In a Way, Circumcision Is Beside the Point

Circumcision is genital mutilation. You're cutting off sexually specialized nerves that don't exist anywhere else on the body and calling it a "medical treatment". A "medical treatment" whose medical benefits are only alleged, hypothetical, and potential. A "medical treatment" for which there is virtually no substantiated evidence that is not contradicted by other studies.

Circumcision is homologous to partially removing a girl's clitoris (it cuts the same nerves). Nobody would advocate amputating parts of baby girls' clitori even if it provided some marginal, alleged reduction in the rate of transmission of AIDS. The reasons are obvious, the violation is clear, only when the same crime is committed against women. You are cutting off healthy, functional, errogenous tissue for the alleged, possible, marginal protection the amputation "might" provide the individual in some possible, hypothetical, situation later in their lives when they would be old enough to take other, educated, and informed actions at the time which would provide them greater protection than the amputation that was illegaly imposed on them when they had no control.

Disease is to be treated in the most conservative way possible. This is the first code of medical ethics, "First, do no harm". We don't amputate healthy body parts preemptively, when we can treat the disease with creams and antibiotics when it occurs. It would be ludicrous to advocate amputating everbody's eyelids to prevent them from getting pink eye. Yet circumcision is advocated for preventing bacerial infection, and even penile cancer which only occurs in 1 in 100,000 elderly men. Mutilate 100,000 boys, save 1 elderly man 70 years from now some discomfort.

The real numbers with regards to the HIV transmission study were tiny, if you look at percentages you can cite massively inflated and glorified figures like "%60 reduction", when in reality that was a reduction in a population whose mating habits were not scientifically controlled from 2.4 infected people in a population of 1000 to 1.8 infected people in a poluation of 1000. Anybody who looks at these figures as scientific evidence is an absolute fool. The contention that women are more protected from HIV by having sex with a cirumcised man has also been thrown out, and that's been in the news.

Stop mutilating your baby boys. Their foreskins are normal, healthy, functional, errogenous body parts. There is no place on our body immune from disease. Claiming health benefits from the preemptive amputation of healthy body parts is ludicrous if not insane. The doctors who collude with cultural ignorance to perpetuate this medical malpractice are criminal.

bill of CO 10:11AM November 27, 2009

I poseted comments noting that the comments What about Women" were not factual. There are no studies that point out that sex with a circumsized man is safer for women. There is the Africa studies on male to female HIV transmission that show higher HIV transmission by circumcised men then natural men. This so far has been explained that circumcised men have sex too soon after the surgery. However, the data presents the possibility that HIV is more easily transferred to women by men that had their foreskin removed. Also, there are many studies (my last post had deatils) that indicate that cervical cancer is not passed by natural men differently from circumcised men.

These are valid points and the "what about women" comment was factually wrong and intended to mislead and promote amputation of healthy tissue. Post my comment please.

Jack of NY 11:26AM October 15, 2008

What none of these studies point out is that having sex with a circumsized man is safer for women, who are liable to get all kinds of things from men. that's how they found out that cervical cancer was an std. They studied only married women, who had the disease and found that almost all of them had husbands who were not circumsized.

branwen of KS 6:21AM October 12, 2008

The Afican circ/HV studies are so flawed. The researchers say circumcision offers a lifetime of protection so you should, no, the world should buy it and be responsible by amputating half of all penises. That is 30% to 50% of skin off the top with the loss of 65% to 85% of the sexual nerves located in the frenulum and its ridged band. (Dr. Taylor). Totally gone is the most sensitive parts of the penis. (Sorrell et al.) The glans is the least sensitive. Don't be fooled by studies not testing these parts and so declaring there is no difference in sensitivity between intact and circ'd. Back on point, a lifetime of protection...No One Newly Circ'd. Man Has Lived His Life Out to Validate this Claim. The studies were not carried out as they were stopped premature. Perhaps if carried to term or realistically longer, the degree of slanted protection would take a nose dive. Researchers admittedly say this is not the best in prevention so why the promotion and hard sell? Other factors are at work. These are clique of people that have a long history of promoting circumcision. Doctors Opposing Circumcision outlines real flaws that should have been adjusted accordingly.

I am gay, age 51, had sex with +1,000 guys, and still HIV negative, and have settled in a monogamous relationship. I always say "It is not who you do, It's what you do". That said, I have had unprotected anal sex with 5 men, that I knew with some trust, towards the beginning of the HIV scare when coming out. Guardedly, I was willing to take my chances having so long been denied sex with men and so needing to know full sex, unbridled. (knowingly circumcision limits sexual acts and "full" sex as there is no "full body orgasms" as intact men describe but are "local" penile orgasms. With many years of losing sensation after choosing circumcision at age 5, I know some of what is lost. Though such full body orgasms I did experience back in the crystal meth craze. Is this the reason that meth is a fast growing drug problem? Men knowingly or not seeking what they are lacking naturally?

Frank McGinness of CA 6:54AM October 10, 2008