AIDS infection rate in the US.
Sex in Europe is far more open than it is in the US. I was a teen my first visit to the UK, and was blown away to see boobies on regular TV.
Quote "
The WHO & UNAIDS are recommending circumcision for HIV prevention based on evidence."
While interesting, these 3 Random controlled Trails didn't use the golden standard of double blinding. The problem is you can't have a double blind study in this case, so observation studies carry about as much weight. There have also been studies that showed a lower infection rate among circumcised women, should WHO & UNAIDS recommend it in Africa?
As for your closing words: along with use of a condom and choosing the best partner..
If you are using a condom you have nearly nothing to worry about, so why bother. For all you know AID could be cured by the time a newborn today reaches a sexual age.
There is sound medical evidence indicating that circumcision reduces infection rates of some STDs transmitted through the skin. Circinfo is right in that regard. Removing mucosa and exposing the glans and remaining mucosa to air, at all times, greatly toughens and thickens the skin. In practice, it hasn't be very effective in reducing STD rates, however, because the relative benefit is small, statistically, particularly when one considers that sex is a repetitive activity.
Circinfo is being a bit dishonest by saying that sensitivity is not effected. The sensitivity of the GLANS remains essentially the same, testing has shown. However, the sensitivity of the remaining mucosa on the shaft is greatly reduced. In fact, the scar is the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis, the mucosa and frenulum being the most sensitive part of the uncircumcised penis. These areas are significant more sensitive than the circumcised scar.
If you choose to circumcise you sons you will be affecting the subtleties of their sexual pleasure, though not their sexual function. The natural glide action of the foreskin is also lost, but this can be overcome with water based lubrication. You will, however, be providing some STD prophylactus, though this amount is small.
I can't post the links, but you can find all these medical society quotes at their own websites:
Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 9.2%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
Actually, there is no indication that circumcision is necessary in healthy, non-consenting individuals. Actually, charging money for procedures that are not medically warranted is called MEDICAL FRAUD. It is a travesty that medicaid pays $300.00 for elective procedure unnecessary in newborns, when 1,000,000 US children can't afford basic healthcare. Circumcision is a violation of human rights. Doctors have no business performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting individuals, let alone pretending like parents have this "choice" to make. What's the medical emergency? Is the foreskin some kind of tumor or birth defect somehow ALL boys are born with? If there is no medical problem, what's the "medical choice" parents have to make for their children? There is none. Doctors should know better than to let naive parents do their job. They know darn well that it is not necessary. How come they're consulting parents on what is supposed to be their call? Pathetic.
There is "evidence" that says circumcision could "reduce" STDs. This evidence is questionable, seeing as it is produced by long-time supporters of circumcision. But let's take a look anyway. Recent "studies" show that circumcision "reduces" HPV by 35% and herpes by 28%.
But, isn't this just another way of saying that circumcised men would still be at a 65% risk for HPV, and at a 72% of herpes?
"Studies" in Africa argue that HIV transmission is reduced in circumcised males by 60%. But isn't this just another way of saying that they would still be at a 40%? WHO exactly would buy a product that only worked 60% of the time? A copy machine? A car? An airplane? And due to the nature of circumcision, no refunds if the product breaks down?
If anything these "studies" are indicative of circumcision as a FAILURE in STD prevention. They indicate that circumcision cannot be trusted.
How come there was a recent HIV spike in Washington DC? Is it that all of the men happened to have their foreskins? In AMERICA REALLY???
And here is the clincher. Even IF circumcision "reduced" some STDs by all those percentages, how is this relevant in newborn boys, who are at ZERO RISK?
WHY would ANY man choose as STD prevention method that is less effective than a condom? At the loss of 20,000 nerves that add to sexual pleasure?
No. The recent "studies" don't justify circumcision as an STD prevention method in adults, much less in children.
And it is a travesty to suggest a "prevention method" that encourages unprotected sex.
