Male Genital Mutilation

[Pedersen]

Also called "circumcision".

So, someone mentioned this in another thread, and it got me thinking about it. Across much of the world, female genital mutilation of any sort is decried, denounced, and even illegal. However, male genital mutilation is seen as something that is normal and accepted.

So, the arguments I expect to see, and will answer now:

It should be allowed to continue for religious reasons. By that argument, women should be kept subservient to their husbands at all times. Allowing them to hold jobs, positions of authority, etc, all goes against various religions. Furthermore, there are some religions which demand female genital mutilation, and many (if not most) societies decry these practices. When something about a given religious behavior is abhorrent, society demands a halt to it.

It should be allowed for medical reasons. I will simply point to this FAQ. It discusses the medical fallacies as well as they can be discussed.

It should be allowed for hygienic reasons. Again, read this FAQ. Same issues are addressed there.

Those are all the arguments in favor that I can think. Personally, I'm against this practice. I do believe it should be illegal, and that people who force it on children (people who are physically incapable of saying yes or no) should face severe penalties.

But, maybe one of you can change my mind, and make me believe that this is actually a good thing.

[Saydrah]

Why make something illegal that's very harmless? The whole loss of sensation thing is a myth, as evidenced by plenty of circumcised men who report the same sexual satisfaction as uncircumcised men. I think prohibiting a personal choice by parents is silly. Female genital mutilation is designed to prevent a woman or girl from having sex before marriage, or specifically TO reduce pleasure from sex. Circumcision is simply a matter of personal and parental preference.

Personally if I had a son I wouldn't do it but would pay for him to have it done as a teen or adult if he wanted to. But I prefer circumcised men on an aesthetic basis. JMHO.

[Pedersen]

Why make something illegal that's very harmless? The whole loss of sensation thing is a myth

Now, let's debunk the debunking. To quote from the FAQ that I linked to:

What is the function of the male foreskin?

The male foreskin performs a number of functions. First, it directly enhances sexual pleasure via specialized erogenous nerve endings such as the frenulum, the ridged band, and stretch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. The foreskin also serves to protect the moist, mucous membrane of the glans (the "head" of the penis) and the inner foreskin from outside elements, similar to the way the female foreskin protects the clitoris. When the foreskin is removed, the penis is transformed from an internal organ into an external one, initiating a desensitizing process known as keratinization. Keratin is a tough, skin-like substance similar to a callus that forms on top of the nerve endings of the glans, resulting in significant loss of sexual sensitivity. The foreskin also provides a gliding mechanism during sexual intercourse that reduces friction and locks in moisture, acting as a natural lubricant. The foreskin provides a number of other important functions as well.

First, notice that circumcision causes the irrevocable removal of nerve endings. As any biology textbook will tell you, the only way for any individual to experience any sensation of touch is to have nerves stimulated. As a result, it is physically impossible for a circumcised male to have as much sensation as a circumcised male.

as evidenced by plenty of circumcised men who report the same sexual satisfaction as uncircumcised men

So, you have studies which show that males who were uncircumcised, were sexually active while uncircumcised, got circumcised, and then compared the results of being sexually active after the circumcision?

Or do the studies you're mentioning (but not citing at this point) compare how satisfied men are with their sexual sensations (which is what it sounds like)? If it's this one, then those studies cannot convey an accurate picture. They can only convey the picture of whether or not circumcised men can enjoy sex. And that is not up for debate, since they obviously can.

Also, ago plays a factor. An uncircumcised penis will have little (or no) keratin built up on it over the lifetime of the male. A circumcised penis gets more keratin every day. It has to, to protect itself from the constant friction with undergarments. The keratin, more or less, turns into callouses. By the time a male is in his 50's, significantly less sensation will be transmitted. Enjoyment will go down, especially as compared to an uncircumcised male in his 50's. All in all, circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, and does so even more the older the male gets.

I think prohibiting a personal choice by parents is silly.

If it were entirely a personal choice, I'd agree. However, this is a permanent change that the child is unable to undo. Would you be okay with it if the child were to have a finger removed? Maybe a toe? How about just removing a toe nail? If none of those are acceptable, then why is it acceptable to remove some other body part? Because it's a parental choice? I think that that allowing that sort of argument to stand is silly.

Female genital mutilation is designed to prevent a woman or girl from having sex before marriage, or specifically TO reduce pleasure from sex. Circumcision is simply a matter of personal and parental preference.

Circumcision was encouraged in the 1800's as a way to discourage masturbation. Seems to me like it's directly meant to reduce pleasure from sex. Now, we have a whole new set of reasons, each of which is also thoroughly debunked. And yet, we still have circumcision happening today.

