"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[ImprobableBeing]

Start back at post #10 and then work your way back to here. A plethora of links have already been shared by those who are staunchly against the procedure being done to infants and those like myself, who believe that parents should be able to make informed decisions for their children.

The AAP's policy statement concludes that the health benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks and that parents are encouraged to make their own choices for their infants within the context of their own cultural and religious belief system.

That statement ONLY refers to the risk of the actual procedure, it does NOT have anything to say on the other issues so it's useless for this discussion.

Statistically, there is not enough conclusive evidence to prove that male circumcision yields long term penile sensitivity or penile dysfunction. In fact, studies who that statistically, it's about a wash...both uncircumsised and circumsised males suffer from the same sensitivity and penile dysfunction issues.

I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong, there is a MASSIVE difference between penile dysfunction which doesn't have anything to do with sensitivity issues and the loss of sensitivity which is in fact not only researched, it's WELL researched and so obvious that any thinking person can figure out that if you actually get thicker skin on your glans then there will be a massive loss of sensitivity. Why do you think many men prefer to have sex without condoms?

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as me... [BJU Int. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

Making intelligent decisions for yourself and your own family need not involve chastising others for their decisions.

And this is what it comes down to, we can say that this is actually a real problem because peoples feelings may get hurt if we do.

Just some background, I'm Ashkenazi Jew and i researched this first when my son was born 20 years ago and then again a couple of years ago when my daughter got pregnant, i have read almost everything on the subject there is to read.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Then it would fall under my category of morally neutral, along with tattoos, scarification, circumcision, and earlobe stretching.

Note also that supposed health benefits have nothing to do with my argument. My argument is pretty simple: As long as this doesn't harm the kid's body in a way that causes longterm suffering or loss of normal function, then I don't think it is ethically wrong.

Note also, that such a modification would have to be culturally acceptable, common, or mandated in order to fit my criteria.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, i think unnecessary procedures performed on infants are unethical as a general rule.

That link is broken for me. I tried to search the website, but no luck.

I browsed the internet with the googled "circumcised vs uncircumcised sensitivity". Literally every other hit claimed either that circumcised men were just as sensitive as uncircumcised men, or that uncircumcised men were more sensitive than uncircumcised men.

There is unfortunately not a consensus.

Actually, if you look at the studies in pubmed you'll realize that it is, it's also common sense, if you grow callouses on your hands after lifting, will the sensitivity be lessened there?

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as me... [BJU Int. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

I'm not sure I agree that such a loss of sensitivity-- should it be shown to occur-- should adequately be considered a loss of function. The problem for your argument is simply the fact that most circumcised men seem to be perfectly happy with their sexual abilities, do not report feeling as if they are missing some ability, and seem to have a more than adequate level of sensitivity. I am not completely unpersuaded, though.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the ABILITY to have sex, it has to do with the actual sexual pleasure you can derive from sex and i would say that sensitivity is a LARGE part of that.

Naturally, if one has never experienced the stimulation of having sex with an uncut penis one will never say they miss it even if the stimulation in itself is a lot less.

 

[Falvlun]

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as me... [BJU Int. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI

Here are the results of a review of studies done on the affect of circumcision on sensitivity:

The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration. Support for these conclusions was provided by a meta-analysis

Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?-A Systematic Review.

This is also from PubMed, the same place you found your study. Do you see what I mean about lack of consensus?

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Here are the results of a review of studies done on the affect of circumcision on sensitivity:

Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?-A Systematic Review.

This is also from PubMed, the same place you found your study. Do you see what I mean about lack of consensus?

Well, that isn't a study, it's a review of other studies and it doesn't take into account that the majority of studies were made on males who were circumcised as adults, like the Kisumu studies and thus are useless when discussing this subject.

 

[Curious George]

Here are the results of a review of studies done on the affect of circumcision on sensitivity:

Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?-A Systematic Review.

This is also from PubMed, the same place you found your study. Do you see what I mean about lack of consensus?

and even in the study newest Belgium study which keeps showing up the statistical difference is .2-.4 difference. When you have one group saying 3.1 and another group saying 3.3 the truth is that most men in each group said 3.

Further criticisms of the study include lack of circumicised participants (only 310) compared to the 1k intact participants. Cultural bias because of the location of the men. I would imagine age also plays a factor since neural elasticity is higher in infants than adults, so I would like to see a study which takes only men circumcised as infants to create the circumcised group.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't find modifications that do not cause a loss of function or long-term pain/suffering to be unethical.