Dead circumcised AIDS victims don't lie. Circumcision doesn't prevent AIDS or STD; CONDOMS do.
NOT an excuse for the violation of human rights of children.
Readers, I advise that you be weary of "circinfo." S/he is a circumcision advocate that trolls blogs about circumcisions and dispenses biased information. Be weary of the "sources" s/he provides, and seek a 2nd opinion. Thank you.
Recently, a mother and child was awarded 2.3 million dollars for a botched circumcision.
I can't post links, so you'll have to google "botched circumcision case."
Is circumcision REALLY worth it to prevent STDs? Esp. when your child can simply learn to use a condom when he grows up?
Actually, some botches have been so bad that in at least two known cases, boys have had to be sexually reassigned, because their whole penis was ruined. At least in one case, the "girl" grew up to resent his new sex, he reverted back to his old sex, and committed suicide later.
Is it worth the risk? REALLY?
HIS body, HIS choice.
Let HIM decide if he wants to be circumcised and risk having unprotected sex.
Circinfo would have us believe that to stop a single case of cervical cancer transmitted via HPV from an infected man...that we should simply allow hundreds of complications to newborn infants. He says, "for 100,157 boys who were circumcised in the first month of life, there were 193 complications," as if those 193 boys did not matter. In fact, he's saying, "go ahead and cause all those complications, because the 2 cases of cervical cancer or 4 cases of AIDS you'll 'prevent' in the process is 'worth the cost' to those infants." Anyone else see the total disregard for humanity present in Circinfo's view of human rights?
Great article, Rachael! As the cut (but restoring) father of an intact 15yo son, I've done more than my share of research on this topic. No medical authority recommends this unnecessary penile reduction surgery. Studies showing a reduction of cervical cancer in female partners of circumcised men are decades old and were disproved long ago. The African HIV studies are equally flawed (if not more so).
Recent studies have shown Langerhans cells (found in the foreskin) actually form a natural barrier against HIV and other STDs. Perhaps that's why non-circing Europe has lower rates of HIV and most STDs than the USA.
We are finally starting to understand what is taken away when we strap an infant to that board and welcome him into the world with what amounts to sexual assault. Not just the most sensitive part of his body - but the most basic human right to bodily integrity and protection from harm.
Here's another valuable resource for expecting parents: intactamerica.org
Rachel. This article is fantastic. It really spells out what the foreskin is for and the misinformation that many parents are following. We do have a higher incidence of circumcision later in life in this country because (a) doctors and parents try to retract the foreskin before it naturally separates from the glans which can cause scarring, infection and phimosis. Don't retract until the child does it himself! It may take on the average of about three years and some boys aren't fully retractable until puberty; and (b) doctors are quick to say circumcise, when there are other, non-invasive and less invasive techniques use to widen the opening in the foreskin. Wake up USA and join the 21st century.
Great article Rachael! Keep 'em comin!
Congratulations on the most intelligent, most well written article I've seen in years, Rachael.
You have out-performed Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, Science Weekly, and many others.
Circinfo is being disingenuous. The rates of complications from circumcision, we will never know, because they are more well hidden than the Coke formula. Death is always attributed to something else in the US. Meatal stenosis, a narrrowing of the urinary hole, is the most common, with estimates ranging from 9% to 35%.
eMedicine has this to say:
"Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative."
This is not including skin bridges, hidden penis, painful erection, and a host of other problems.
The rate of circumcisions, in Finland, is 1 in 16667 according to Wikipedia, so that blows the 1 in 3 theory. For every problem with a foreskin except frostbite or gangrene, there is a gentler solution than circumcision.
We circumcised one son. We left the other intact. He thanked us.
Again, my heartfelt thanks, Rachael.
I'd elect you ambassador to the AMA and AAP.
