Comments on: Circumcision

By: Pamela Buck

Pamela Buck — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:19:33 +0000

jhttb83q3opl9mqn

By: mays5

mays5 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:02:36 +0000

Interesting post. It does seem that the circumcision rates in the U.S. continue to decline as more parents educate themselves on the topic. The procedure is definitely not medically necessary…there are some potential health benefits, but no real guaranteed ones. There is a really great debate about circumcision at http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-boys-be-circumcised Experts from both sides weigh in, and it’s an excellent discussion of the issue with some valid points made.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:08:16 +0000

Your blog is interesting!

Keep up the good work!

By: Hugh7

Hugh7 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:21:35 +0000

I don’t think parents could consent to any other body modification for a baby - ear-piercing, I know they do, but many people would draw the line at eyebrow-, nose- or lip-piercing. Not tongue-slitting or tattooing, and not of course, even the most minor cutting or pricking of a girls’ genitals - which screams “double standard”.

Men have successfully sued for circumcisions that were (even more) damaging (than usual) and/or without informed parental consent, as when the mother was still recovering from anaesthetic after the birth. At least one attorney is occupied just about full time on botched circumcision cases. When will they ever learn?

By: Wesley

Wesley — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:24:29 +0000

Parents don’t “own” their sons’ bodies as property, but legally they do have full medical authority to consent to anything that an adult could medically consent for himself when the child is a newborn (I think the only exception in the US would be medical euthanasia, which is legal in only one state I believe). I don’t think there’s much of a legal avenue for men who were circumcised as babies (maybe if he’s otherwise damaged by the procedure). That doesn’t make it any less immoral or horrible, though.

By: Robspillar

Robspillar — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:38:34 +0000

In addition, it should be noted that routinely removing a male babies foreskin is done without the approval of the owner. Parents don’t own their sons bodies. Therefore it will at some point be a legal issue. Internationally, routine male circumcision is considered by many as male genital mutilation.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:46:05 +0000

I think the biggest problem is simply that so many men are circumcised in the US, and it’s just not a big deal to them. Which I can somewhat understand, since I’m circumcised and yet I don’t really regret it for myself; I don’t remember the pain and am hardly traumatized by it now. There’s even a few examples of this apathy in the thread on the forums about this. For a circumcised male to be against infant circumcision in general, it requires thinking about the practice itself beyond personal experience, which can be difficult to do.

I had nothing against male circumcision until a couple of years ago when someone brought up the issue and I actually thought about it for a bit. It’s easy to not even think about it.

By: Hugh7

Hugh7 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:21:16 +0000

Great post, Brian, it’s good to see that more and more people are Getting It. (Or perhaps you don’t live in the US and It was always self-evident?) It’s amazing how prevalent a sort of Through the Looking-Glass view prevails there, whereby a normal penis is “uncircumcised”, the foreskin is “extra”, and the wish to have one’s foreskin back is of psychiatric concern (but not the wish to have one cut off, even as a fetishistic ritual).

There was ancient surgical foreskin restoration - even cruder than the modern kind. But they had something similar to modern non-surgical restoration (many circumcised men - Surprise! - want nothing to do with doctors), involving weights to encourage the skin to grow, very much as today.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:27:46 +0000

I’m happy to hear that circumcision is dying off. I’ve read elsewhere that this is the case also.

By: Mark Lyndon

Mark Lyndon — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:40:05 +0000

The first figures are all around 1950, and the more recent figures are from within the last 5 years. Everywhere counts and reports them differently, which makes them difficult to compare, but those figures are as close as anyone seems to be able to get them. The USA figure doesn’t include Jewish circumcisions, since they usually aren’t performed in hospital, or some Muslim circumcisions, since they are often done around puberty. On the other hand, Medicare have stopped covering neonatal circumcision in some US states, so that will bring the rate down. It seems likely that the rate will drop below 50% within the next 5-10 years, which may be a tipping point.

The rate in Africa is even harder to track, and may be going up in light of the push to promote circumcision as protective against AIDS. It is my belief that this whole thing is about promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms) rather than fighting HIV:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html