Personally if I had a son I wouldn't do it but would pay for him to have it done as a teen or adult if he wanted to.

Good. I approve of allowing someone to make their own choices about their bodies. But to have such a choice forced upon an infant is abhorrent to me.

But I prefer circumcised men on an aesthetic basis. JMHO.

Well, consider this, the next time you're enjoying a circumcised penis: The guy very likely had no choice in the matter. It was done when he was an infant, a mere few days old. He was strapped into a specially made bed, his penis inserted into a device which then made two separate cuts: One to separate the glans from the foreskin (which requires basically ripping the two apart), and the second cut was to remove the foreskin itself. While this was happening, he was screaming in pain, unable to do anything, and unable to understand what was being done to him.

And, like most guys, he probably doesn't think about it today. And, like many, he probably never will. But some percentage, once they think about it, will wonder: Why did my parents allow this to be done to me? Why did society encourage this? What does it actually feel like for other guys, the lucky ones who did not have this done to him?

This is not harmless. It is harmful, and done for no valid reason. And there is should be no legal parental preference for causing such harm.

[anriana]

I think any sort of unnecessary, permanent physical change should be illegal for parents to do to their children, including circumcision.


That said, please name a religion that actually mandates FGM.

[Pedersen]

That said, please name a religion that actually mandates FGM.

Citing Wikipedia:

One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that trimming of the clitoral hood is mandatory.

That's the first I found. Furthermore, it seems (from reading that page) that, until very recently (2006), many followers of Islam believed that FGM was a requirement.

Other instances on that page are not described as religious based, but include:

Some Bambara and Dogon believe that babies die if they touch the clitoris during birth.

In some areas of Africa, there exists the belief that a newborn child has elements of both sexes. In the male body the foreskin of the penis is considered to be the female element. In the female body the clitoris is considered to be the male element. Hence when the adolescent is reaching puberty, these elements are removed to make the indication of sex clearer.

Is that sufficient, or do I need to find more?

[crazylegs]

It should be allowed for medical reasons. I will simply point to this FAQ. It discusses the medical fallacies as well as they can be discussed.

I'm sorry, the link doesn't debunk any fallacies as far as I can see, it only lists the reasons why *not* (an important difference).

Right, here goes.

I am a circumsised male, this happend to me many years ago and quite frankly I can't remember it. I do know that it was done under a general anasthetic. I was circumsied for a perfecly valid medical reason, without it I could have suffered many painful and embarrassing events which would essentially been cured by a Dr grabbing hold of the very end of my penis and squeezing as hard as they can to reduce the size of the head so that the foreskin would no longer form a tight, constricting band.

I'll take the circumsicion thanks.

[Pedersen]

My fault, crazylegs, in that I failed to make my position actually clear.

I am not against voluntary circumcision. If you choose it, then more power to you. If there is a medical reason (which does happen, but is a very small fraction of the total number of cases), I accept it, and quietly.

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.

[crazylegs]

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.

In those instances you will find no argument from this poster.

[smileyeagle1021]

As much as I'd like to agree with Pederson... I know it will never happen... you just know that if it became illegal for parents to perform circumcision due to religous reasons there'd be a huge outcry about how it is a protected right under freedom of religion... and considering what a large percentage of people who are born into a religion stay in that religion, you won't find many people saying "damn my parents for forcing me to perform that religious practice" because they'll think back and say they would have chosen it anyway... and I see nothing wrong with a parent raising their child to be the same religion as them (as long as when they are of age the parent says if you want to leave feel free).

That said, for asthetic reasons (though I will agree with the poster that said circumsized does look better) I'd say that is something that should only be done to someone who is old enough to consent to the procedure.

[Rapscallion]

Um, was that phimosis, Crazylegs?

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Um, was that phimosis, Crazylegs?

Rapscallion

Dunno. All I know is what was in the post to be honest.

[Greenday]

As a circumsized male, I can assure you that I still have PLENTY of feeling left without any foreskin. Besides, the majority of the nerves in the penis aren't in the skin, they are at the tip of the penis.

[BlaqueKatt]

But, maybe one of you can change my mind, and make me believe that this is actually a good thing.

this article may help


"Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries."

"Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to HIV infection because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse."

"a study of the medical records of 300 Ugandan couples last year estimated that circumcised men infected with H.I.V. were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it to their female partners."

"Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus."


is that enough reasons for you?
50% reduction in contraction of HIV, 30% reduction in transmission of HIV, and less chance you'll give your partner the virus that causes cervical cancer. All three are related to certain cells that are ONLY found in the foreskin.