A perfectly written article. It is properly researched and complete. This injustice is ending as we speak. 5 years ago the comments on circumcision articles were very different indeed. Parents are becoming educated as they realize that medicine has gone awry in so many areas. Men are winning wrongful circumcision cases even when their surgery was "successful" which means that the law is recognizing the harm of the procedure itself not just it's complications. The courts are blocking forced circumcision of adolescents. Many doctors are afraid to do this operation at this point and rightly so. If it wasn't a religious issue it would be long gone. Many people including doctors feel that speaking out on this issue is anti-Jewish. I guess it is anti-Jewish to call forced male circumcision a human rights violation just as it is anti-Muslim to call forced female circumcision a human rights violation. I for one don't particularly care. All religions have had to evolve and disregard ancient teachings which have no place in the modern, civilized world. I thank God every day that my parents respected my basic human right to physical integrity despite the fact that it wasn't fashionable to do so.
The foreskin contains 75% of the erogenous nerve endings in the penis. It is made of the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis each a separate and unique structure. It does not belong in the trash.
Thank you for writing on this very important topic. At www.cirp.org/library/psych/, studies are referenced demonstrating the short and long-term traumatic effects of circumcision. Though such research is limited, some researchers have found signs of PTSD subsequent to circumcision in infants and young boys, as well as adult males. Another researcher suggested circumcision could contribute to altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, ADD/hyperactivity, and self-destructive disorders; as well as later aggressive and violent behavior. Personally, I have long wondered if some of the violence and lack of empathy in our culture stems in part from this practice. It is time to put it to an end.
I was the lead attorney in the 2.3 million dollar case in Atlanta. I am well aware that the risks of circumcision are being ignored by the medical establishment. This was the fourth such case I have worked on and I have a fifth one in the pipeline.
The AAP and the CDC have been heavily lobbied to recommend universal circ in the U.S. based on these recent studies out of Africa. They have yet to issue recommendations. It would be very helpful if all of those opposed to neonatal circumcision would write letters expressing their views to the AAP and CDC. Snail mail and e-mail addresses may be found at www.circumcisionandhiv.com/the-aap-project.html.
Thank you for your advocacy.
It's great to see a response that suggests the tide in the US is turning - in spite of the best efforts of those who push circumcision for every possible reason (and some impossible). For an overview, see The Intactivism Pages.
Something to bear in mind is that when a headline says "Circumcision prevents disease X", the actual story will say "partially prevents" and may give some tens of percentage points. If you read the scientific paper itself, it will turn out that a tiny fraction of the non-circumcised group got disease X, and a rather tinier fraction of the circumcised group. That "rather" translates into the percentage. They may say the difference is "significant" but this is specialised term meaning it passes a threshhold of probability. Sometimes only a small subset of the large number "at known risk" is involved, and in one such case recently (about HIV), the story proved to be about only 11 men. In another (about HPV), the signficance hinged on six men. At every stage, those who handled the story bent it a little more towards circumcision.
Circumcision protects against genital wart virus
Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:36pm
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A study of nearly 1000 men in three
countries has yielded more evidence that circumcision helps protect against infection
with human papillomavirus.
"Interventions such as circumcision may provide a low-cost method to reduce human
papillomavirus infection," Dr. Anna R. Giuliano, from the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center
and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, and colleagues conclude in a report in the
International Journal of Cancer.
Using data from the Human papillomavirus In Men (HIM) study group, the investigators
determined factors associated with human papillomavirus infection in 988 men, ages
18 to 70 years, living in Brazil, Mexico or the United States.
"In this multi-national study where approximately 60 percent of study participants
were un-circumcised, we found circumcision to be associated with a significantly
reduced risk of...human papillomavirus," they report.
These findings, they point out, mirror those of a previous study in a mixed ethnic
group of men from Tucson, Arizona, and are similar to what others have reported in
studies conducted in Spain, Columbia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Mexico and
Denmark, the team notes.
SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, March 15, 2009.