Why only "long-term" pain and suffering? In my book, causing even short term pain to a baby is unethical unless it's an unavoidable consequence of some greater good.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

and even in the study newest Belgium study which keeps showing up the statistical difference is .2-.4 difference. When you have one group saying 3.1 and another group saying 3.3 the truth is that most men in each group said 3.

Further criticisms of the study include lack of circumicised participants (only 310) compared to the 1k intact participants. Cultural bias because of the location of the men. I would imagine age also plays a factor since neural elasticity is higher in infants than adults, so I would like to see a study which takes only men circumcised as infants to create the circumcised group.

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - Sorrells - 2007 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library

 

[dawny0826]

That statement ONLY refers to the risk of the actual procedure, it does NOT have anything to say on the other issues so it's useless for this discussion..

Bull ****. You clearly didn't read the literature provided as those links overviewed risk and benefit of the procedure and overviewed the entire position of the AAP.

I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong, there is a MASSIVE difference between penile dysfunction which doesn't have anything to do with sensitivity issues

Bull ****. A man can have a dysfunctional penis as a result of penile sensitivity issues.

and the loss of sensitivity which is in fact not only researched, it's WELL researched and so obvious that any thinking person can figure out that if you actually get thicker skin on your glans then there will be a massive loss of sensitivity. Why do you think many men prefer to have sex without condoms?

If you have access to information that the rest of us do not have, I would like to see the statistical data that you're referencing, please. I cry bull.

There is nothing indicated through the conclusion of these studies that contradicts the policy statement of the AAP, from what I've read. Circumcision can impact penile sensitivity - again, a RISK that needs to be considered.

But, with BOTH uncircumcised and circumcised men dealing with the same type of ailments, it's challenging to state with certainty that a circumcised man's sensitivity issues are conclusively attributed to his circumcision.

Someone else is going to find a study that supports their own opinion on circumcision.

Just some background, I'm Ashkenazi Jew and i researched this first when my son was born 20 years ago and then again a couple of years ago when my daughter got pregnant, i have read almost everything on the subject there is to read.

Why the hell do you think I care? Unless you're an MD, skilled in circumcision yourself, your opinion is no more valuable than my own.

I respect your opinion and how you choose to apply it to your own life. My problem is with ANYONE who opposes another individual's right to decide what's right for their own child, when such action is made in love and through educated efforts.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, that isn't a study, it's a review of other studies

I clearly indicated that it was a review. I fail to see why that matters-- it's not like it's a review of Ladies Home Journal. It's a review of scientific studies on this topic: the 36 of them that contained original data, to be precise.

and it doesn't take into account that the majority of studies were made on males who were circumcised as adults, like the Kisumu studies and thus are useless when discussing this subject.

I'm not seeing where you are getting this information. It is not in the abstract.

The abstract indicates the grading scale used for these studies, and indicates that of the 1++ (high quality randomized controlled trials), 2++ (high quality), and 2+ (well conducted) (a total of 23 studies), none indicated a difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men.

Furthermore, the study you used also had men circumcised as adults, though it doesn't indicate how many of 312 circumcised respondents fell into that category. Also, while I understand why adult circumcision results are irrelevant to this discussion, it was your study that indicated that it was this group that reported greater discomfort or issues, as opposed to those circumcised before puberty. So, if anything, the presence of men who were circumcised as adults would skew the results in your favor.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Bull ****. You clearly didn't read the literature provided as those links overviewed risk and benefit of the procedure and overviewed the entire position of the AAP.

You don't get it, i DID read it and it absolutely does not even consider the issues for an adult male in regards to loss of sensitivity.

Bull ****. A man can have a dysfunctional penis as a result of penile sensitivity issues.

Yes but that would be caused by something entirely different, what i'm saying is that reduced sensitivity does NOT cause erectile dysfunction any more than wearing two condoms while having sex would.

I respect your opinion and how you choose to apply it to your own life. My problem is with ANYONE who opposes another individual's right to decide what's right for their own child, when such action is made in love and through educated efforts.

When it comes to cutting off a part of their child's penis i think it's a matter better left to the individual when he can decide for himself, i don't think parents should have that right.

I'm trying to be courteous here but it's not going to last in a discussion with you, that much is clear, so i'm out of this discussion before i'll say something i'll regret.

Best of luck.

 

[Curious George]

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - Sorrells - 2007 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library

That is an even smaller difference. I am not objecting to the fact that intact men are more sensitive, I am objecting to the idea that the anti-circumcision group latch on to these studies without understanding that "substantial" means something very different in the world of statistics.