[Pedersen]

As a circumsized male, I can assure you that I still have PLENTY of feeling left without any foreskin. Besides, the majority of the nerves in the penis aren't in the skin, they are at the tip of the penis.

You are correct. You are also ignoring the other portions of what was said. The keratinous cells that form after circumcision (and only after circumcision) will, over time, reduce the stimulation that reaches the nerves in the tip of the penis. This is unavoidable. It might not seem like it now, but it will happen over time.

A response to your article, BlaqueKatt, can be found here. That article discusses the failures of that study. I'll discuss the statistical side of things below.

"Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries."

Per this article, there were 40,300,000 people in the world who were HIV+ in 2005. Roughly 6,000,000,000 people were alive at that time. This translates to 1 in 148 people is HIV+. For purposes of making calculations easier, we will count the male:female ratio as 1 to 1 (it's more like 49:51, but let's make the number a little easier to deal with, okay?). That means that, if I have sex with 74 random women, one of them will be able to give me HIV. Being circumcised, I can go for 148 women before I will actually contract it.

"a study of the medical records of 300 Ugandan couples last year estimated that circumcised men infected with H.I.V. were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it to their female partners."

Okay, so now we restrict it a bit. We're now talking about couples. Without knowing how they defined "couple", it would be reasonable to assume that we are talking about at least year long relationships. It's also quite reasonable to assume intercourse at least twice per month for such couples.

This article shows a transmission rate, male to female, of 12.0/100 person years. That translates to 0.12/person year. Assuming I'm understanding the "person year" concept correctly, we have a couple, which is two people, which translates to 0.24 couple. Reduce by 30%, and we get 0.16/couple.

I'll be honest, I don't really know what that translates to. But reading it, the benefit sounds pretty damned low to me. It's a real benefit, but it requires you to already be in a high risk situation before the benefit becomes real (i.e.: You must already be HIV+).

"Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus."

Per this article, which cites the CDC as its source:

According to the CDC, approximately 20 million people worldwide are currently infected with HPV.

Let's be generous, and assume that all 20,000,000 HPV carriers are male. This means that (using the NYT numbers) that 15,000,000 uncircumcised males are carriers, and 5,000,000 circumcised males are carriers. Going back to our worldwide population, a woman would have to have sex with 200 uncircumcised males, or 600 circumcised males, to find one carrier of HPV.

And, let's not forget Gardasil, a vaccine for many strains of HPV, which further reduces the risk. And, before anybody goes off on the tangent of questioning its benefits, I'll point this out: It has been shown to be helpful. Going by the statistics I've heard, and comparing to the statistics I've listed above, I'd even venture to say that Gardasil is more helpful than circumcision at preventing HPV turning into a cancer. Furthermore, it gives the woman the ability to control her own body, something which is being actively denied to the males.

is that enough reasons for you?

No, it's not. And I've explained why at each point you gave. The risks, statistically speaking, are insignificant. Only when you place yourself into one of the high risk categories does circumcision provide medical benefit. Before then, the risk is so small as to be negligible.

And that brings me back to the part that really is what bothers me the most: Infants are the ones which have the greatest number of circumcisions performed on them. They are incapable of consenting to what is about to be done to them. In addition, they are also incapable of being in those high risk groups. Every one of them requires a sexually active individual.

There are some males who get circumsized later in life, but they are a small minority. In addition, they are making the choice to have this done to themselves, for whatever reason (well, except for the times where the parent forces it on a child who has not yet left the home). I do not disagree with allowing this to occur in males who are making an informed choice.I do disagree, though, with allowing someone else to make that choice for them.

[Sylvia727]

Well, you've convinced me. I had always just assumed that when I had a son, I'd allow the hospital to circumsize him, because that's just what's done. I had never really thought about what was happening, and why. A friend of mine confided in me that he was uncircumsized, because his mother had heard about the risks of circumcisions gone wrong, in which the doctors make a wrong cut and remove more than just the foreskin. At the time, I thought his mother vaguely paranoid, but better safe than sorry. This same friend had no intention of ever getting circumsized, either, though he just wanted to avoid the pain. He was teased in elementary and middle school for being different, I know, but he didn't let it bother him.

In Puerto Rico the hospitals automatically circumsize the boys and pierce the girls' ears at birth. The way to tell a baby boy from a girl is to check for earrings. I've also intended to pierce my daughters' ears when they were babies, because all the women in my family have had pierced ears since birth and it's never bothered me. Now I wonder about that too...