Snip protects some gays from HIV
Sep 17, 2008 4:45 PM
ONE NEWS, New Zealand.
Circumcision can help protect gay men from contracting HIV depending on their sex habits,
landmark Australian research has found.
Men who predominantly opted for the insertive role had an 85% reduced
risk of getting HIV if they were circumcised.
-
"We have shown for the first time that men who predominantly take on the insertive
role in sex
are less likely to contract HIV if they've been circumcised," said Dr David
Templeton, from the
National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research in Sydney.
University of NSW researchers recruited 1,400 HIV-negative men, two-thirds of whom
were circumcised, and tracked them over four years to analyse patterns in HIV
infection.
Marco:
Firstly, the Templeton-led study in Australia concluded that circumcision had no role in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
And yet more pro-circ research coming out of the US? The same country where decades of near universal circumcision has delivered it the highest rates of STDs and AIDS in the developed world. Give me a break!
Many people who had been culturally blinded to the harm of circumcision are coming to see the value and function of the intact foreskin. It only takes a little research and and open mind.
I honestly feel sick when reading the trite comments of people encouraging others to consider harmful and permanent genital reduction surgery on perfectly healthy infants.
If you're a medico who's profiting from cutting babies: there's many people in real need. Go and help them.
If you're a "I'm cut and I'm fine" man in denial regarding your own loss: deal with it! Don't go pedalling crap to others.
If you're religiously motivated: just relax, there probably is no God. And if there is, do you really think that he/she would want people to amputate and discard the best parts of someone else's penis???
Brilliant article, Rachael!
Circumcision May Not Impact Sexual Sensation
ScienceDaily (July 27, 2007) —
According to a new study published in The Journal of
Sexual Medicine, sexual sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men may not be
so different after all. The research, performed in the Department of Psychology
of McGill University in Montreal, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted
on circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal.
Results showed that no difference between the two groups was found in sensitivity to
touch or pain.
“This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between
circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded,” says Kimberley Payne, Ph.D,
principal author of the study.
“People have been arguing about the sexual effects of circumcision for at least
1,000 years and I hope these data will encourage more research,” says Dr. Yitzchak
M. Binik, co-author of the research and Professor of Psychology at McGill and
Director of the Sex and Couple Therapy Service of the McGill University Health Center.
The authors note that the presence of scar tissue formation from circumcision, as
well as functional and mechanical changes related to sexual activity, are factors
that may have secondary effects on genital sensitivity and should be considered
in future research.
Irwin Goldstein, Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Sexual Medicine observed, “In
this fascinating study performed by renowned sexual medicine researchers, not only
do they dispel the myth that the glans penis is more sensitive in the uncircumcised
male due to the protective function of the foreskin, but they show that both
circumcised and uncircumcised participants were less sensitive to touch overall
during sexual arousal. This appears to be an important factor in the normal sexual
response and pleasure.”
This is the second manuscript in The Journal of Sexual Medicine this year examining
the effects of sexual arousal on genital sensitivity. “While more research is needed,
diminishing genital sensitivity during sexual arousal may be an important factor
helping protect against pain during sexual activity.”
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jan;200(1):42.e1-7. Epub 2008 Oct 30.
The effects of male circumcision on female partners' genital tract symptoms and
vaginal infections in a randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda.
Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Nalugoda F, Watya S, Moulton L, Chen MZ,
Sewankambo NK, Kiwanuka N, Sempijja V, Lutalo T, Kagayii J, Wabwire-Mangen F, Ridzon
R, Bacon M, Wawer MJ.
Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. rgray@jhsph.edu
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess effects of male circumcision on
female genital symptoms and vaginal infections. STUDY DESIGN: Human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV)-negative men enrolled in a trial were randomized to immediate or delayed
circumcision (control arm). Genital symptoms, bacterial vaginosis (BV), and
trichomonas were assessed in HIV-negative wives of married participants.