You are literally talking about a difference that will not be noted in most men, and even when it is noted it is an ever so slight difference.

Like I said before. Sure let us acknowledge that their is likely a loss of sensitivity. But that loss is an imperceptible difference to the actual people. Only when we get large groups to we notice an ever so slight difference. This is a substantial difference, however, because it shows correlation.

 

[DallasApple]

Why only "long-term" pain and suffering? In my book, causing even short term pain to a baby is unethical unless it's an unavoidable consequence of some greater good.

Why? Isn't it ethical to cause short term pain and suffering to a helpless infant for no other reason than you want to ?And you have the right?

 

[DallasApple]

You are literally talking about a difference that will not be noted in most men, and even when it is noted it is an ever so slight difference.

So it is "noted" you will admit that..so these guys with a difference who LIVE with the difference are **** out of luck because when they were one day old their parents decided to have the skin chopped off their penis and they cant get it back?

 

[dawny0826]

You don't get it, i DID read it and it absolutely does not even consider the issues for an adult male in regards to loss of sensitivity.

Yes but that would be caused by something entirely different, what i'm saying is that reduced sensitivity does NOT cause erectile dysfunction any more than wearing two condoms while having sex would.

When it comes to cutting off a part of their child's penis i think it's a matter better left to the individual when he can decide for himself, i don't think parents should have that right.

I'm trying to be courteous here but it's not going to last in a discussion with you, that much is clear, so i'm out of this discussion before i'll say something i'll regret.

Best of luck.

I'm supporting parental choice, which is the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Let parents decide for their own children.

You claimed that the link that I provided didn't mention loss of sensitivity.

When in fact, the AAP statement policy does reference this:

SEXUAL PRACTICE, SENSATION, AND CIRCUMCISION STATUS

A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.13 There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

You saw something you disagreed with. But, don't tell me that it wasn't there. This is one of SEVERAL links that I've provided which states the same thing.

The AAP also says this:

AAP Policy Statement on Male Circumcision - NEJM Journal Watch

New Evidence Points to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up to Parents, Says AAP

 

[DallasApple]

It will be outlawed..its a barbaric practice..Of course the "trust worthy non biased" who make millions and millions of $$$$"s a year will continue to support it..

It will fold..

 

[Curious George]

Why? Isn't it ethical to cause short term pain and suffering to a helpless infant for no other reason than you want to ?And you have the right?

That there are documented medical benefits that a reasonable person might want for their child and that those benefits are not substantially outweighed by the harm is enough to justify a parental right. If the parent has a reasonably justifiable position you should not have the ability to infringe upon their parental rights.

A perfect example of this occurs when parents take infants on a plane. The child is caused pain for no other reason than the parent wanted to take their child on a plane. If you bring up the distinguishing factor of permanence, we are back to square one. Which is why the person to whom 9/10 replied noted permanent harms.

Of course we do not want to see people unjustifiably causing harm. Circumcision is not that case.

 

[Curious George]

So it is "noted" you will admit that..so these guys with a difference who LIVE with the difference are **** out of luck because when they were one day old their parents decided to have the skin chopped off their penis and they cant get it back?

This is another distortion of the facts. The difference we are talking about hardly merits the SOL phrase. They could not notice the difference it is so small. As far as sensitivity is concerned if we had the magical powers to circumcise or restore foreskin the person would feel a difference in texture but not in sensitivity.

 

[Curious George]

It will be outlawed..its a barbaric practice..Of course the "trust worthy non biased" who make millions and millions of $$$$"s a year will continue to support it..

It will fold..

Barbaric? Nope. This gross exaggeration which likely stems from your guilt and biases, does not make circumcision any more or less legal.

 

[Me Myself]

I dunno. I mean don't you think it's a little dangerous to just assume that it's "truly unimportant" to "almost anyone" like that?

So in relation to negative feedback from Men who were circumcized against their will at infancy, how much is considered enough? As in, how man men complaining about it would be enough?

10% of the Circumcised Male population? 20%? 35% 50% 75%?

The way I see it if it is one of the least complained thing about "how my parents **** me up" then it aint important.

Seriously, parents make too many decisions for kids. This is just nothing. Their nutritional habits are way more important than this. Forcing a teen into heels is more grave than this, forcing a kid to shoes is more grave than this, simply not saying enough "I love you" or "you did a good job" is thousands times more important than this.

This is truly unimportant.

 

[Me Myself]

Sure, cutting the foreskin is "mutilation"

Just remember than putting shoes on your kids is "deforming" their feet BTW.