Adjusted prevalence risk ratios (adjPRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)
were assessed by multivariable log-binomial regression, intent-to-treat analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 783 wives of control and 825 wives of intervention arm men were
comparable at enrollment. BV at enrollment was higher in control (38.3%) than
intervention arm spouses (30.5%, P = .001). At 1 year follow-up, intervention arm
wives reported lower rates of genital ulceration (adjPRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.97),
but there were no differences in vaginal discharge or dysuria. The risk of
trichomonas was reduced in intervention arm wives (adjPRR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.05-0.98),
as were the risks of any BV (adjPRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.94) and severe BV
(prevalence risk ratios, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64).
CONCLUSION: Male circumcision
reduces the risk of ulceration, trichomonas, and BV in female partners.
Marco:
Um, no, the Payne study found the most sensitive parts of the penis are lost to circumcision. Previous studies which found no difference did not test the foreskin itself!
Oh, and you have another study to prove the health-giving benefits of circumcision??? Nice work! You know, you don't have to look very hard to find hundreds of studies which 'prove' the health benefits of circumcision. Heck, it seems a new one is published every few weeks.
Trouble is, as you know, and choose not to mention, the mass-circumcision experiment has been tried in the US and has failed spectacularly, delivering STD / AIDS infection rates several times higher than non-circumcising western European countries.
As others have said; it's time to stop studying circumcision and time to study the motivation of circumcisers (ideally from behind bars).
Let's be clear - you're talking about holding down a defenseless baby and cutting healthy, funtioning tissue from the genitals in the absence of informed consent and when real-world evidence shows there's no benefit.
And EVEN IF there was a benefit, you're ignoring the ethical and human rights aspects. Every human has a right to bodily integtity. There is no case to perform a permanant body modification to a baby's genitals.
Circumcision is a violent sex crime which must end.
His body. His decision.
The stories Marco posts illustrate my points exactly. The study of gay men in Australia bases its pro-circ conclusion on NINE men. The study of 1000 men in three countries would have taken almost all of its circumcised men from the US, most of its non-circumcised men from Mexico and Brazil, introducing hopeless demographic confounding. The study of sexuality before and after circumcising paid Ugandan volunteers found they all enjoyed virtually perfect sex both before and after (very different from other studies). Either the test they used was too insensitive to find anything, or Uganda is a sexual paradise.
Rachael excellent article I think that what people should take away from this is that circumcision is NOT necessary and the purported benefits are either not true, are very small, or can be realized in a safer, less invasive, and more effective way. It's hard to imagine why we Americans are so stubborn about this practice but things are slowly changing. I hope your article will more give parents in your area the initiative and courage to look into and question this procedure. Hopefully, we'll soon be able to look back and wonder why we ever started it. Thanks for this piece.
BRAVO! Isn't it interesting how the cultures that perform female circ. validate it for the exact same "medical" and "hygienic" reasons as our culture does?!?! The hypocrisy is astonishing. Every child regardless of sex, race, culture, nationality or religion has the right to a normal genitalia. The only medical reasons for circumcision, or amputation of any part for that matter, are frostbite, gangrene, malignancy, or serious trauma. All are rare of course. All other potential problems can be handled in a less severe manner, just as we do with women.
nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet7.html
islam-qa.com/en/ref/45528
themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
Keep up the good work!
Great article! I can relate. My first son was circumcised. Its a tragic story. I refuse to give birth in a hospital because of what happened. Consequently, I have two intact sons who were born at home. Never a single problem from my intact sons. My circ'd son, has meatal stenosis. The urologist said this wouldn't have happened if he was intact. There is a higher change of meatal stenosis among circumcised male children than for an intact male child aquiring a UTI. But, the consent forms won't tell you that. The only time I saw a consent form was after my circ'd son was 3. My husband had to go to the hospital to get it because they won't give it to the mother unless she had just given birth. I'm surprised they gave a form to my husband. They did ask him to keep it under wraps because they could get into a lot of trouble violating hospital protocol. Yeah, conveniently show her consent forms when she is whacked out from just delivering a baby! I originally wanted to see if the consent form had that as a listed complication. Its not on the list. It should be. Better yet, hospitals shouldn't be soliciting an arbitrary genital reduction surgery on healthy infants. Its unethical. Do they say, "Do you desire to remove your child's appendix today?" Groggy mother who had just given birth says, "Well, I guess if you ask that way then it must be a good thing right?"
Wonderful article! I only wish it would also mention the history of circumcision in NA. The sick history of circ in North America is what helped my husband to realize just how wrong the whole thing is.
Circumcision started in North America in the Puritan 1870s as a cure for masturbation. Masturbation was considered to be evil and sinful and was blamed for all sort of illnesses including blindness, paralysis and mental retardation. www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
As late as the 1970's medical books were claiming that desensitizing the boy was good medicine as well as good morality. The idea of that, touted openly by medical scholarship with notable pride, was carefully tucked away when the sexual revolution permitted sexual pleasure.
Very great article. Circumcisions decrease the sexual pleasure capacity of males, and for most males circumcisions do little or no good. Worldwide only about 5% of males are circumcised not counting Muslims and Jews, I think that is a good indication that circumcisions do more harm than good.
At the Circumstitions website, in the HIV area, it lists 16 studies that show circumcisions do not help protect against AIDS, and it lists 4 studies that show circumcisions increase the risk of males getting AIDS. Those studies were compiled years ago, and since then many more studies have been done that show circumcisions do not help protect against AIDS. Also at that website it shows 7 African countries where circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. Outside of the U.S. many medical organizations state that there are conflicting evidences on whether circumcisions do or do not help protect against AIDS and other STD's.
THANK YOU for adding your voice to the movement to end this criminal assault on babies :)
Finland has a virtually zero (0)% circumcision rate and has always had historically lowest HIV/AIDS rate... it's actually *illegal* there fortunately! Meanwhile, the good old U.S. of A. has the 2nd highest circumcision rate (after Israel) and has the 2nd highest HIV/AIDS rate (after Africa). So if "circumcision prevents AIDS", how do you explain non-circumcising countries w/ low rates AIDS rates and the circumcising (thankfully dropping rates!) U.S. having increased rates? Also why isn't there a "let's-get-American-women-circumcised" campaign going on? There's ALWAYS been a gender *inequality* towards males and their foreskin in the world.
pharmtips.^com/2008/11/27/dispelling-myths-about-circumcision/#comment-1458
Also sign the Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) Bill into LAW!
This is such a different article from so many one reads on this topic. I cannot understand why people keep ignoring or discounting the sensory (pleasure giving) aspect of these parts of the male body. As the 19th century nutters observed, it is the main feature for pleasure viz. masturbation. Don't people talk endlessly of clitoral stimulation and Gspot? Why is it OK to cut off the main pleasure zones of the penis? Sexual health is important as babies grow to become men. It is not fair to take away ANY pleasure zone of a person without asking.
I started a group to help inform people not to circumcise babies its a facebook group called no mutilation of penis act (NMOPA) for people who are interested they can join
Bullsht:
"His body. His decision."
So on that same argument, would you WAIT to make decisions that you felt were in the best interest of your child so he/she could make those decisions on their own? If so, then don't get your kids vaccinated, place them in a car seat, feed them healthy meals, or anything else that parents should be responsible for. Your child might not want any of those things and all of those things WILL have a permanent affect on your child.
I get that you're agai
A_Mommy
The difference in the scenarios you presented are in no way comparable. Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure, nothing more. There is no medical need or benefit for routine infant circumcision--which is why people say "his body his decision". Equating feeding your baby a healthy diet and circumcising is about the same as comparing circumcision to getting your infant female breast implants (you know, so she doesn't have to go through the pain later in life).
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!